United States
        Environmental Protection
        Agency
EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
Public Comment Compendium
  Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills
 in Appalachia Final Programmatic
  Environmental Impact Statement
 October
 2005
«
-
    *
   dep
              Volume II

-------
             Table  of Contents
                             VOLUME I
INTRODUCTION	14
SECTIONA	
Elected Officials	
The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., United States House of Representatives.
  .A-l
  .A-2
  .A-3
Federal Agencies	
James EDevine, United States Department of the Interior.
Paul Joe, Department of Health & Human Services	
Theresa Presser, United States Geological Survey	
State or Commonwealth Agencies	„..........„.,
Betsy Child, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation ....
Donald Dott, Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission	
Herbert Harper, Tennessee Historical Commission	
Robert Logan, Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Cabinet, Department for Environmental Protection	
Aubrey McKinney, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency	
Michael Murphy, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality	
Paul Rothman, Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet .....
LaJuana Wilcher, Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet
Joanna Wilson, Virginia Department of Historic Resources	
 ...A-6
 ... A-7
 .A-14
 . A-14

 .A-20
 .A-21
 . A-23
 . A-24

 .A-24
 . A-26
 .A-26
 . A-48
 .A-49
 .A-53
Organizations	
Tina Aridas, Mountain Redbird Music	
James Baker, Sierra Club — Tennessee Chapter	
Sherman Bamford, Virginia Forest Watch	
Lawrence Beckerle, West Virginia State Chapter of Quail Unlimited .
Teri Blanton, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth	
Jason Bostic, Joint Coal Industries	
Craig Breon, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society	
Michael Carey, Ohio Coal Association	
Greg Conrad, Interstate Mining Compact Commission	
,.A-54
.. A-55
... A-56
.. A-57
.. A-59
... A-61
.. A-65
 A-223
 A-224
 A-225
Kent DesRocher, West Virginia Coal Association	A-226
Randy Dettmers, Partners in Flight	A-229
MarkDonham,Heartwood	A-231
Jenny Dorgan, Alabama Environmental Council	A-232
Ralph Dunkin, West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod of theELCA	A-232
Lawrence Emerson, Arch Coal Inc	,	A-233
Tom FitzGerald, Kentucky Resources Council	A-297
Anthony Flaccavento, Appalachian Sustainable Development	A-297
Friends of the Little Kanawha	A-298
Grattan Gannon, Erris Co. LLC	A-299
Liz Garland, West Virginia Rivers Coalition	A-299
Scott Gollwitzer, Appalachian Voices	A-300
Bill Gorman, Mayor of Hazard, Kentucky	A-301
Sandra Goss, Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning	A-304
James Hecker, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and
    Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition	A-305

                             VOLUME II
Catherine Holtkamp, Congregation of Divine Providence	A-536
Renee Hoyos, Tennessee Clean Water Network	A-536
Mary Hufford, University of Pennsylvania	A-537
Carolyn Johnson, Citizens Coal Council	A-542
John Jones, Alpha Natural Resources	A-544
Thomas Kelly, Catholic Conference of Kentucky	A-545
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth	A-546
Kevin Knobloch, Union of Concerned Scientists	A-552
Steve Krichbaum, Wild Virginia	A-553
Frances Lamberts, League of Women Voters of Tennessee	A-556
Joseph Lovett, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment	A-305
Meg Maguire, Scenic America	A-559
Mary Mastin, Sierra Club	A-560
Landon Medley, Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc	A-562
VinceMeleski, Wild Alabama/Wild South	A-589
Amanda Moore, Appalachian Citizens Law Center, Inc	A-590
Bryan Moore, West Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited	A-591
Joan Mulhern, Earthjustice et al	A-592
Diana Mullis, Potomac Valley Audubon Society	A-603
Janice Nease, Coal River Mountain Watch	A-604
Robbie Pentecost, Catholic Committee of Appalachia	A-606
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                     Table of Contents

-------
Bob Pereiasepe, National Audubon Society	A-607
Judith Petersen, Kentucky Waterways Alliance	A-608
Bill Price, Sierra Club—Appalachian Region	A-611
AndiPutman, A Lasting World	A-614
Ciody Rank, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy	A-615
DoiwldRatliff, Enterprise Mining Company, LLC	A-616
Robert Reid, Alabama Audubon Council, etal	A-617
Virginia Reynolds, Tennessee Ornithological Society, et al	A-618
Richard Seeley, Glendale-LaCrescenta Advocates	A-625
Francis Slider, West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club	A-626
Seth Shteir, San Fernando Valley Audubon Society	A-626
John Snider, West Virginia Coal Association	A-627
John Spahr, Virginia Society of Ornithology and August Bird Club	A-629
Stephen Stewart, Seven Hills Birdwatchers	A-634
Vivian Stockman, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition	A-639
Carol Stoddard, The Garden Club of America	A-725
Jean Sullivan, Redbud Family Health Center	A-725
Mike Tidwell, Chesapeake Climate Action Network	A-726
United Mineworkers of America	A-727
Charles Wakild, Progress Energy	A-730
Jason Wandling, West Virginia Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild	A-731
Tony Whitaker, Hazard/Perry County Chamber of Commerce	A-734
Gerald Winegrad, American Bird Conservancy, etal	A-734

Citizens	,	,A-844
Michael Abraham	A-845
David Brandon Absher	A-845
MarkAbshire	A-846
Lorraine J. Adams	A-847
Knox Adler	A-847
GeertAerts	A-848
LeeAgee	A-848
Sandy Ahlstrom	A-849
Julie Alaimo	A-850
George & Frances Alderson	A-850
Jonathan Alevy	A-851
Deborah C.Allen	A-851
Christopher Ambrose	A-852
Christopher Anderson	A-852
Anonymous	
Anonymous	
Anonymous	
Julie Amngton	
Gordon Aubrecht, n,
Harvard Ayers	
Janet Ayward	
JimBaird	
Ray & Arlene Baker.,
Isabel Balboa	
Jessie Ballowe	
Carl Banks	
Israel Baran	
Richard Baskin	
Susan Bechtholt	
LawrenceBeckerle ...
Barbara Beer	
TriciaBehle	
Bob Bell	
Gordon Bell	
Vaughn Bell	
Joe Bergeron	
David Berkland	
Michael Bialas	
Bonnie Biddison	
Charles Biggs	
CathieBird	
Stephanie Blessing ..
RuthBleuni	
MargaretBlock	
KathrynBlume	
Julia Bonds	
Douglas Boucher	
Brian Bowen	
Deborah Bowles	
GayleBrabec	
Mary Beth Bradley ...
JuIiaBrady	
Sandra Brady	
. A-853
, A-854
. A-855
. A-855
. A-856
. A-856
. A-857
. A-858
. A-858
. A-859
. A-859
. A-860
. A-860
, A-861
. A-861
. A-862
. A-874
. A-875
. A-876
. A-876
, A-877
. A-877
. A-878
, A-878
. A-879
. A-880
. A-880
. A-881
. A-882
. A-885
. A-885
. A-886
 A-891
, A-892
 A-893
 A-893
 A-894
 A-894
 A-895
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                         Table of Contents

-------
Matthew Branch	A-896
Lee Bridges	A-896
Dede Brown	A-897
LeeAnn, George, Emily & Sarah Brown	A-897
Shale Brownstein	A-898
Mike Brumbaugh	A-898
MarkBruns	A-899
StephenBull	A-900
DougBurge	A-900
MarkBurger	A-901
Gail Burgess	A-901
Moss Burgess	A-902
Linda Burkhart	A-903
JudyBurris	A-903
Rick Cameron	A-904
Beth Campbell	A-905
Ruth Campbell	A-905
Pauline Canterberry	A-906
Nancy Carbonara	A-906
Enid Cardinal	A-907
Mary Lou Carswell	A-908
Jenny Casey	A-908
SidniCassel	A-909
DonCassidy	A-910
Philip Castevens	A-910
Billy Caudill	A-911
Herman Caudill	A-911
Therma Caudill	A-912
Dan Chandler	A-912
Dorsey Channel	A-913
John Chase	,	A-913
TJ. Chase	A-914
Louise Chawla	,	A-914
Robert Cherry	A-916
Arthur Childers	A-916
Susan Cho	A-917
Martin Christ	A-917
Jerry Ciolino	A-918
Matthew Cleveland	A-918
John & Tammy Cline	
Sister Mary Brigid Clingman,
Jerry Coalgate	
MarleneCole	
Marian Colette	
Michael Compton	
James Conroy	
Peggy Conroy	
David Cooper	
Kennon Copeland	
Ruby Corbin	
Jennifer Cox	
John Cox	
James Crabb	
Ryan Crehan	
Kathy Cross	
April & Jeff Crowe	
Kate Cunningham	
Marilynn Cuonzo	
Janet Dales	
Mick Daugherty	
Bongo Dave	
Eric Davis	
William Dawson	
Elmer & Angela Dobson
B.Dominey	
Gail Douglas	
Linda Downs	
Waneta Dressier	
Phoebe Driscoll	
Morris Dunlop	
BillDwyer	
Craig Edgerton	
Edgar Edinger	
lierEdinger	
Dave Edwards	
Robert Eggerling	
Susan Eggert	
ClaraElse	
. A-919
. A-919
. A-920
. A-921
. A-922
. A-922
. A-923
. A-924
. A-924
. A-926
. A-927
. A-927
. A-928
. A-929
. A-929
. A-930
. A-930
. A-931
. A-931
. A-932
. A-932
. A-933
. A-935
. A-935
. A-936
. A-937
. A-938
, A-938
. A-939
. A-940
. A-940
, A-941
. A-942
. A-943
. A-944
 A-944
. A-947
 A-947
 A-951
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                        Table of Contents

-------
Susan Emberley	A-951
Julie Emerson	A-952
LindaLeeEmrich	A-952
Kathleen Enders	A-953
Nancy Erps	A-953
Craig Etchison	A-954
Karen Eva	A-955
Alice Evans	A-955
Gaye Evans	A-956
McNairEzzard	,	,	A-956
PeteFarino	A-957
EstelleFein	A-958
Robert Fener	A-958
Denise Ferguson	A-959
Steve Fesenmaier	A-960
Arthur Figel	A-960
Patrice Fisher	A-961
Gerry & Louise Fitzgerald	A-961
Anthony Flaccavento	A-962
Agatha (Betty) Fleming	A-962
Catherine Fleischman	A-963
Marsha Fishman	A-963
Janet Fout	A-964
Winnie Fox	A-%7
Luther Franklin	A-968
TimFrasine	A-%8
Vincent Frazzetta	A-969
SuzanFrecon	A-969
Barbara Fredrickson	A-970
RachelFrith	A-970
DonGaines	A-971
PashGalbavy	A-972
Francis Gallagher	 A-972
Marie Gangwish	A-973
Steven Gardner	A-973
Dawn Garten	A-975
NiallGartlan	A-976
LydiaGarvey	A-976
Glenn Gaskill	A-977
     Suzanne Gayetsky	
     MaryGee	
     Melissa Gee	
     Ms. Gee	
     DanGeiger	
     Andy Gelston	
     Mike George	
     Meagan Gibson	,
     Larry Glen	,
     Christopher Goddard ...
     GayGoforth	
     Crystal Good	
     Donny Good	
     Joanne Granzow	
     Katherine Green	
     Margaret Gregg	
     Robert Gipe	
     Karen Grubb	
     Robert Hallick	
     Etnilie Hamilton	
     HannJ	
     KarlHanzel	
     Alice Hardin	
     Jerry Hardt	
     BillHardy	
     Roy Earless, Jr.	
     Ronda Harper	
     MarkHarris	
     EricaHarvey	
     Tracy Hasuga	
     Marlon Henn	
     DanHensley	
     Robert Hensley	
     J. Michael Herr	
     Caroline Hice	
     Susan Hickman	
     Sanford Higginbotham.
     MonieaHill	
     Marty Killer	
.. A-977
.. A-978
.. A-978
... A-979
.. A-979
... A-980
... A-981
... A-982
... A-983
... A-984
... A-984
.. A-985
.. A-985
... A-986
... A-986
.. A-987
.. A-987
... A-988
.. A-988
... A-989
.. A-990
... A-991
.. A-991
.. A-992
.. A-992
.. A-993
.. A-993
.. A-994
.. A-995
.. A-995
.. A-996
.. A-996
.. A-997
.. A-997
.. A-998
.. A-998
.. A-999
.. A-999
.A-1000
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
IV
                                                              Table of Contents

-------
DanitaHines	A-1000
Robert Hiser	A4001
PaulHodder	A-1001
Sharon Hodges	A-1002
Steve Hodges	A-1002
Andy Hodgman	A-1003
Karen Holl	A-1003
MarkHomer	A-1004
JohnHoneck	A-1005
John Hopkins	A-1005
Patricia Hopkins	A-1006
Pierre Howard	A-1006
ReneeHoyos	A-1007
Patrick Huber	A-1007
Barbara Hutchinson-Smith	A-1008
Martha Hutson	A-1009
Carole Hyre	A-1009
Robert lies	A-1010
Michael Jablonski	A-1010
Donnie Jackson	A-1011
Gordon James	A-1011
Roberta James	A-1012
Phyllis Jenness	A-1012
John Jodine, Jr	A-1013
Emily Johnson	A-1014
Jane Johnson	A-1014
John Johnson	A-1015
Andrew Jones	A-1015
Deborah Jones	A-1017
Lora Jones	A-1017
Mary Lou Jones	A-1018
Tim Jones	A-1019
Richard Jorgensen	A-1019
Tom Joy	A-1020
Edward Kadane	A-1021
RayKamstra	A-1021
DanKash	A-1022
Barry Katzen	A-1022
ErinKazee	A-1023
Robert Keiilbach	
Mary Corsi Kelley	
Cindy Kendrick	
Oren Kennedy	
Carol Anne Kilgore	
Sterling Kinnell	
Laura Klein	
Jennifer Knaggs	
GerriKolesar	
Vanessa Kranda	
JudKratzer	
Scott Kravitz	
TomKruzen	
Glenn Kuehne	
Kara Kukovich	
Kenneth M. Kukovich
JohnL	
Alexandra Lamb	
SloaneLamb	
Melissa Lambert	
DeniseLamobaw	
Jackie Lancaster	
Susan Lander	
Jennifer Lantz	
TimLarrick	
Jessica Lavin	
Phyllis Law	
F.Carey Lea	
Elaine Leach	
Carole Levenson	
IgalLevy	
Elizabeth Lewis	
NormaLewis	
TomLewis	
BettaLeyland	
EricLillyblad	
JoanLinville	
JoeLinville	
Nannie Lin ville	
.A-1023
.A-1024
.A-1024
.A-1026
.A-1027
..A-1028
..A-1028
,. A-1029
..A-1029
..A-1030
.A-1030
,. A-1031
..A-1031
..A-1032
..A-1032
.A-1034
,. A-1035
.A-1035
.A-1036
..A-1037
.A-1037
.A-1038
.A-1038
.A-1039
.A-1041
.A-1041
.A-1042
.A-1042
.A-1043
.A-1043
.A-1044
.A-1044
.A-1045
.A-1045
.A-1046
.A-1046
.A-1047
.A-1048
.A-1049
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                        Table of Contents

-------
Curt Livingston, Sr.	
Julie Longman-Pollard	
Sherry Lorenz	
David & Marsha Low	
Benjamin Lowman	
LoisLudwig	
Tom Luther	
Grace Glaser-Lynch & Thomas Lynch.
Ann Lyrmworth	
LawrenceLyon	
Malcolm MacPherson	
Andy Mahler	
Craig Mains	
O. Mandrussow	
Cadi Mareneck	
Peter Mareneck	
RogMarjay	
Thomas Marshalek	
Martin	,	
Julia Martin	
Julian Martin	
Namon Martin	
Rev. Mary Me Anally	
James McCarthy	
DoraMcCarty	
ErikaMcCarty	
Kerry McClure	
Chelena McCoy	
Harold McCurdy	
Howard McPann	
John McFerrin	
Scott McGarrity	
Carol McGeehan	...
M. McGeorge	.....
Margaret McGinnis	
Judith McHugh	
Meagan McKay	
Catherine McKenzie	
Bonnie McKeown	
.A-1049
.A-1Q50
.A-1050
..A-1052
..A-1053
..A-1053
..A-1054
..A-1054
..A-1055
..A-1055
..A-1056
..A-1056
..A-1057
..A-1058
..A-1059
..A-1060
..A-1060
..A-1061
..A-1061
..A-1065
,.A-1065
..A-1066
.A-1066
..A-1067
,.A-1067
.A-1068
.A-1069
.A-1071
.A-1072
.A-1072
.A-1073
.A-1073
.A-1074
.A-1074
.A-1075
.A-1075
.A-1076
.A-1076
.A-1077
CatheMcLaughlin	A-1077
Corinna McMackin	A-1078
Elizabeth McMahon	A-1079
James &CarlaMcMillin	A-1079
Janet McReynolds	A-1080
Shawn Meagher	A-1081
Colby Mecham	A-1082
Elaine Melnick	A-1083
Barbara Mendelsohn	A-1083

                             VOLUME III
Ricardo Mendez	A-1084
Barbara Menendez	A-1084
ZinaMerkin	A-1085
Jennifer Merrick	A-1085
Robert Mertz	A-1086
James Mesich	A-1088
Teresa Mesich	A-1088
Alissa Meyer	A-1089
Judy Meyer	A-1090
Greg Miles	A-1094
Sue Miles	A-1094
Leon & Lucille Miller	A-1095
Mark Miller	A-1096
Mary Miller	A-1097
RobinMills	A-1097
Phyllis Mingo	A-1100
Georgia Miniard	A-1100
Steve Mininger	A-1101
CarolMintz	A-1102
Jonathan Mirgeaux	A-1102
Denver Mitchell	A-1103
Keith Mohn	A-1109
Wm Montgomery	A-1110
John Mooney	A-1110
MaryheaMorelock	A-llll
B.Morgan	A-1112
Mark Morgan	,	A-1112
Jeffrey Morris	A-1113
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
          VI
                                                       Table of Contents

-------
Robert Moss	A-1114
Robert Mueller	A-1115
David Muhly	A-1116
Dr. Mendi Mullett	A-1117
Cory Munson	A-1118
Mark Murphy	A-1119
Sheldon Myers	A-1119
Grace Naccarato	A-1120
Susan Nadeau	A-1120
Patricia Napier	A-1132
Ann Nelson	A-1133
Nanette Nelson	A-1134
Paul Nelson	A-1135
Denis Newbold	A-1145
Mike Newell	A-1147
BradNewsham	A-1148
Duane Nichols	A-1148
Karl Norton	A-1149
Jason O'Brian	A-1149
Mary O'Brien	A-1150
Sandra O'Hara	A-1151
Peggy O'Kane	A-1151
Ethel Oldham	A-1152
Russell Oliver	A-1152
Steven Olshewsky	A-1153
Tony Oppegard	A-1153
Marilyn Qrtt	A-1154
Clark Orwick	A-1155
AmandaO'Shea	A-1155
JimOttaviani	,	A-1156
Judy Otto	A-1157
Jon Owens	A-1157
AletaPahl	A-1158
Lori Parsley	A-1158
Lynn Partington	A-1159
MaryPasti	A-1160
Cynthia Patterson & Peter Schrand	A-1161
LeiterPatton	A-1161
JeronePaul	A-1162
     K.Payne	
     Karen Payne	
     Ray Payne	
     Elizabeth Peelle	
     Joan Peoples	
     Dolores Perez	
     Candice Peters	
     Ian Petersen	,
     Denise Peterson	
     Jan Peterson	
     Susan Peterson	
     Dean Petrich	
     Deborah Pettry	
     Amelia Pickering	,
     Joseph & Helen Pickering.
     Joseph Presson	
     Andrew Price	
     Donna Price	
     Penie'LeeProuty	
     SeanQuinlan	
     Christine Rafal	
     TeresaRafi	
     Linda Rago	
     Mary Ramsay	,
     Jan Randall	
     Kevin Randall	
     M. Rauen	
     John Rausch	
     LisaRayburn	
     EricRechel	
     PatriciaReed	
     Linda Reeves	
     Dylan Reid	
     Richard Reis	
     DavidReister	
     JordanReiter	
     John Reppun	
     Michelle Reynolds	
     James Richard	
.A-1162
.A-1163
.A-1163
.A-1164
.A-1165
.A-1166
.A-1166
.A-1167
.A-1168
.A-1168
.A-1169
.A-1169
.A-1170
.A-1170
.A-1171
.A-1171
.A-1172
.A-1173
.A-1173
.A-1174
.A-1175
.A-1175
.A-1176
.A-1176
.A-1177
.A-1178
.A-1178
.A-1179
.A-1180
.A-1180
.A-1181
.A-1182
.A-1182
.A-1183
.A-1183
.A-1184
.A-1185
.A-1186
.A-1187
MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
VII
                                                             Table of Contents

-------
Nancy Riley	A-1187
Paul Robertson	A-1188
Richard Robertson	A-1188
Tom Robertson	A-1189
Gail Roc	A-1189
Hugh Rogers	A-1190
Ruth Rogers	A-1190
Michael Romo	A-1191
DebraRookard	A-1192
Ruth Rosenthal	A-1193
June Rostan	A-1194
Greg Roth	A-1194
Lionel Ruberg	A-1195
Stephen Rudolph	A-1195
Steve Rutledge	A-1196
Mark Van Ryzin	A-1196
PaulSainato	A-1197
Sue Ann Salmon	A-1198
Manuel Sanchez	A-1198
Bennett Sawyers	A-1199
AshleeSaylor	A-1199
Abraham Scarr	A-1200
PaulSchaefer	A-1200
Kenny Schmidt	A-1201
Betty Schnaar	A-1202
Dave Schuett-Homes	A-1202
Rose Alma Schuler	A-1203
Lance Eric Schultz	A-1203
Lauren Schwartz	A-1204
Brace Scott	A-1205
William Scott	A-1205
Jason Scullion	A-1206
Robert Seaver	A-1206
Linda Sekura	A-1207
Danny  Sergent	A-1207
Price Sewell	A-1208
Dink Shackleford	A-1208
Justine Sharp	A-1209
WaltSharpe	A-1209
     Sue Sharps	
     Barrett Sherwood ....
     Susan Shriner	
     June Silverman	
     Willis Simms	
     Pat Simpson	
     GarySkutaik	
     Deana Smith	
     Donna Smith	
     EllenSmith	
     Eric Smith	
     John Smith	
     Jonathan Smuck	
     Susan Sobkoviak ....
     Richard Soderberg ..
     Sooner Fan	
     Constance Sowards
     Wayne Spiggle	
     Daniel SpOman	
     Joel Spoonheim	
     Richard Spotts	
     Tom Spry	
     SueStaehli	
     Robert Stanley	
     Dallas Staten	
     Steve Stathakis	
     FitzSteele	
     Edward Stein	
     JimSteitz	
     Judith Stetson	
     Elaine Stoltzfus	
     Kathryn Stone	
     Sally Streeter	
     Joseph Strobel	
     Jean Strong	,
     William Sullivan	
     Jim Sweeney	
     ChetanTalwalkar	
     Lesley Tate	
          .A-1210
          .A-1210
          .A-1211
          .A-1211
          ..A-1212
          ..A-1213
          ..A-1213
          ..A-1214
          ..A-1214
          ..A-1215
          ..A-1215
          ..A-1216
          ..A-1216
          ..A-1217
          ..A-1218
          ..A-1218
          ..A-1219
          ..A-1219
          ,. A-1220
          ..A-1220
          .A-1221
          ..A-1223
          .A-1223
          .A-1224
          .A-1224
          .A-1225
          .A-1225
          .A-1227
          .A-1227
          .A-1228
          .A-1229
          .A-1229
          .A-1230
          .A-1230
          .A-1231
          .A-1232
          .A-1233
          .A-1233
          .A-1235
MTIWVF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
VIII
Table of Contents

-------
William Taylor 	
DarlaTewell 	
DeanThayer 	
Rose Thompson 	
Derek Thornsberry 	
Ershel Thornsberry 	
Mildred Thornsberry 	
Barry Tonning 	
Phillip Tracy 	
Roy Trent 	
PhilTriolo 	
Martha Tumquist 	
EllisaValoe 	
Mary Vassalls 	
Corey Vernier 	
Sue Vernier 	
Jeff Waites 	
Judith Walker 	
Bruce Wallace 	
Patty Wallace 	
David Walters 	
Richard Walters 	
Barbara Walton 	
Rufus ^^annins

Kenneth Warren 	
Holly Watkins

CleeWebb 	
Robert Welkle 	


Julya Westfall 	


Julia Whiteker 	
Gregory Wilcox 	
Rachel Williams 	
Susan Williams 	
Suzanne Williams 	
Waimea Williams 	
Sara Wilts 	 	 	
Vickie Wolfe 	

	 A-1235
	 A-1236
	 A-1236
	 A-1237
	 A-1237
	 A-1238
	 A-1238
	 .A-1239
	 A-1240
	 A-1240
	 A-1241
	 A-1242
	 A-1242
	 A-1243
	 A-1243
	 A-1244
	 A-1245
	 A-1245
	 A-1246
	 	 	 A-1287
	 A-1287
	 A-1288
	 A-1288
A- 1289

	 A-1289
A 10QO

	 A-1290
	 ....A-1291
A-1291

	 A-1292
A-1292

	 A-1293
	 A-1293
	 A-1294
	 A-1295
	 A-12%
	 A-12%
	 A-1297
	 A-1297

Doug Wood 	 , 	
Ivan & Jean Woods 	
Tanya Woods 	
Anne Woodbury 	 , 	 , 	
Nancy Woodward 	 	 ,
Daniel Wright 	
Mingjane Wu 	
Bryan Wyberg 	
Eleanor Yackel 	
Lynn & Chess Yellott 	
Geoffrey Young 	
Walter Young 	 	 	 	 	
MaryYunker 	 , 	
DavidZeff 	
CarolZeigler 	

Form Letters ...........„..„.„„. 	
Amend the DEIS form letter — 4,156 signatories 	 	 	
American Rivers form letter — 4,227 signatories 	
Boone County form letter — 46 signatories 	
Community Visit form letter — 14 signatories 	
Destruction form letter — 65 signatories 	
Earth Justice form letter — 35,743 signatories 	


Oppose Change to Stream Buffer Zone Rule form letter — 7,168 signatories .,
tXv\**a + A*vrwi1 !-»* •*•* C1**- £ 1 *-*- A*l*i

Reduce Harmful Efforts form letter— 4,522 signatories 	 	 	
Restriction form letter — 5 signatories 	 	 ..,....,. 	 ..................


Sierra Club post card — 953 signatories 	


Stop Mountaintop Removal form letter — 9 signatories 	
Support Alternative 3 form letter — 18 signatories 	
Writing to Urge form letter — 360 signatories 	

SBCTIONAINDEX
Elected Officials 	
Federal Agencies 	
State or Commonwealth Agencies 	

...A-1298
...A- 1299
...A-1300
....A-1300
....A-1301
....A-1301
....A-1302
....A-1302
....A-1303
....A-1304
....A-1304
....A-13Q5
....A-1306
....A-1306
....A-1307

...A-1308
...A-1309
...A-1309
...A-1310
...A-1310
...A-1311
...A-1311
AI^IO

...A-1313
A 111^

...A-1314
...A-1314
A-T?15

...A-1316
A-1316

...A-1317
...A-1317
...A-1318


	 1
	 1
	 1

MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
IX
                                                     Table of Contents

-------
Organizations
    Order by Author	
    Order by Organization.
Citizens	
Form Letters	
SECTIONB	,„..,„,	.	
Kentucky Afternoon Session [[[
Jeff Coker, facilitator, Kentucky afternoon session, opening comments
Dink Shackelford, Virginia Mining Association	
Bill Caylor, Kentucky Coal Association	
Rebeca Mullins, private citizen	
Bennett Sawyers, private citizen	
Lonnie Starns, private citizen	
DonaldRex Napier & John Blankenship, private citizens	
Harlan Farler, Jr., private citizen	
John Ledington, private citizen	
Dave Mockabee, private citizen	
Roger Jones, private citizen	
Leonard W. Davis, private citizen	
Harry Fields, private citizen	
Paul David Taulbee, private citizen	
Keith Mohn, private citizen	
Larry Roberts, private citizen	
Lawrence Joseph, Jr., private citizen	
Gary Earned, private citizen	
Charles Reed, private citizen	
Carl Ramey, private citizen	
Bernie Faulkner, private citiezn	
Steve Gardner, private citizen	
Don Gibson, private citizen	
Paul Matney, private citizen	
Bill Gorman, mayor of Hazard	
Ackra Stacy, private citizen	
Michael Joseph & Columbus Heath, private citizens	
Doris Brewer, private citizen	
Earl demons, private citizen	
Russell Oliver, private citizen	
Joe Evans, private citizen	
             Rick Johnson, private citizen	B-42
	1        David Wilder, private citizen	B43
	2        Robbie Pentecost, Catholic Committe of Appalacia	B-44
	3        Everett Kelly, private citizen	,	B-46
.... 10        Robert Zik,TECO Coal	B^I6
             John Rausch, Catholic Diocese of Lexington, KY	B47
.. B-l        Tom Wooton, private citizen	B48
..B-2        David Creech, private citizen	B49
.. B-3        Brian Patton, Starfire Mining Co	B-50
...B-6        Jimmy Jackson, UMWA and Local 5890	B-52
...B-8        Andy Willis, private citizen	B-52
.B-10        Leslie Combs, private citizen	B-53
.B-ll        Mike Hansel, private citizen	B-54
. B-12        Paul Johnson, private citizen	B-55
.B-12        Ben Perry, private citizen	B-56
.B-13        Meg Moore, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth	B-58
.B-13        Paul Lyon, Mineral Labs, Inc	B-60
.B-14
. B-15        Kentucky Evening Session[[[ B-61
. B-16        Jeff Coker, facilitator, Kentucky evening session, opening comments ............... B-62
. B-17        Betty M. Hagen, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth	B-66
. B-18        Ruth Colvin, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth	B-66
.B-20        Patty Wallace, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth	B-67
. B-21        Dan Kash, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth	B-O
.B-22        Randall Moon, private citizen	B*69
.B-23        Jessie Collins, private citizen	B-70
.B-25        Maynard Tetreault, private citizen	B-71
. B-26        Dave Cooper, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth
.B-27            and the Sierra Club	B-73
.B-29        Joyce Wise, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth	B-75
. B-30        Kaseana Jones, private citizen	B-76
.B-32        Ten Blanton, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth	...B-76
.B-34        Lyle Snider, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth	B-78
.B-35        Amanda Moore, Appalachian Citizen Law Center	B-79
.B-36        Ted Adams, private citizen	B-81
.B-37        Rocky Gay, private citizen	B-84
.B-38        Bruce Blair, private citizen	B-85
.B-40        Gregory Burnett, private citizen	B-87
.B-41        Lisa Conley, private citizen	•	...B-87
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium

-------
J.W. Bradley, Save Our Cumberland Mountains	B-89
Kathy Bird, Save Our Cumberland Mountains	B-90
Charles Blankenship, private citizen	B-92
Doug Dorfeld, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth	B-93
Michael Riley, private citizen	B-94
Brent Boggs, private citizen	B-96
Anthony Jones, private citizen	B-96
Jim Sidwell, private citizen	B-97
Levon Baker, private citizen	B-98
444, private citizen	B-99
Tom Jones, East Kentucky Corp	B-101
Dewey Gorman, Hazard Coal Corp	B-1Q2
Phillip Estep, Miller Brothers Coal	B-104
James Detherage, Twin Energies	B-1Q5
Denny Noble, county judge for Perry County	,	B-1Q5
Steve Gardner, private citizen	B-106
ElishaAbner, private citizen	B-108
Daniel Mongiardo, state senator for Perry, Bell, Harlan, and Leslie Counties	B410
Brandon Smith, state representative, 84th	B4U
Charles Everage, B & C Trucking	B-115
Bill Caylor, Kentucky Coal Association	B-117
FitzSteele, private citizen	B-119
Randy Wilson, private citizen	B-12Q
Larry Keith, private citizen	B-122
Wesley Harvey, private citizen	B-122
Simmy Ray Bolen, private citizen	B-124

West Virginia Afternoon Session ...,....„—......	........................................... B-126
Mark Taylor, chairman, West Virginia afternoon session, opening remarks .. B-128
B ill Rainey, West Virginia Coal Association	B432
Ted Hapney, United Mine Workers of America (UMWA)	B-135
Wesley Hall, private citizen	B-137
Jeremy Muller, West Virginia Rivers Coalition	B-138
Cindy Rank, Friends of the Little Kanawha (FOLK)	B-140
Vivian Stockman, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (OVEC)	B-142
Liz Garland, West Virginia Rivers Coalition	B-144
Sandi Lucha, private citizen	B-145
Frank Young, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy	B-146
Wayne Coleman, private citizen	B-148
     Carol Warren, WV Council of Churches	B-150
     Jack Henry, private citizen	B-152
     Diana Wood, private citizen	,	B-154
     Natalie Spencer, private citizen	B-157
     John Metzger, private citizen	B-159
     Randy McMillion, private citizen	B-161
     Karen Keaton, private citizen	B-162
     Terry Brown, private citizen	B-162
     Doug Waldron, private citizen	B-163
     Mike Vines, private citizen	B-164
     Jeremy Fairchild,Fairchild International	B-165
     Andy Ashurst, private citizen	B-167
     Lee Barker, private citizen	B-167
     Larry Keith, private citizen	B-169
     Robert Wilkerson, private citizen	B-171
     Fitz Steele, private citizen	B-173
     Luke McCarty, private citizen	B-175
     William Runzon, private citizen	B-178
     Benny Dixon, private citizen	B-179
     Mike Comer, private citizen	B-180
     Nelson Jones, Madison Coal Supply	B-181
     Bob Gates, private citizen	B-182
     Corky Griffith, private citizen	B-183
     Ed Painter, private citizen	B-184
     Warren Hilton, private citizen	B-186

     West Virginia Evening Session	B-189
     Mark A Taylor, chairman, West Virginia evening session, opening comments B-191
     Mary Ellen O'Farrell, West Virginia Envrionment Council	B-196
     Chris Hamilton, West Virginia Coal Association	B-197
     Scott Gollwiteer, private citizen	B-199
     Larry Emerson, Arch Coal, Inc	B-201
     Bill Gorz, Earth First	B-203
     Nick Carter, Natural Resource Partners &
         National Council of Coal Resource	B-206
     JohnR. Snider, Arch Coal, Inc	B-207
     Kent DesRocfaer, private citizen	B-209
     Randall Maggard, Argus Energy	B-212
     Michael A. Morrison, private citizen	B-213
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
XI
                                                                Table of Contents

-------
Julia Bonds, private citizen	B-214
Lawrence Beckerle, private citizen	B-216
Nanette Nelson, Coal River Mountain Watch	B-219
Larry Maynard, Delbarton Environmental Community Awareness Foundation ... B-222
Vivian Stockman, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (OVEC)	B-223
Larry Gibson, private citizen	B-225
Mian Martin, WV Highlands Conservancy	B-226
Janet Fout, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (OVEC)	B-229
James Maynard, private citizen	B-231
Donna Price, Coal River Mountain Watch	B-232
Frieda Williams, private citizen	B-233
Bill Price, Sierra Club of Central Appalachia	B-234
Pam Medlin, private citizen	B-236
Winnie Fox, private citizen	B-237
Patty Sebok, private citizen	B-239
Janice Neese, Coal River Mountain Watch	B-240
Chuck Wyrostok, Concerned Citizen Coalition	B-242
Marian Miller, private citizen	B-244
Pauline Cantebury, town of Sylvester	B-246
Mel Tyrce, private citizen	B-248
Bill McCabe, Citizens Coal Council	B-250
Florence Twu, private citizen	B-251
Abraham Mwaura, private citizen	B-252
Connie Lewis, WV Environmental Council	B-254
Paul Nelson, private citizen	B-257
Monty Fowler, private citizen	B-258
Denise Giardina, private citizen	B-260
Jason Bostic, West Viriginia Coal Association	B-261
John Taylor, Ohio Valley Environmental Council &
    West Virginia Environmental Council	B-263
Fred Sampson, private citizen	B-264
Leon Miller, private citizen	B-266
Blair Gardner, private citizen	B-267
ElainPurkey, private citizen	B-2®
Sharon Murphy, private citizen	,	B-270
Maria Pitzer, private citizen	,	B-272
John Barrett, Appalachian Center for the Economy
    and the Environment	B-274
Lisa Millimet, private citizen	B-277
     Bill McCabe, Citizens Coal Council	B-278
     Alphabetical Order
         Kentucky Afternoon Session	
         Kentucky Evening Session	
         West Virginia Afternoon Session.
         West Virginia Evening Session ....
     Transcript Order
         Kentucky Afternoon Session	
         Kentucky Evening Session	
         West Virginia Afternoon Session.
         West Virginia Evening Session ....
                1
                1
               .2
               ,2
              ...3
              ...4
              ...4
              ...5
MTM/VF Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
xu
Table of Contents

-------

-------
Catherine Holtkamp, Congregation of Divine Providence
                                                             Renee Hoyos, Tennessee Clean Water Network
                                     Congregation of Divine Providence
                                       Office of Peace and Jostfce
                                           WGOSt Anae Drive
                                          Melbourne, K¥ 41059
                                             August 14,2003
             •Mm Porren
             U.S. EPA(36S30)
             IfiSOAjtchSttwt
             Philadelphia, PA 19103

             Dear Mr. FOOTS:

             1 oppose mountaintop removal and vulley ills ami any change in the buffet zone rule. 1 am
             very concerned and, yes, angry, tet the federal govtfmroenl ignored iK own stadies when
             it proposad weakening, rather than strengthening, protections for people and for lite area
             in which they live. It seems that the ordinary cifeeBS of ihiscousliy tio longer const!

             Big business--in this case -the coal companies have priority  Is this wliat our country-is
             coming to?

             Whereas, 724 mtlas of streams across the Central Appalachian region were buried by valley-
             fills between 1985 and 2001 and another 1200 mites of streams have already been impacted
             by valley fills;

             Whereas, selaaitira, a foighiy toxic metalloid, was ibasd ofcly in coalfield streams bfitow vaHey
             fids killing aquatic life forms there,

             Whensas, a total of 2,200 square miles of Appalachian foiests will be eliminated by 2012 by
1-9
1-10
5-7-2

5-5-2

7-5-2
            Whereas without additional environment restrictions, mouivrauitop removal mining wit!
            destroy an additional 600 square miles of land and 1000 miles of streams in the next decade;

            How can this shameful report be jjpjoied?

            'llii e= alternatives are mclixled in the E1S report.  1 reject all of these. Moos of these will
            protect our water or our odrnumaWes.

            Farjustice,
1-5
                                                   706 Walnut St., Suite 2(10 Knoxvflte, Tennessee 57902
                                               office: 8fiVS?2-7W7  fax: S65/329-M22  website: www.lcwn.org
                             January 5, 2004

                             Mr. John Porren
                             U.S. EPA (3BA3Q)
                             1650 Arch Street
                             Philadelphia. PA 19103

                                    r. Fnrrcn:
The Tennessee Ctean Water Network (TCWN) appreciates the opportunity to submit the following
comments on the draft programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (liS) on mounurintop removal
coal mining. TCWN is a statewide, nonprofit organization dedicated solely to protecting, restoring, and
enhancing Tennessee's waters and the communities that depend on them.

TCWN is opposed to any changes that would weaken the laws and refutations that protect our rivers and
streams from the effects of motmlaintop mining and valley fills. As a result, we arc opposed to each of
the alternatives evaluated in the May 29, 2P03 draft E1S.

Mouittaintop removal mining is a highly destructive practice where entire mountaimops art Masted away
to reach thin seams of coal underneath, and millions of tons of rock and soil arc dumped into adjacent
valleys. The practice destroys forests, leaves a barren landscape, and buries the headwaters of rivers.
which are essential to maintaining healthy, dynamic river systems. Headwater streams provide crucial
linkages between upstream watersheds and tributaries and downstream rivers and lakes. The natural
processes that occur in Intact headwater streams affect the quantity and quality of water and  the liming of
water availability in rivers, lakes, and grotmdwater. These processes,  which aa1 integral to functioning
ecosystems, are also crucial to human well-being.  The upper reaches of steam networks an: important for
purifying water, storing water, recharging groundwater. and reducing the intensity and frequency of
flooding.

The draft HIS contains Indisputable evidence of the devastating and irreversible environmental harm
caused by moantatntop mining. The administration's own studies have detailed the  devastation,
including:
-  over 1 200 miles of streams haw been damaged or destroyed by mounlaimop removal
-  direct impacts to streams would be greatly lessened by reducing the size of the valley fills where
   mining wastes are dumped on top of streams
-  the total »f past, present and estimated future forest losses is 1.4 million acres
                                                                                                                      1-10
                                                                                                                      1-9
            Catherine M. H0Hkam|3
                     r - GfBee of Peace and Justice
                                                                                                                                                                   'x Waters etftd thu Cnmunumtten liu
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-536
                                                                Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                                                                       Mary Hufford, University of Pennsylvania
      -   even if hardwood forests can be reesmblished in mined tress, which is unproven and unlikely, there
         will he a drastically different ecosystem from pre-rriimag forest conditions for generations, if not
         thousands of years
      -   without new limits on mountaintop removal, an additional 350 square miles of mountains, streams,
         and forests will be flattened and destroyed by mountaintop removal mining.
      Other agency studies also show that mountaintop mining contributes to flooding disasters in mountain
      communities.

      Unfortunately, each of the alternatives in the draft EIS ignores the findings of these studies and the very
      purpose ol the EIS - to find ways to minimize, to the maximum extent practical, the environmental
      consequences of mountaimop mining. The draft EIS does not examine a single alternative that would
      reduce these impacts. The draft KB proposes no restrictions on the sis-e of valley fills that hury streams,
      no limits on the number of acres of forest that can be destroyed, no protections for imperiled wildlife, and
      no safeguards for the communities of people that depend on the region's natural resources for themselves
      and future generations.

      The "preferred alternative" would clearly increase the damage from mountaintop mining by eliminating
      the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's buffer zone rule that prohibits mining activities that
      disturb any area within 1 (X) feet of larger streams, eliminating the current limit on using nationwide
      permits to approve valley fills in West Virginia that are larger than 250 acres, and giving the Office of
      Surface Mining a significant new role in Clean Water Acl permitting for mountaintop mining (a fole it
      does not have under current law).

      Our environmental laws require, and the citi/cns of the region deserve, a full evaluation of ways to reduce
      the unacceptable impacts of mountaintop mining.  TCWN urges EPA to abandon the "preferred
      alternative" and to reevaluate a full range of options that will minimize the enormous environmental and
      economic damage caused by mountaimop mining and valley fills.

      Thank you for your consideration.

      Sincerely,
      Rene"e Victoria Hoyos
      Executive Director
1-9
1-5
1-10
1-5
      )Penn
       Arts £sf Science                              JSEC'D M 8 7'
Ctnter for Folklore and Ethnography
Gnsduate Program jn Foik1o« and Mkiife
391 lagan H»u
249 Sou® 36th Stwet
Hiiladclpbra, PA 19104^6304
Tel 21S.898.7352 Fax215,5^J23i
                                       DK^sbea- 28,2003
                                 John Forrea
                                 U.S. EPA (3BA30)
                                 ISO Arch Street
                                 Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Dear Mr. Forren:

               I want to thank you and the metabas of the BIS stewing commitae for the

         opportunity to comment on trie Daft ProgramnMtlc Environmental Impact Statement on

         Mouatalntop Mtauig/Valley Fills to Appalachjt, aafl for extending the review period

         until January 6,2004. My comment* are based on more than » decade 
-------
            commons of air and water ereutote ttou^iall of us, and though food so do Ox
            commons of sot and biodiversity. It is a matter of public health to safeguard these public
            goods. But just as critically, these material goodt anchor and unite as collectively as
            dtizemwi!hastakeinthesegood%tiotJ!istMC08sumersofcoal. At the national level,
            these streams ground and streBghen us as a potty. At the local level, the headwaters are
            integral to the historical and cultural landscapes that nurture cottanuJHty life. As &
            democratic polity it is in our best interest to sustain the resources ttat strengthen local
            presence in the national public sphere.
                  To appreciate just one of tile ways in which headwaters uniquely form local
            cultural resources, consider the names for these headwaters. Nearly every wrinkle in the
            mountains bears a local name, which serves as a reminder of gcnealogicaJ, historical, and
            ecological procestes: Walnut Hollow, Mil Hollow, Scteothouse Hollow, Sugar Camp
            Hollow, Seng Branch, Bear Hollow, Ofcteas Hollow, mA to forth. These names, which
            are household words in local conversations, situate people as citizens of the mountains
            who rely on the headwaters for a variety of services, which I'll consider below.
            Fostering shared identity, these public goods, the headwaters, are cultural resources, and
            they are also civic resources. They represent generations of human investment in making
            the rnountains a place to live and work, and this investment r.eeds to be weighed against
            the investment that coal companies have made, without benefit of public debate, in giant
            machinery that is ill-fitted to mountain ecologies.
10-2-5
Defining Cultural Resources
      In this regard, I would argue for expanding the definition of cultural resources in
your glossary. Cultural resources are those which nurture collective identity, serving as
touchstones to a shared history and a continually emerging sense of shared destiny.
Cultural resources provide communities with a sense of continuity despite ongoing
ruptures (including natural death, economic crisis, war, ecological disaster), and they
provide communities with the visibility they need to represent themselves in larger
political bodies. In this vein, mountains serve as cultural resources for citizens living in
the mountains, since mountains firm the medium through which communities develop a
shared identity (tence the state's motto: "MoonMtaeers are always See.*;. Another word
for such a public good is "commons," Participants m the commons share understandings
of the importance of the public goods of streams and biodiversity and their relationship to
the plateau topography of Central Appalachia. Land and mineral companies defend their
tight to destroy these goods over the rights of their aei^jbora to enjoy the economic and
cultural benefits provided by these goods. These ted and mineral companies have placed
themselves and their coal beyond the reach of toe public commons for the purpose of
controlling the tndosiire the}'have created around coal. Because the enclosure of coal
and the commons of the mountains occupy the same physical space, and because both are
arguiibiy of value to die public good, safeguarding the stream bufl'er zone is a critical
cultural  and political issue: tie stream buffer zone anchors rise citizens of the United
States within tie ettctosures of coal. The stream bufifer zone is the common* that the
                                                                                                                            10-2-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-538
                                                               Section A - Organizations

-------
           citizens of the United States are being asked to allow industry to privatize in the draft
           BIS.
           We Gulf between DacripttoH of Resources and Alternatives In the Drttft SIS
                  AKhouj^i in the descriptive portions of the BIS you begin to address what is
           culturally and ecologically at stake with tins buffer zone, you do not provide an
           alternative that safeguards lie headwaters. You describe the mixed mesophytic forest and
           the cove hardwoods as world class resources, you register the extraordinary diversity of
           invertebrates mi amphibians, and you explicitly express amazement at the diversity of
           birds. But while you begin to address what is culturally significant, you have not put it
           together in a way that clarifies the true cost of the loss of these public goods ia relation to
           the very short term gains of raouataintop routing. You do make it clear that the forest and
           its species thrive on the cove sad valley topography that tsountaintop mining will destroy
           and replace with landform complexes. You make it dear that this loss is irreversible and
           that it will have profound cultural impacts. But you have not specified in the alternatives
           a foture that involves sustaining mountains and culture together.  You have not articulated
           a process for any kind of alternative development, as such alternatives are prescribed in
           the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
           Cultural Implications of the I-Jinguage of the Draft EIS
           Language, a cultural resource, is a powerful too! for shaping reality. When, for example,
           you speak to the BIS of "the moantaiatop mining region," yon appear to Sivor industry
           by conceding the region to them. With tliat in mind, I want to question other uses of
           language in the Draft EIS, which ultimately support the goals of the coal industry over
           other options which are supposed to be udder consideration The glossary exemplifies
1-13
10-2-5
my point Moat of the terms in the glossary support the impression that Central
Appalachia is the nmuntaintop mining region, not, for instance, the ginseng region or the
mixed mesophytic region, which would be equally valid designations.  la its &vor, the
glossary does give us a sense of the components of the "land foftrt complexes" that the
coal industry proposes to install on the Central Appalachian plateaus These landform
complexes win be created through processes like "backfilling," "boxcutting," "cast
blasting," and "wing dumping." Using "dozers," "darbies," "front-end loaders,"
"hydraulic excavators," "hydroseeders," "panscrapers,"" and "dump equipment" the coal
industry will create "blanket drains," "core drains" (aka "flumes"), "center ditches,"
"beaches," "fill structures", "commercial wootHaad," "groin ditches,"  "perimeter
ditches," "sedimentation ponds," "support areas" and "development areas." In the
process they will have to deal wtth "bulking ftcton" "fugitive dust," "probable
hydtologic consequences." And so fcrth.
       What the glossary does not do, and should do, is provide us with a All sense of
the altauative which motivates so much resistance to mountaintop removal. There are a
few terms that offer us a glimpse of the commons beyond coal - such as "acquifer,"
"biotopcat diversity," "eutaai landscape," "headwaters," and "waters of the United
States." But the inclusion of landscape features crucial to mountain life, and vulnerable to
mountaintopn!ining,wou!d help to disclose more fully the staggering cultural and social
costs of this form of mining. Such terms might include landscape features at risk (i e
"knob," "gap," "ororatag," "swale," "cove," "drain," "bear wallow," "side hollow,"
"main hollow," "rich bench," "aewground," "poplar flats," "check data") as well as
ecologcal concepts expressed in the vocabulary of the local commons ("den tree," "bee
                                                                                                                             10-2-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-539
                                                                Section A - Organizations

-------
           tree," "berry patch," "ramp patch"). The uses of these terms in everyday life to the
           mountains may not be familiar to many readers, and would therefore be important to
           include. More terms and some definitions can be found on the TJS0S website, as well as
           on the Tending the Commons website:
           r^o://memon'.loc.gnv/jmrftenj/gTfm5toml/man_hjjjil. by disking an aicli fenhirea M they
           have been mapped at the headwaters of the Big Coal River.
           The Ideas of Dewhpmer.1, Productivity, and Tradition in the Kraft E1S
                  In addition to these landscape terms, there are three other terms that appear
           throughout the draft EIS that 1 would like to address: "development," "productivity," and
           "non-traditional forest products." Since you do not define "development" to tie glossary,
           I would like to suggest, a definition drawn from lane Jacobs' The Mature of Economies:
           development means "differentiation emerging from generality." Having differentiated to
           the point that, as you observe, a number of headwaters boast endemic species of
           invertebrates, the central Appalachian plateaus would seem to be one of the most highly
           developed regions in the planet's temperate zone. In this view, mounttintop removal
           represents a profound form of redevelopment. In contrast to the standardization imposed
           by mountaintop removal mining, the level of development achieved through evolutionary
           differentiation takes specific forms of cultorai egression as welt
                  As the writers of die EIS express amazement at the diversity of avifauna, I must
           confess that as an ethnographer, I find the varieties of human expression in the
           mountains to be equally amazing and worthy of respect. The fotklorist Lynwood Montell
           observed that nearly every hollow in Eastern Kentucky has developed its own varieties of
           beans, which my work in West Virginia corroborates. I am amazed at the variety of
10-2-5
forms taken by homemade implements for cultivating the soil. In feet, I have yet to
eECOunter two ginseng hoes that look exactly alike. The differentiation in these forms is a
tiny outcropping of thousands of years of human interaction with this landscape,
interactions that have yielded die knowledge and skills necessary to make the mountains
productive of human community life and values. I have not found in the draft BIS any use
of the word "productivity* which recognizes this accomplishment If you do not
recognize this kind of productivity, how can you provide for it?
      Finely, 1 atn startled to see activities that have been practiced in the mountains
for thousands of years associated in the draft BIS with noa'&adl&mat forest products.
"Non-timber forest products," a term with which I am femiliar, usefully draws our
attention to the renewable productivity of forests, and to values not measurable in board
feet. Making trees productive of honey, syrup, bark, ftuit, and nuts, and nuking the
mixed roesophytic undcrstory productive is a human project that has developed through
transmission of traditional knowledge over many generations. Unless t am missing
something, terming these practices "non-traditional" seems to trivialize them. What then,
sue traditional forest products, and how have you arrived at this particular distinction?
Cultural Services Provided by Mountains ar.d Headwaters
      Last spring, in aa effort to devise methods for cultural planning in mountain
communities faced with mouataiBtop removal and valley fills, fte Center tor Folklore
and Ethnography conducted a workshop with community organizer* in Pipestem, West
Virginia. In this workshop, entjfled "Getting Out of the Overburden and Onto the Map:
Cultural Assessment in the Mountatntop Removal Permitting Process" (March 2003), we
asked those assembled to identify the cultural amenities provided by tiie mountains which
                                                                                                                           10-2-5
10-2-4
                                                                                                                           10-2-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-540
                                                               Section A - Organizations

-------
            they would like to see considered to the draft Environmental Isaacs Statement The
            question prompted comments quite similar to the comments that your team gathered at its
            public meetings, While these comments are amply registered in the descriptive portions
            of the draft US, I don't find them to be adequately addressed in the alternatives, In an
            effort to translate these comments into a useful planning tool, we tested them against a
            graphic of the Mixed Mesophytic Seasonal Round, which can be viewed online at
             This graphic, which shows the annual round of hunting, gathering, gardening, fishing,
            recreation, community events, and employment opportunities, represents a key cultural
            asset that is grounded in specific sites and species in the mixed mesophyttc forest and
            cultural landscapes of the central Appalachian Plateau.  This seasonal round of activities
            takes people all over the mountains. It is a structure whereby people continually carry the
            past forward into the future. This structure and its vital cultural practices cannot be
            protected through conventional means of historic preservation. The seasonal round
            embodies thousands of years of transmission of human knowledge and skills. What is the
            effect of mountaintop removal and valley fill mining on this seasonal round of cultural
            and economic practice? The draft OS vaguely suggests that the loss of the commons in
            which this seasonal round is practiced could be ameliorated through the creation of public
            parks.  But how can public parks compensate fiar the loss of the knowledge and skills
            that are intimately connected to particular spaces?  It appears that you have not done a
            study of the economic, social, and ecological value of the seasonal round, and of the
10-2-5
possibility of development centered around these community based practices. Why is that
the case?
Wild Ginseng us a Species of Concern
      While all of the resources thai support the seasonal round (nut trees, named
streams, urvderstory species like ramps, ginseng, goMenseal, landscape features like
knobs, gaps, coves, swags, drams, benches, and so ibrth)  are of value, one linchpin of the
seasonal round warrants far more attention than you have given it in this report, and that
is wild ginseng (patios quinquafolia). A1996 study by Appalachia Science in the Public
Interest observed that for wild and virtually wild ginseng the Chinese market alone is 12
billion dollars annually. To provide & baas for comparison, according to the West
Virginia Mini og and Reclamation Association in Charleston, West Virgin ia, the coat
industry meets a direct annual payroll of around one billion dollars for the stale of West
Virginia. MorethanhalfoftheU.S. annual export of wild ginseng comes from the coal-
beartag plateaus. The reason fer this, at the West Virginia ginseng offlcsr told me in a
telephone conversation, are cultural. He said that people ia the coalfields grow up digging
roots and gathering herbs. Protecting ginseng, then, is another way to protect culture.
Wild ginseng is monitored under the terms of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered species because of its extraordinary economic value and its very limited
habitat. Have you looked into die question of how much of this habitat will be destroyed
by monntaintop removal coal mining? Has the steering committee calculated the dollar
value of wild ginseng, a renewable resource, over tie hundreds of years it could take to
regenerate that habitat' For more information on fte wild ginseng region, se«
10-2-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-541
                                                                Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                                                                        Carolyn Johnson, Citizens Coal Council
           AiMiliaiial References

           Lastly, may 1 recommend the fiiHowiag Bams fi» your bibliography?

           Appakchia Science in die Public Interest. 1996, "Ginseng In Appalacbia,"yf AW Tedmical
           Series 38  Ml. Vernon,  Kentucky: Appaiachia-Science in the PcbKc Interest.

           Couto.Ridarf. 1999.MaktngDemocrutyRr<»* Better: M&Sattng Structures, Soda!
           Capital, and the Danacmtte Prospta . Chapel BBII: University of North Caraina Press.

           (To balance the discussion of the "fatalism" which the draft EIS describes as & cultural
           attribute. Then is, as you kr.ow, a long history of community-based resistance, apart
           from the history of the unions, which you do address. See also Fisher, 1993, and
           Gaventa, 1980)

           Fisher, Stephen EA 1993. FtgUngBadt in AfpataeMa: Thuftaws ofKetistatce ami
           Change. FhHadelpWa: Temple Ufiivettity Presi.

           Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Powertessness: Qviisamx and Rebellion in an
           Appalachian Valley Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
           HMford, Maiy. Ed. 1994. Conserving Cattere: A Ntv Dtmwse on Heritage. Uftafla:
           University of Illinois Pi ess (Re: alternatives to bottom-line economics in conserving
           cultural, natural, and economic resources)

           Jacobs, lane. 2000. Ha Nature of Economies. New York Random House
              claim made ia sevet^l places ia tl»$ draft BIS that coal lias <&tven t&e felon's
           Smitfc, Rujjell. 19
           (Re: an alternative kind of forestry, more suited to tlie biological diveisity of the region
           than the even-aged, monocultural stands comprisinr; the commercial forests of post-
           mining land-use).

           Thankyouagainfortheopportiinity to comment, and I hope my comments \v-ill be useful
           to you in prepairi
                                                  i    To:    113 MnunHttnh'jplr^l'-PA
                                               Subject:
                                 01/06/200404^5
                                 PM
                                   Citm-nss (ktsiJ Cotmci!
                       \\ t rkuis? i> 4ft rfser If « tlem water, safe homes ami a healthy environment
                                                                                                                                                                            202-544-6120
                      ^rt 722 e>l lc) tiv
                      \\\ '>(*'> >4t "16*
                                    Juiihtt)' 5, 3CXH

                      Mr Mm I uuirtf NLrug'f
                      t ,s !  nuintim' nt tl Pto^oLiiMn \peno
                      UtV> \rcis ^httr
                      Phiiidilphn.iH J(>nn
                      Itx 2
                                         i tht I>(.Ut Ptn^rAmnufit JiiJS OM M
                      1 mi Mibnnitsap tiict * nrnnutiN on bthali: "I Hv^ <'ifi *fns (
                      ^r ttsh K *s jjr*'yp"s ItH.tiud iti 24 UM! pi "Jut HIV vtth.'- tr*d \
                      f*i»)tthtr  h y Liiur inr!it.nt,it nt«4tt.* th,w ptottcts fhctr u>mnu
                      imit' aiu-tl nKtnbu^ UK! tight mtmixr gj'«ipi' lu^tl in Kuv
     *. Hu f HUH*! h i
    X ifiinn tittl \Vtvi
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-S42
Section A - Organizations

-------
              Our mwnhrrs live m Hw o,>."tihisMsv n«st to mouiif;«iitf*p rrmovdl iranes and vaifey tilta. l
              handed fctgcthcr to survive the daily onslaughts from these rmsaH"., outttw coa! fjpctAticms: BUstin
              pullute-d %-uter, ft'joita, dcsta tyvd w.ttrr supplies, landslides, monster c«&l ttitcfes, utwafc1 it^ds,
              (iimagird homes and property, disappe.irirsg forests, Bsh ami uild'iife, mtmocultun: economies,
              deteriorating public ssetvK-es and sinking prosperity values, And cormpt of spmt4»s public officials.
              Our members did nor vrjlunu^.r ?<•* havs-. their homes mid homelands Fmmfurmed inro a national
              sycriftco stone fur chc(tp t;ru*rg;y iirnl private profit and they Arc fighting back,

              Go>>d Ausopwes Dun't Bring Ikck the Dead or Prevent Future Deaths,
                      Adversely mipiKtsog 2-14 vertebrate wildlife specK^ in West Virginia alone,

              Overall, the scientific studies arc gi'«xl auK)p,sies that do inform the puWie and decision-makers of
              the death ind destruction caimx! by niounfcunhtp ttsnovai and valley till ciperatHHis. How^^r, the
              Nation-,*! Environmental Policy Act (NFJPA) te'jiUft-s and the emiits have long upheld that agencies
              CAn'f skate by their responsibilities with autopsies that describe harms in an etmromtnenbi! impact
              statement. The agencies must analj-w -;i range of acf-ions thai: will prevent and Ir.s-st.-fl Iwrm.

              r\ KhaiYi and a Shume

              Not .;«ie rif the alternatives mir th« DI/11S as a whe.sk; compik-s with the fetter or ?pa'H. of NHPA,
              Citixeiis Qtn re;sd di!igi.-ntlv for days smrching fora nwdle of action In tht^ SiMKi-pagt; HAV stack of
              words l?uf u'tll hftd rv.«thtng. 'Hie Jinalyses of the three grossly misnamed "action*1 ditcfjiafives
              contain nm cmy iictiott to prevent the cnorm^-njs enviremmefifeii d;imagt: so extensivcl)- tkcuaiented
              dsw«'hcre in the *twly. Stnpp«l of the nxk! wrmls and gf^^^srdvg-t K*k, tlteft- ahtmativt'rf ctMisisf
              *:tf weakening the esisting mies  ;wid sig»;*ling fht^c mining f >petvi»ons to chiitgt1 ahead and continue
              Hit. devvtj«c:itii>t j. ITnt "n* > acf^>n" aitcmativc ccmhtmcs the existing ikibrt' of the federal Mid state
              agtrnctt'S to tk'tiy permits ff *r damnging wfXT.^Hcins, ft > take effective enforcemen-t actions against
              thost: mute ispecvifevrs that tauge tiif. dw;isMfi( >n and to shut down those who persist.

              Ill*; D'KIS at ps^e ll.D-H dtrr-tjrt^ OIK: pamgniph fe,» thy alternativt- to prohibit vdftvay fills and
              ilistntsRis it; claiming thdt the C!e;tn \^'ater Act's -IM prrigram is notamedAisIc to being used fu
              prohihtt htls. Kc^itxilws ^*i any me-rits of that claim  •-• And wr hetit'Te them fc,j he cK,>se to xei1*1) — tht-
              Dli'IS ituth().t:s hare .feibd tu pfoduct: any cxamimttott *>f hmv ending fills And motmutntop ecmm*;*!
              cf twisting ajjpr^pnah*
              rt'gd;«i?in;! -.md the ;tdfj|>ri(.*ri ofm-y* or amended p<*ticies and regulations that waild be necessary to
              achieve the prohibit!'xi, '!"hi^ fcitkirc dnps with hypocrisy and is further evktefto?. of the IHWY hand
              of Dt|.Hity S^-crctiiiy Steven Grilt'S, iornu*t* o.vtl industry lobbyist, wh*,? ii^suted th-e cxml con>|"*anies
              the DMI^ wt>uW iK>t threaten tht'ir destaicfivc practices:
10-4-2
4-2
1-5
 13-3-4
*ll5iit c its Au^sf 4, "i(H>t-riist:r di*^ afef ^gtimg hb rwu&il     k**;r-hc gin-e a j5p*:«"Js. iK'fi.srt- the
West Virginia (x>a) AsS(Xiati*>a,    ft'sts^uriisg members that Ve will fis the federal rules very si^on
on \v-ater and spral placement' Two months later, Ci riles sent a letter n.) the UO;\ and (.*thw agencies
diufting the EIS, complairtktg that thef were not duting enough to saft-guard tlit- ftiture c«f
muuntuintf.ip removiil and msiructis'sg them to *k.tcus on t^itraHaing and streamlining coal mint
pcnTHtting/" ('*Dirty- Secret"* byChha Cjraj l>,n'id.son, Sepiembw/OcK^r 2003 issue of Morfiw
                                                                                                                                                  For iJie ;tittTnativcs HICT did choose, these siurtc. Hutfaors describe At length pr< jpi^ed cSfeus^s in
                                                                                                                                                  agency coordination practice's and policies atKi n^ikig hack, a major |>iv?tticriv<; re^u!atk*n such sis
                                                                                                                                                  S.MCIiiVs buffer xone pmtKction niic. Failure to c«i.pctui!y itnd professtonjtH}f analyze this prr,*tectk>n
                                                                                                                                                  sltemativs - one tl^t  axild rta*c«MWy result in the most environmtmtai pn'fecaiji-s for hogs snaths
                                                                                                                                                  of AppiiJ-achtan forests, streams and the tens of thc*osstnd
                                                                                                                                                  use  thtfffi - makes the entire DIKIS process ii islntm and a shameful waste of the public's trusf ;ttid tax
T'tanyy My t^ear, I IX»> C?tvc a Damn.* f the IDKliS make ntuch ado nbont ^'tt^hviiici-ng'" and shuftling "Gj.-nrdinAHati
processes1* amcmg the C)SM, Corps ot" Engineers and state min«^ agencies, "Co'iialmarUm
pfijct*sstsw aix' no substitute fi,>r action thiit pft've*its cnvtronnjentaJ dit'Stniction. Since its creation in
the Surface Mining Gmttoi aid lU*.cbmatioti --\ct *>f 1977, OSM has .hid tlic k-gal authority md
tTspon^'bility to enforce the law and prevent exlermve environmental damages like those d*^crit>t:d
in tiie DlilS, but Irom 1981 onward a Soii-g ^ivct'ssion of agency directors and Interior 8<lic works' pmjects and shady
t*&ntfnetors { liaU.ibufti.jft*s HM\ ^ugittgtn IKK.J only being thp-ro«ich ti) ctial mining i$m& hm be*?n "nobotij' here but us chickens," am! tbs amt-prsmd a,g«'«c>'
is IKHV known ;ij: the Envifi^nmental Po!Kiter*s ;\cm.

"Ilicse tatlufS'S c.i*rttM>i \x «^|>feiii5ed awyy hy poor inter -ttge-ncv oxjrdinaticsn, lack of coords* lotion, t*r
o>niftain.g ntfes. /Vgencj' leaders have ticked (he political will tx> tiike fcnfatt'ertienf acrions, reject
permit appliCAfioi^s* and can1)* out their respective Itwi?. Thtev don't: rare enouj$i ft> wrv^ t-hc public
We memhei'S of the public frankly don't givi* a dattin ^tsut tht muribcriand type of nufetings, kfttefi*
and o tusulfatsunst that agtaictes hold. We w-ant positive iH-fkm &> prevent this destruetHm ;ind wtiB
not accept afty ^ubstittite.

Ree<: «time*K'laf ions..

We ur|>c die ft\*e sj>jasciri.iig agencies - Corps of Engineers, MFA, l^ish &: Wildlife Service, ( Jt&c€ of
Surface ^fitting, and \X*«t V'i^mta Depitrtmenf of Environment!! P.rotect3oft  - fn issut a new DEES
that:

1, Includes the new Pixn*entive Alfem;itive as the pft-ferred nltemative. Thb new ;tlteroanv-e wcwki
logjcsillt- jfolJxw t"rc,>m the scientific studies ^iK^dy dom;  for this draft .*n.d wmtkl l;i)" exit a
                                                                                                                                     1-10
                                                                                                                                     1-8
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-543
                                                                   Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                                                                        John Jones, Alpha Natural Resources
            5- It'lb the frufit and respects the public, Rt'inm-es code wotds and ctiphemisms sue!) ,i*
            "m* ftjnhimtop mining" for mouiuainixjp removal, "hanwcimny; regulations" tor weakening and
            t< 'Hitug back the mirs, "confusion** alxK.it the stream buffet xotie fule in place of "we dorff and
            won't enforce; if."
                                                                                               1-8
                                                                                                                             Natural Resources
                                                                                John P. Jones
                                                                      Environmental CompHaitce Manager
                                                                             406 Wta Main Street
                                                                           Abingdon, Virginia 24210
                                                                            Phone: (276)619-4443
                                                                            jpjtmcs® alphanr. com
                                                                                                                                                                 January 6, 2004
                   Mf. John Forren
                   U.S. EPA (3EA30)
                   1650 Arch Street
                   Philadelphia, PA 19103
                   Ret Comments on the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                   Dear Mr. Borren:
                   On behalf of Alpha Natural Resources, LL.C (Alpha), I am submitting these comments resulting from
                   the review of the above referenced Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (MTM/VF
                   EIS) document.

                   Alpha is a privately held company formed in August 2002 and headquartered in Abingdon, Virginia. In
                   just a little more than a year. Alpha's affiliates have acquired coal mines and processing plants in
                   Virginia from subsidiaries of Pittstoit Coal Company; coal mines and processing plants in Kentucky,
                   Virginia and West Virginia from El Paso (Coastal); coal mines and processing plants in Colorado,
                   Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia from AMO and its subsidiaries; and recently acquired
                   coal mines and a processing plant in Pennsylvania from Mears Enterprises.

                   Alpha and its subsidiaries employ about 2,300 people, produce approximately twenty-two million tons
                   of steani and metallurgical coal and will sell approximately six million tons of third party coal
                   annually. Together, Alpha's subsidiaries make up the largest producer of coal in Virginia and the fifth
                   largest in the East.

                   Alpha's subsidiaries are active members of the Virginia Coal Association, the Kentucky Coal
                   Association, the West Virginia Coal Association, and several other similar coal industry- related
                   organizations.  We support and concur with the joint coal industry technical comments prepared by a
                   consortium of these professional organizations, which is being provided to EPA.
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-544
Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                                                                 Thomas Kelly, Catholic Conference of Kentucky
     Alpha, on behalf of its subsidiaries, would like to take this opportunity to go on the record in support

     of Action Alternative No. 3 and wishes to sutait the following comments:

        »  We strongly feel that the vast majority of surface mining operations should qualify for the

           Nationwide 21 (NW 21) Permit process, while generally only the very largest operations, with

           multiple large-volume valley fills and a potential for significant adverse impacts, would require
           Individual Permits (IP).

        *  The appropriate SMCRA enhancements should he made to allow for the SMRCA regulatory

           agency to take the lead role in a joint application type permitting process,

        «  To help clear up the quagmire that the 404 permit review process has become, all  future 404

           permit application reviews, whether IP or NW 21, should occur concurrently with the SMCRA

           permit review.

        •  Current mitigation requirements should be amended, through a multi-agency effort, to allow

           credits for remining, reclaiming areas mined prior to 1977 and left in an unreclaimed status

           (AMI.), and other innovative reclamation projects that result in wildlife habitat enhancement

           whether aquatic or terrestrial.

        •  Due to the current dire status of the surety industry, and the difficulty in obtaining surety bonds.

           the SMCRA required  bonds should be sufficient to cover mitigation activities,

        •  The Eastern Kentucky Stream Assessment Protocol has never undergone an adequate peer

           review, nor has  it followed the administrative procedure process.  The Protocol should be

           merely a recommended method of stream quality determination, and not a requirement, until

           such time as it can be  professionally reviewed, and the  public has had a chance to make

           comments upon its merit.


     Regardless of the final Alternative chosen, adverse impacts to the public, our aquatic and terrestrial

     resources, as well as to our mining industry should be minimized.  Thank you in advance for giving

     your favorable attention to our concerns.


     Respectfully submitted.
1-13
     John P. Jones

     Environmental Compliance Manager
A Statement by the Catholic Cnnfircncc of Kentucky m Menatata Top Removal

December 10,2002.

Dear Friends in Christ,    •'•','.                                    .  ,

We write you OB tie occasion of your ecumenical gttfieting for a "Prayer on the Mountain" to Lofcher
Counfir, Kentucky. Gar other obligations prevent us from traveling to the maintains to bo with you
today, but we send our prayers of support Sad words of eJjcouragentent.               ',     '.

We know from people ministering in A^pslachia aad media reports about the environmental and  '-
human devastation caused by the abiaive strip mine practice known as "mountain top removal," This '
practice! can damage the foundations of Homes and destroys the welts of people living in nearby
communities, tt dumps millions of tons of earth and rock into valleys raining springs and head waters
of creeks essential to the animal and plant life fcr mite downstream. It can destroy graveyards and
home places and alters eotmnnnities reverenced by generations of families who trace thelt ties to that
land. We understand IhatMcRoherts itself Iss suffered five devastating floods to 18 months, and many
other areas of Appahschia have laced similar destruction.

As we reflect on Sacred Scripture we believe that the eire of creation represents a spiritual set. We
remember fltttGdd finished, the work of creation and "toned It very good" (Gen. 1:31.) Then Clod put
humanity in the Garden of Eden, a symbol of the whole world, "to cultivate and care for it" (Gen,
2:15.) Gwtion reflects (Se beauty of God and hnminity becomes « co-g«rdener with God,

In addition, since the world belongs io til, deelsio&s about the world's m$ must be determined by a  ,
concern for the common good of the whole human family. l*ope John Paul II joining bis voice with a
growing chorus of eftieal people throughout the world proclaims fte rl^tt to a safe environment mast
eventually be iachiled fa *a updaJed.U.N. Charter of Human Rigtits. That yowTrayer on a
Mountain* lakes place on December 10, International Human Rights Day, symbolically connects the
respect for tbe earfli with the sroteetion of oar fanmsn community.

We pray fliat society will prsdttce its necessary goods and services  without destroying God's gift of
creation, Unfortunately, the practice of economics fiiequently exploits both the tad and the wortas in
« resh for quick 'profits. Society must reject the &(» dichotomy of jobs versus the enVtanajent and
creatively find ways allowing workij to earn (heir livelihoods while respecting cresltai. May God
shed blessings on you as yon pray for the fesforalfal of creation and the uplift of your eonununitiBs,   .

Yours in Christ Jesus,     ..

fThomas C. Kelty, O.P., Archbishop of IxrtsvUle  jjohit J. Mctaith, Bishop of Owensboro

t Roger 1. Foys, Bishop of Covington  Reverend Robert J, Niegberdiag, Lexington Administtttor

 The Cattalfe Cost&eoss of Kattusky is the flabfic policy sgeney of this state's four Roman C»Hio& Dl
                 this «t»t»m«it is lisa available on is CX3C. website - www.ccky.org
                                                                                                                          1-9
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-54S
                                                             Section A - Organizations

-------
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth
                                                                                                                                                              J-KLB1 rKfcWIUUKi
                   Kentuckians For The Commonwealth
                    P.O. Sox 1450
               January 6, 2003
London, Kentucky 40743
                                             Facsimile
606-878-1161
                                  .REC'D  JAN 0 6 21
               TO   Mr. John Fawn
                     US. Environmental Protection Agency (3ES30)
                     1650 Arch Street
                     Phitedelphta, PA 18103

               FK:   Kentuckians for the Commonwealth
                     Phone {806) 878 2181
                     Fax (606) 878 6714
               R£:   EIS PragrammatSe Draft Statement

               PP;   14 total
               Included am some individuate comments regarding the Mourttalntop Minin
               Fills in Appalaehi* Draft Praowmrnafie Environmental Impact Statement Some of
               these may bs copies.
                                                                                            Ms, Colleen Unroc
                                                                                            211 K.C East tt.
                                                                                            London, KY 40741
                                                                                            Mr. Johs Fatten
                                                                                            tTA BavfaapniMtd Protection Agency (3BSSO)
                                                                                            1650 Arch StrKt
                                                                                            Phfladdphia, PA 10103

                                                                                            Dear Mr. Fonsa,
                                                                                                                tREC'D JAN OS
                                                                                                                            i', which locatad in the coalfidds. I know people
                                                                                            whohavcbf.eadirealyaffectedby this type and other devasrating forms of coal mining, and I
                                                                                            find it horrendous lb?J the Bosh admilislratioE plans to coriiinue to let coal companies destroy
                                                                                            Appalachia wffli mining practices flat )»el maaaalBteps, wipe otjt fcnsss, bury streams, and
                                                                                                                                                                                                               1-9
                                                                                                   g to fee adjabrfstfitk^s draS Ea^iitsmisassl Is^jact StaleiMst fj^JS) on
                                                                                            removal coal mirang, the environmental effects of inottntaiiitop removal are ividtsprwd,
                                                                                            dsvMfaDng, and pOTaanent. Yet the draft EfSpoposes no restricaoas 02 the size of valley filis
                                                                                            tiatburystreams, no limits on the number of acres of forest shut can be destroyed, no
                                                                                            protsctiorB for imperiled wildlife, and BO safeguards for the communities of people feat dspefid
                                                                                            on tta region's natural icsourctsf or thtiiisdVEsar.dfomie generations, Thia is aiiaply
                                                                                            unacceptable.
                                                                                                                                                     t adatfaistralioa's
                                                                                                                                   problems caused by moantaintop removal coal mintog, which weakens cjdstingefl \dronirienu;!
                                                                                                                                   protections. The draft EfS proposes streamliruog the peimitting process, allowing moontaimop
                                                                                                                                   removal aadassodatcdvaUeyfflls to ctmdnae at afl accelerated rate. The draft EIS also
                                                                                                                                   soggesa&iajaivay witi a surface mining rale that mate it illegal for mirjing activities to
                                                                                                                                   disfuib areas within 100 feat of streams oclcss it can be proven that streams will r.ot be
                                                                                                                                   barccd- This "preferred alterative" ignores tte admirtistration's own srudics detailing tie
                                                                                                                                   dffvaslation caused by nMuataintop removal cod mirJng.

                                                                                                                                   Ths Bush administration's "preferred alternative" ignores these god hundreds of other scientific
                                                                                                                                   MctscontaicedintoeEISsnidies. In light of these facts, the Enshadmiaisaadon mast co.tsider
                                                                                                                                   measures to proteanarural resources and communities in Appalachia, such as restrictions on
                                                                                                                                   thesizeofvallcyfillstoreducethcdestructionofstrearns, forests, wildlife and cornmumtJes.
                                                                                                                                   Ultiirat^y, tit future of our enviioaffient, economy, and commvinities is a! stake. We need
                                                                                                                                   policies and regulan'ons that protKt our land and our people, while bolsmingsusKlinablc
                                                                                                                                   economic development and sustainable energy sources.

                                                                                                                                                                                      Sincewly,

                                                                                                                                                                                     Colleen Unroe
                                                                                                                                                                        1-5
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                  A-546
                                                                                                                   Section A - Organizations

-------
         01/86/04 Us 19  MX M« 878 5714
                                         Rabotlt Hensky, D.V.M

                                  1025 Crwkside Lane  Nichoiasvilk.KY 40356

                                              859 271-2920
                  19 August 2003
                  Mr. Iota Fontn
                  1650ArohSt
                  Dear Sic

                  I am opposed to the concept and practice of distuibing the mounttin top topography 10
                      'cffiricntty'^d'oMnoniicsIly" gain access to the coal scsmiflwrerado-. lias
                  certaialy is not for the adjacent enviroronsnt or ite inhabitants.;

                  Compounding thjsuncoo^iambietahmque is the disruption, if MtdMtructioo, of
                  contigcraiswsterways with the ovsrburdcn or spoil Tiis practice fliss in the face of
                  exisrinj laws which attempt to preserve, if not improvo,thi aster q-jality in these ucai
                  The proposed changiswoiidr^ce the 100 foot buffer 2DD«\vMcb attempts to protect
                  exisrir^ streams and iroaldexacerB^co^ditiom of many already degraded by minis?
                  In SIOT, we must not continue 4a history of abuse of these areas simply for additioM]
                  profit !tbfio!editt%ic^%tfli.i5rx5ssibiliry is being stolen from iis and all future jjerifirations.

I urge the EPA. to reject the EIS recommendations as & contradiction to flw evidence gathered
by its own reports.      .   .

Sincerely,
                                                                                                                                 Louise Chawla
                                                                                                                           1-5
                                                                                                                           1-9
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                 A-547
                                                            Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                         910 Sunset Road
                                                                Ann Arbor, Mlcfiigan 481(3
                                                                          Augustas, 2003
            I*. John Forren, US. EPA SiSSQ)
            1 050 Arcti Street
            Pr*K«pr«a, Pa 19103

            Dear Sir,
                                                ,                           ___________
            made for actian in response to EIS report regarding mixintaimopranicval mining arrt
            lamaaraduataofBereaCoaegaajidmymotriarwaaaKentuckian. ShawoUfl not only
            tesfiotted and dismayed (as lam also) at trie wreckage of hsrbaauKulsiata but wauid
            want ID prote^ the caviar way in i^tanttw curort administration is 'responding- to an BS
            report documenting 819 extreme damage occurring at tf» hands of the ooal eorripaflies in
            Kentucky.

            Your repent specifies weak and vague alternatives to correct tht confining irreveraiWa
            damaga bang done to mountein streams arxl teirain. Why?  Evidence in the raportdaarfy
            indicated a need for a mora speeiRe and prevents/a nsto for our government.

            It aS boiis down to whoJKw and lovas Kentucky most:

            Is !t the coal oompanias with their bSnd need  for profRs In a state frat can do without this
            KMofdesirudva coa! mining?

            is it Presktent Bus* who has alt^dy a torra track recciti of assaults against the emrironment
            to profit big buaanss?
1-5
            cipposing the confinuaidestrucfion of their stale for poStical gain?

            You answer.

            Sincarely yours,
                                        \
              cc
                       Mi. Eugene Mullins
                       Box 2370 Puncheon Rd.
                       Kite, KY 41828 •

                       Mr. Jobs Korrtn
                       U.S. EttvJKamental Pratecfioa Agency (3ES3<5
                       1650 Arch Str«i
Dear Mr. Fatten:

Hi vc la Knott Cooa^ In Bas^rn K£3tcueky 10 Eke coismimity of Poochfio^. CONSOL of Kentucky Ine. as
well as other Coal Companies las been mining in Puncheon for mote than five years now. Tat coal trucks
tunning up Kid down this small county road have destroyed the quality of life in this community.

Bat it's the valley fills from the strip mines that nearly washed out the mote than 20 homes that exist cm
Pur.dieon back in June of this year. I have lived on Puncheon for over fifty yeas and I nad never seeis the
o*»k flood at the head of Pancbasa Branch at the bridge in ftoat of my home-place, not during ft* Soods
of 1957 or of 1963. During the thunderstorm back is Jims of this year CONSOL's valley fill on permit
number 860-0390 dipped several hundred feet causing mud and rocks to fill As creek below. CONSOL's
valley fills pose a direct threat to the more than 20 homes that exist on Puncheon Road.

Valley fills like this exitt all over eastern Kentucky. Time mid gravity will cause them all to slip. Coal
Companies are not following the law when they build ihese valley fills. Each fill is suppose to consist of
eighty percent durable material. In my mind durable material is large rocks, cot dirt and shale. These
valley fills are also suppose to be compacted 10 certain specificaiocs.It is expensive to create a vaUoyfiU
properly. If the State and Federal Governments aren't going to force Coal Companies to create valley fills
properly then the Coal Companies will sue corners to save money and at the same tints endanger everyone
who lives Wow these time bombs. VaBey fiDs are routinely larger than they need to be because they are
improperly constructed. This is & danger to residents and destroys our stream!.

I know first hand the terrible impacts of monntiintop removal and valley fills. 1 also believe we can build
a better future for eastern Kentucky. We can have clean streams and a healthy forest and restore our
quality of life. We can create good jobs lor our people Oat don't wrack the eavtoninsat. And we have to
start down a different toad now.

Take a stand Enforce the law. Ban mountaintop removal and valley fills. Stop the coal industry from
destroying everything that we value most. Start making choices that will benefit our children and yours.
                                                                                                                  Sincerely,
                                                                                                                 17-1-2
                                                                                                                 13-2-2
                                                                                                                  Hugenr. Mullias
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-548
                                                                  Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                           01/08/04  11:19  FAX §08 878 8714
          August 18, 2003

          Mr. #ahn farren
          U.S. Environmental  Prottetien Agency (3ES303
          1650 Arch 3tre.it
                     a, PA. 11103
           Dear Mr. Forren:

           I  oppose say changes  that would weaken existing laws and regulations that
           protect ele&R wat«r.

           Uhs Draft Environmental S*aj»*et  St&teiwsut  on i&eroirtaintop removal and valley fills
           ignores the government's mm  science  and  economic studies,  the EXS rfteaassands
           "strtamiiniftg" the pajrmit process  to  ss&Jee it  esasiey for coal cos@)aa|es to lav«l
           our mountains, huey our streams, and  wre-ek our homeland,

           X  ojjpos« all thrM alt»r&4tiveg outlift&d  in th« dra£t EIS.  whll* this propottl
           may assist in providing ehe»|j en<*rfy  ea this  nation,  it is  ahort-sightad. Tha
           damage that results freia snQuntatiatojj  ramaval  is parauifiSRt.

           As the report shows/ more than  1,200  miles of headwater streams have already
           been isnriad or tiestr-oyad. TKouasanda! of acres  of forest iftnd, has be&n g«rm«nently
          •rise ftmejri&sa pecple that  live  in  this  area  have their lives and property
                  destroyed Ibeeauae of this mining metAiod,
1-10
1-5
          Th« negative
                               of sioanfeainfeop  rsuwval  arul vialley fills
                                                                            unace*$stabla
          I ajsjmse any changes that would weaken  existing  laws  and regulations that
          protect Clean watar. 1 also support aggresaive itttvironment o£ the peasent
          with severed prison t«cnt for thosa that violate the  law.

          Sincerely,

          Earl ft. «ilson
          1113 ». Francis &ve
          Clarksvilla, SM  41129
1-10
                                                               Attgl5,2003

Mr. John Foirea
U.S. EBvitManostiil Piotectioa Ageney OBS30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

DMT Mr. Forai:

AsaresideatofLexington, in eastern Kenmcky, I have watched the moimtaintop
removal controvcijy with great interest.  It s hard to believe the scale of destruction that
is going on with our beautiflil mountains. I have met with coalfif Id residents many times,
especially after lite coa; sluny disaster in Martin County, Kentucky, that vat caused by
! have talked with people whose water wells have been destroyed, whose foundations
havebcmcracksd, who hi"e had to sue coil companies for duit from preparation plants,
whose chi Idren go to ted at night with their clothss on when it iaiM, for fer of flooding.

It seems to me we are destroying the fiiturc economy of the region.  Clean water -will be
as important to furjre generations as oil is today. Ice water wars are coming, as has hnen
predicted by Fortune and other business magazines.  This is why we see multi-national
conglomerate corporations like RWE, Vivendi, sad Suez swallowing up American water
companies like American Water Woiks of Vorhis, HI. These big companies know that
ths potential profits are huge in the future for those with a monopoly on a reliable source
of clean w^ct.

We have clean water in abundance here in Appalachia, and It can be our future economic
salvation- Or we can stupidly hury our tnountain streams underneath mimng waste, and
contaminate our free -flowing Appalachian str=ams with blackwater spills acd toxic
nmoff from mounlaintop removal sites.

It shajd to believe that the Bush admiaistrition, which prides itsdf on being so indusQy-
friendly, cm be so short-sighted as to destroy, permanently, one at oar greatest economic
and naturaJ resources: clean water. Mere tnan 1,200 miles of our headwater streams have
been buried or destroyed by valley fills.
                                                                                                                                    But ihat s oidy the beg&gi&ig of tbe ecditomic s&i&Hty. Moimtamtop removal also
                                                                                                                                    destroys valuable hardwood forests, and has already had a negative impact on the timber
                                                                                                                                    industry in West Virginia. Almost"; percent of our forests have been -or will soon be -
                                                                                                                                    leveled by motmtaintop removal West Virginia Division of Forestry Director Bill Maiey
                                                                                                                                    quit his job in protest of mountaintop removal. That s jobs being lost!

                                                                                                                                    FlciodingmAppalachiirr. commimitics is mcreasingly common and severe. %Tio pays?
                                                                                                                                    FEMA — i.eThe taxpayer! And homeowners insurance goes up every time there is
                                                                                                                                    another disaster. The coal companies externalize their costs onto the public,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    1-9
MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
            A-549
                                                       Section A - Organizations

-------
                ltdoesn'thavetobernisway.Thsre arc laws on the books to protect dean water, public
                safety ami the environment. It is perfectly clear Oat mcuntiintop removal and valley fills
                are a violation of the fedoal Clean "Water Act ar.d the Surface Mining Control and
                Roclamstion Act These practices should be btaned. The coal industry must cot be
                allowed to destroy oar homeland.

                The draft Environmental Impect Statement on mOBntaintopiranoval and valley fill) is a
                dangerous gift from the Bush administration to the coal industry. Instead of
                recororjicnding ways to j-to^ fes destruction, the EIS proposes ways to make it easier for
                coal compam:s to level our rnounSins, bury oijTstrearns, and wreck our homeland. Tais
                is shameful and wrong.

                ! know first hand the terrible impacts of mouutainiopi=mova! and valley fills. I also
                beueve we can biuld a better future for eastern Kjmtucky. We can have clean streams and
                ahealthyforestandrestoreourquality of life. We can create good jobs for our people
                that dcE't wreck me environment. And we have to start down a different road now.

                Take a stand. Enforce the hw. Ban mountaintop rernoval and vallsy fills. Stop the coal
                inAistryfi-omdestroybgeverythingth.it we value most. Start making choices that will
                beaelit our childrea acd yours.

                Sincerely,
                David S. Cooper
                608 Allen Ct.
                Lexington KY 40505
1-10
1-9
                                         Mr.JohnFoircn
                                         U.S. Environmental Protecuoo Agency (3ES30)
                                         1650 Arch Saett
De«r Mr. Foiten:

I live in Har Ian County, Kentucky at the headwaters of the Cumberland River. We have had
ntaily a hundred y care of coal mining in our community. We have very littls dean water. We
once had plenty.

The draft environmental impact statement an rnountaintop removal published recently by the
BiishadTninistrationisas!apintJisfaceofevcrycinewhoneedswatertosutvivc. It is a
malicious, poisonous, shoitaighled, misanthropic, hatefol, greedy, aati-democratic document.

Ipnsy that the people who put it before the public will live long enough TO see the errors of their
ways and correct them.  I pray that ths people who wrote this document OTVKT have to drcnk the
greasy blackvratti that comas out of the spigots of people in rhs American coalfield;. Iprayiaa;
they never have to pull thsir sleepirjg children oat of a home flooded m a result of rain on poorly
reclaimed strip jobs.

M; message to President Bush and all the formulators and enforcers at tit self-serving, callous,
cynical, dangerous energy policy b this: I support none of the proposed alternatives in your
environmental impact statenient. Enforce SMCRA the way it was written. Enforce the Clean
Water Act the way it was wrinen.

Good people don.ihsve to get side aid die just so this country can have electricity. We can do
better.  Pursue alternatives.

Hosted officials are supposed to look oat for the interests of all the people—not just their
fraternity brothers, family friends, and corporate cronies, Quit acting like gangsters and start
acting like statesmen. Or pursue anotherlineof tvcrk-

RobertGipe
PO Box 1394
                                                                                                                                 1-9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           1-5
MTM/VF Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
                    A-550
                                                              Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                      John Barren
       August 15,2003

       Mr. John Forren
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2ES30)
       1656 Arch Street
       Philadelphia, PA 19103

       Dear Mr. Forrcn:

       I am writing to express my outrage and  disappointment in the Draft
       Environmental Impact Statement OB mountaintop removal and valley fills.
       This document is an affront to intelligent people.  It ignores the government s
       own science and  economic studies.  Instead of finding ways  to stop the
       destruction, the 135 recommends streamlining  the permit process to make it
       easier for coal companies to level onr mountains, bury our streams and wreck
       our homeland.

       I oppose all three alternatives outlined in the draft EIS. None of these options
       will protect our water or shape a better for Kentucky. Instead of these weak
       alternatives, the federal government should ban the use of mountaintop
       removal and valley fills forever. It is time to fully enforce existing laws designed
       to protect dean water and the environment.

       I oppose any changes that would weaken existing laws and regulations that
       protect  clean water.  Do not eliminate the stream buffer zone rale (30  CFR
       816.57), a regulation that prohibits mining within 100 feet of streams. This rule
       should be strictly enforced for valley fills and in all other cases.  Likewise, do
       not make ft easier for coal companies to seek and obtain permits for valley fills.
        These proposals are dangerous to the coal  industry and should be rejected.

       Growing up in eastern Kentucky, I know full wen the damage that results from
       strip mining and mountaintop removal. Thousands of residents have seen good
       clean water go bad.  Floods have devastated homes and families. Habitat is
       forever  destroyed for much of our wild game once mountaintop removal and
       valley fills occur. Again, please reject these proposals.

       Sincerely,
1-5
1-10
                       leSQArch Street
                       Philadelphia, PA 19103
pear Mr. ftjrren:

I oppose mountaintop removal and valley fills and any change In the buffer zone rule.  I
am disappointed and angry that the Mere) government ignored its own studies when it
proposed weakening, rattw ten strengthening, protection for people and the
environment Scientific studies document the v/idespread and irreversble damage tha
coal Industry is doing to our state and region. Mountain top removal Ignores the
public's demand for dean water, healthy environment and safe communities.

Please accept the wisdom of those who live In these areas and the sdenttflc studies that
support these correct insights. How many coal company CEO's live in Hartan County,
Kentucky?

Thank you for considering the good of the people In the coal irons

Sincerely,

GayleBrabec
1707 New Orleans a
Lexington, KY 40505

Cc: President Bush
                                                                                                  1-9


                                                                                                  1-10
       Dr. Roger C. Noe, Professor
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
          A-551
                                                       Section A - Organizations

-------
Kevin Knobloch, Union of Concerned Scientists
                       Union of Concerned Scientists
                       Olizera atKt scientists fw £ro»if0nmefWal Soiutlom
                January 6, 2004
                 Mr. John Fasten
                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 1650 Arch Street
                 Philadelphia. PA 19103
                 Re: Draft programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on mountalntop coal
                 mining and associated valley fills In Appatachla
                       Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on behalf of the Union of
                 Concerned Scientists (UCS) on the Draft programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
                 (draft EIS) on mountaintop coal raining and associated valley fills in Appaiaehta.
                 Established in 1969, UCS is an independent nonprofit alliance of 65.000 committed
                 citizens and leading scientists across the country. We augment rigorous scientific analysts
                 with innovative thinking and committed citizen advocacy to build a cleaner, healthier
                 environment and a safer world. The UCS Clean Energy Program focuses on developing a
                 sustainable energy system—one that is affordable, uses non-depletable resources, and
                 does not degrade natural systems or public health.

                       While UCS appreciates the considerable interaf eney effort that went in to
                 developing the draft EiS, we must express our alarm in tJte Agency's decision to exclude
                 consideration of any alternatives for more strict limits on mountaintop mining and valley
                 fill, and instead largely ignore sound science by supporting a "preferred alternative" that
                 weakens existing environmental protections, and ultimately eases the permitting process
                 for coal mining companies.

                       There is strong empirical evidence in the over 30 technical studies conducted in
                 association with the draft HIS that indicate the pervasive and permanent impact to the
                 environment, and to the public health and culture of communities near mountainlop
                 mining and valley fill operations. For example, the data show that over one thousand
                 miles of headwater streams have been destroyed or degraded, including 724 miles of
                 streams that have been buried  forever under huge  piles of waste. The report also states
                 that it is difficult if not impossible to reconstruct free flowing streams on or adjacent to
                 mined sites. Current reclamation efforts are simply converting what had been biologically
                 diverse native hardwood forested mountaintops to grassland plateaus. Downstream of
                 raotmtaintop removal operations, stream chemistry monitoring efforts show significant

                 www.ucsosa.0fg  Two Bf««ie Square - Cambridge, MA 02230-9105 - TEL: 617,547.555:! • **xi 617.364.9605
                            1707 w Street, sw - Suite 600 • WasWngtM, oe joeo6-:39&s - m; 262.223.6133 - rAX; 263.aa3^*&2
                           I 2397 Stemotk Avetsue > Syite 203 - Berkeley, c* 94704-1567 • ret: 510.843.1872 - FA*: 510.843.3785
1-10
                                                                   jammcy 6, 2504
                                                                          Page 2

increases in conductivity, hardness, sulfate, tnd selenium, which is highly toxic to aquatic
life at relatively tow concentrations.

       Despite the considerable evidence of the environmental and social harm caused
by mountaintop removal, the draft HIS does not include any meaningful actions for
reducing its impact. There is no consideration for restrictions on the size of valley Tills,
nor arc there any limits proposed on the number of acres of forest and other ecosystems
that can be destroyed. There is also no consideration of new safeguards for the
communities of people that value and depend on the region's ecological heritage.

       Accordiag to the economic analysis prepared for the draft EIS in 2001 by Hill &
Associates, even the rnost severe restriction on valley fills studied in their report (a 35-
acre limit on the size of valley fills) would not cause serious economic harm. The report
found that a 35-acre valley fill limit would raise the price of coal by ortly $ 1 per ton and
would have virtually no impact on the cost of electricity. A separate BPA draft study
from April 2002 concluded that the 35-acre restriction would have very little average
annual impact on statewide employment (less than 0.3% of total year 2000 employment)
in Kentucky and West Virginia.

       Rather than  focusing on alternatives that strengthen restrictions on mountaintop
removal and valley  fill, the Agency's "preferred alternative" is to weaken existing
environmental laws, and streamline the permitting process by shifting approval and
administrative responsibilities among government agencies. The environmental and
economic studies prepared for the draft BIS do not lend sufficient evidence to warrant
support for this proposed "preferred alternative" as a means for limiting the impact of
mountaintop coal mining.

       The preliminary version of the draft HIS considered several alternatives that
would limit the size of aiountaintop removal valley fills, These alternatives represented
more effective strategies for redticing the widespread impacts of mountainlop mining.
They also more appropriately reflected the cumulative impact study that analyzed the
effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems of several different scenarios for future
mooMaintop removal mining. Yet, all alternatives for restrictions on valley fills were
excluded in the draft EIS finally released. We urge the  EPA to include these alternatives
in the final EIS.

       These alternatives should be considered for their own environmental merits. In
addition, we note that the administration has ten increasingly  advocating the use of
advanced coal technologies, in conjunction with carbon sequestration, as a potential
carbon-free resource for electricity and hydrogen production. In this context, coal will
compete with other  carbon-free alternatives, such as the increased use of wind, solar and
other renewable energy resources. To tbe extent the administration hopes to win support
from the environmental community and public for advanced coal technologies as a
potential climate solution, it is critical that the administration require progress in reducing
the upstream environmental impacts of coal mining, to place coal on a more level playing
field with renewable alternatives over the life cycle of these resources. Permitting hidden
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1-5
1-7
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-552
                                                           Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                                                                               Steve Krichbaum, Wild Virginia
                                                                             Junory 6, 2004
                                                                                    Page 3

               subsidies lor coal by way of allowing Increased upstream impacts and external
               environmental costs can only diminish the likelihood of public support for advanced coal
               technologies.

               We thank you for the opportunity to comment, and respectfully request the HP A to
               consider the recommendations proposed above.

                                                          Respectfully submitted,

                                                                Hsll

                                                          Kevin Knobloch
                                                          President
                                                          Union of Concerned Scientists
                     	Forwarded by David RktefRMJSEPA/US on 01/08/2004 11:39 AM	
                                 Steve Krichbaum
                                 
                                             cc:
                                 01/06/200403:37
                                 PM
To:   R3 MountaintopQKPA

Subject:  DEIS Comments
                                                                                                                               Wild Virginia
                                                                                                                               P.O. Box 1891
                                                                                                                               Charlottesville. VA 22903 phone: 4344)71-1553

                                                                                                                               Mr. John Forren
                                                                                                                               U.S. liPA (3HA30)
                                                                                                                               1650 Arch St.
                                                                                                                               Philadelphia, PA 19103
                                                                                                                               mountainlop.r3(<»epa.g0v

                                                                                                                               Dear Mr. Forfen:

                                                                                                                               Moantaintop removal mining is a highly destructive practice where entire

                                                                                                                               moumaintops are blasted away to reach thin seams of coal underneath,
                                                                                                                               and millions of tons of rock and soil are dumped into adjacent valleys.
                                                                                                                               The practice destroys forests, leaves a barren landscape, and buries the

                                                                                                                               headwater streams, which are essential to maintaining healthy, dynamic
                                                                                                                               river systems.

                                                                                                                               This DEIS does not achieve the fundamental purpose of its preparation:
                                                                                                                               _to minitnr/e, to the maximum extent practicable, the adverse
                                                                                                                               environmental effects... by mountaintop mining operations^, (see 64 f^R
                                                                                                                               5778). By so doing, this document additionally violates the settlement
                                                                                                                               agreement of Bragg v. Robertson. Nor does this DEIS comply with the
                                                                                                                               fundamental purposes of the NEPA (see 42 USC 4321).

                                                                                                                               The mountains and streams of the analysis* area are vitally important
                                                                                                                               habitat for numerous species and populations of amphibians, reptiles,
                                                                                                                               mammals, birds, moilusks, annelids, arthropods and other invertebrates.
                                                                                                                               Severe direct, indirect, and cumulative harmful impacts to these
                                                                                                                               populations are ignored or discounted in the DEIS.
                                                                                       1-9
                                                                                      4-2
                                                                                       9-2-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-553
                            Section A - Organizations

-------
             The examined alternatives do NOT ..enhance environmental protection., or
             minimize ihe adverse effects from MTM/VI:._ (BS-4) Instead, the EIS
             process here has been obviously result-driven  and politicized so a? to
             flagrantly facilitate the permitting of more MTM/VF operations (through
             so-called Jmprovcd efficiency {and! collaboration.). See ..Preferred
             Alternative_. The bureaucratic wheel-greasing on view here ignores clear
             harms and does not meaningfully protect the public or our environment
             from the avoidable adverse impacts of MTM/VF. Instead of protecting us
             and improving the present destructive situation, the preferred so-called

             ..improved regulatory process., would foreseeabty result in even more
             destruction of streams, valleys, flora, fauna, and human quality of life

             in the Central Appalachians.

             The range of the alternatives examined  in detail is improperly limited.
             Such constricted consideration does not _raore thoroughly address impacts
             to our environment.., nor does it _better inform the pnblic_ and ..provide
             more meaningful participation.. (ES-10). To claim otherwise (as the ES
             does) is clearly unreasonable.

             To comply with the NEPA and provide a legal basis for well-informed and
             well-reasoned decision-making, other alternatives need to be examined in

             detail. Our environmental laws require, and the citizens of the region
             deserve, a full evaluation of ways lo reduce the unacceptable impacts of

             mountaintop mining. The agency needs to abandon the "preferred
             alternative" and to reevaluate a full range of options that will
             minimize the enormous environmental and economic damage caused by
             mouniainiop mining and valley tills.

             Alternatives need to be considered in detail that:
             Prohibit the use of valley fills.
             Label all of the region_s streams as _high value_.
             Set an upper limit on the percentage, number and/or length of streams
             allowed  to be impacted.
             Restricting the size of fills to 35 acres, 14 acres (the median size of
             intermittent streams), or less.
             Restricting fills to certain types of streams (e.g., ephemeral).

             There is enough ..science., to clearly indicate that burying streams under
             ton of waste and rubble is irreversibly and/or significantly harmful to
             biota, water quality, hydrology, or beneficial uses. The DEIS ignores
             various direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.
4-2
4-2
1-7
According to the EIS Steering Committee, no scientific basis could he
established for arriving at an environmentally ..acceptable., amount of
stream loss and it is _difflcult if not impossible to reconstruct free
flowing streams on or adjacent to mined sites,

It is claimed that Jbjetter stream protection from direct and indirect
effects would result, from the examined alternatives (ES-9). This is a
blatant falsehood. Discarding the 100-foot buffer zone rule is proposed.

The rule would be _clarified_ out of existence by saying it does not
apply to MTR/VFs, Doing this is NOT an ^operation}] designed to avoid
and minimiM adverse effects_ (id.) This is perhaps the quintessential
impropriety that exposes the fundamental insufficiency of the examined
alternatives.

Economic studies show that even the strictest size limits would have
minimal impact on jobs, the economy, and electricity prices.

Instead of putting a halt lo stream degradation and the on-going
violations of the CWA that MTM/VP entails, the preferred alternative
would exacerbate and perpetuate this illegal non-compliance. In other
words, it is proposed to give even more discretion (through ..enhanced
coordination, of regulatory schemes) to Ihe agencies (OSM and COE) that
have miserably failed to protect aquatic and terrestrial habitat and
biota as well as human communities and water in the past

It is even proposed to come up with a manual for the _replacement of
aquatic resources... Aquatic ..resources., need to be protected, NOT
replaced (with who knows what).

It is projected that mining operations would eliminate almost 1% of the
Appalachian forests (2200 square miles) by 2012. Around 1200 miles of
streams have already been damaged by _valley fiUs_: over 700 miles have
already been buried. And these are probably gross underestimations as
smaller headwater streams not on topo maps were ignored. Without
additional restrictions, MTR mining would destroy an additional 600
square miles of land and 1000 miles of streams in the next decade. Such
vast destruction  is unconscionable, indefensible, illegal, and
unnecessary.

The total of past, present and estimated future forest loss from MTR/VF
is over 1.4 million acres. Such forest louses in West Virginia alone
have the potential of directly impacting as many as 244 vertebrate
wildlife species.
                                                                                                                            1-10
                                                                                                                           1-7
                                                                                                                           5-7-3
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                               A-554
                                                              Section A - Organizations

-------
                   Even if hardwood forests can he reestablished in mined areas, which is
                   tmproven and unlikely, there will be a drastically different ecosystem
                   from pre-mining forest conditions for generations, if not thousands of
                   years. The mitigation described and promoted in the DEIS does little to
                   meaningfully address this loss.

                   It is even proposed to continue Jnformal consultation, regarding
                   compliance with (he ESA. This is preposterous, and illegal, on its face.

                   For evaluating actions as significant as MTM/VF, full compliance demands

                   thorough JhrniaL consultation. Instead of positively addressing the
                   significant issue of T&K (and proposed) species, again the desire is
                   simply to _stream!ine_ the process, with the foreseeable result being
                   less consideration of and protection of HSA listed species and
                   populations.

                   It is proposed to use some vaguely defined _best-science^ and
                   ^science-based methods_ to determine some even more vaguely defined
                   _high quality aquatic populations_ and Jiigh-functioning streams... Such
                   equivocations arc not the clear disclosure required by law, in addition
                   to being  loopholes enough to aid and abet significant, destruction and
                   degradation. They fatally expose the illegality of the disclosure and
                   decision-making.

                   We opposed to mountain top-removal mining and valley fills. These
                   practices bury important headwater streams, destroy biologically rich
                   forest ecosystems, damage drinking-water sources used by millions of
                   people, cause frequent and severe flooding, and wreck the quality of
                   life in Appalachian communities,  leveling mountains and burying streams
                   is wrong and must stop. A reading of the CW A and SMCR A clearly shows
                   that the government is not only allowed, it is required to prohibit
                   MTR/VF.

                   We welcome scientific studios that document the widespread and
                   irreversible damage the coal industry is doing to Appalachia. Yet this
                   KfS rejects^ without meaningful eonsideratk>ti_speeitte restrictions on
                   the use of valley fills. These restrictions could he based on size of
                   the fill, cumulative impacts, types of streams affected, or value of the

                   aquatic and terrestrial resources in the region.

                   We are opposed to any changes that would weaken the laws and regulations

                   that protect clean water. In particular, we oppose the proposal to
                   eliminate the stream buffer-zone rule that  prohibits mining activity
8-1-1
1-9
 1-10
within 100 feet of streams. This ttile ^hould he strictly enforced for
valley tills and in all other cases.

We do not support Alternative 1,2. or 3 as described in the DEIS
report. None of these options will adequately protect Appalachian
forests, wildlife, water, or communities.

We are opposed to any changes that would weaken the laws and regulations

that protect our rivers and streams from the effects of moumaintop
mining and valley fills. As a result, we are opposed 10 each of the
action alternatives evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.

The DEIS contains indisputable evidence of the devastating and
irreversible environmental harm caused by mountainiop mining. Other
agency studies also show that mountaintop mining contributes to flooding

disasters in mountain communities. Unfortunately, each of the
alternatives in the draft EIS ignores various findings of these studies
and the very purpose of the BIS -  to find ways to minimize, to the
maximum extent practical, the environmental consequences of mountaintop
mining. The "preferred alternative" would dearly increase the damage from
mountaintop mining by eliminating the current limit on using nationwide
permits to approve valley fills in West Virginia that arc larger than
250 acres, and giving the Office of Surface Mining a significant new
role in Clean Water Act permitting for mountaintop mining (a role it
does not have under current law). These actions would clearly result in
increased environmental harm. Mountain removal mining, destroys the scenic beauty of the
Central Appalachians, which in turns significantly harms local and regional
economies. Our environmental taws require, and the citizens of the region deserve,
a full evaluation of ways to reduce the unacceptable impacts of
mounttintop mining. I urge you to abandon the "preferred alternative"
and to reevaluate a full range of options that will minimize the
enormous environmental  and economic damage caused by mountaintop mining
and valley fills.

These comments are submitted for the organization as well as for the
writer personally. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Steven Krtchbattm
Wild Virginia Conservation Director
412 Carter Street
Slaunton, VA 24401 phone: 340-886-1584
January 6. 2004
                                                                                                                              1-10

                                                                                                                              1-5


                                                                                                                              1-10
                                                                                                                              1-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                      A-555
                                                                  Section A - Organizations

-------
Frances Lamberts, League of Women Voters of Tennessee
        W'
        i trnJaf
                          ..
                   Tlte League of Women.Voters  6f Tennessee.
                   ^Frances £&m&erts, Waturaffysources Cfcttir, iig ^.id^e £m&> J
                                                                                                                                   • the Leagued conchisions redrawn from the mainstream' science research, mostly published itt '
                                                                                                                                    _ nseareh expertise agotaed in fte:fiS'.efct, ttt IwSoaive Smaiaiy fer 'Appendix D (fat 3}~
                                                                                                                                   • . acju&tic ecosystem asscSsiiieirt-"Stala$' -  "  ' '   '•'',•,     *    "  ". ; '. ,   ''      . •   '
          . Mr. l
           U.S1
          ' 1650 AKib Street
          '
              ir Mr. Formt
                                           Re:  PrograsnmaMc DEIS: EPA 9-03-R-00013
           Tfe S?Howing ststemarts fltan Uie Le^ie of WtammVoteaofTfttiiiess^
           propos^ for m!w regulation ^i Kteataintep Miim^g and VsBesy jfiDs (MTMA^TO, Tbe pKipossd
           regulatory framework fbr moustaiatop mimfig involves & type of MTM permitted or applied for is
           Teoaessee and the DEIS indicates planned expaasioa of MTM/W ia our state.

           Hie League coanneads the agssscl^ fbr imdertaksig as EIS process 1st response to Accumulating
           e\nd^c5 of harm, to w^tr^wldSife species and other natiird asserts. Within the la^ two decades
           (c£. DEIS J
           acres affected teach, kitej the tliotisaads p
                                                                                                                                       '•'. companiK. Ttc ...U.S.EPAOE5ccrfRes«irchaEdDe\-2!opm3ntasss;rabled[aie]-
                                                                                  ,
                                          injaettidMid 724 stream mttarbriirf (ES-3 ^, Tte*evaflyirf!«(fflds'*)*i«ims'i8«vi&««"
                                          ten ApfiattgtiijJiffiry studies,1 1S4itttc!f-%ioit«9SsAppaEiS>tO(p. Sl),SotES flat ,  .  ;
.  Cunent rmrAg and reclarmn'oa practices ream tasigmticant advers
.  frjt and SKOrdotdtr stream ecosysKms. At all foui sites cv'illuated, \yaterslieii and
                                       '
                                          In Part 2 ^AppeaSst D;J.'yUjpera£D.S. H?A and J. Stwfflsr rfPwosylvaiia
                                          npoit  .'..  ''  ,.-     '.-•''   •;.;  ':'.  "••'..  .' "".;   .,.-'"•
                                             '.••.-'.'•   '  ''•'...    . -' '•  !•  - .    .' -  '   •   • •    ,   '    .-
                                           '.   •  Total mimbCT of fish !^;es and l^nfrjc species [arc| dramatically Imvtriri mined
                                                                                           .»te
                                                                                    la^»^^                .
                                                                           -5-6-2'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     6-1-2
 MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                  A-556
                                                      Section A - Organizations

-------
               Programmatic DEIS, page 3
                                                                                                                                        Programcnatic DEIS, page 4 .
               summarized a**3 Inchtded in fee same Appendix; famft &a streams associated wife active or
               iniiing cfflitaminated \vrth soiiitioit loads and the •'         .
                                               j       -  •    •    t  ., ,       .
                     • beiithic macro mvctlcbratt'commiiniti« at a3 the test sites .., severely bnpaiiwi, [the
                      impairmiEt] expressed ihiough a decicase in diversit}-, & wtesHoa at [even] absence
                      ofpofatewensltivB^Mdes.  and an iicreast in poHnliori-toleiant spec:«

               Headwater atteamsaMcriBegnytnipoi^iloWAsgicalhralth of BcavingMtairils,  Rate, even
               petemwil swam* begin h very umall wswstafe ofa-metfaa 41 sow or less (IMS, fiS-4) and, in
               Appalachia, originate on stotp nwuntain stops. ,\iTMAT opsrations should therefore be
               sxpecied to crratesubslaritialnskpotaitial for rmoffaadsedirnmt and other pollution in
               water sheds in te terrain as iidorf the prcpoEderaare of research invcstigatiorissl!ovv

               Tbs riyor systems flat traverse the area bejrg coraidBed &t expanded MTM/VF ndftiag in
                or hare unique scenic or biological assets in oilier segments (as the Obed and Clinch-Powell
                fivas). We«Msi*rM1WVJPjBjij^!ttfe«««Ae^rffte»iiTOtoasate^iiiflaBt
                addldagtf ig^e^Haa^g to rastafiag sijater quality ^id adtjhjaaal*pi!&' f^g^nt rocess medjatk^i of "ofttesolved ^A issues"
                gjaia^ulai^ or sti^jgfliciiii^ ^b^ c^tfffli^OQ eMly oa Md feoa^KMjt ^lo'evaluatioti-decistoa
                prc«iss, to asaire that specbs-irnpactisSaes do not arise. We aje opposed to any rcdjjcti,Qa-fif the
5-6-2
 1-10.
                                     4  Harm to the forest resources

                                     He k»nj«ood'fejest en mtwrtain sieges, m fte QantelaEd as                       ,
                                     TenaMiw't mea finp attwt eeonemki and nattrd asM. Tley dtfrn tat regloa, its historyaad
                                     atltee
oMaas M and the ajtotairto agenpes attempt to route as what "soojuis g«xf about
Tennessee.           .   "
                                     We
                                                                                                          and
                                     potentially irjwetsible wajs by MIWVF nUiig. • S

                                     *   One,Mi*ttmmfc»wN^cn«iS
                                        • do not ftsstahliA tiitafidvis to thdi pre-l^giBg diwmly and rictaess, even wffljiialjmidred
                                        layer1 ha* pot ton fua& to tjetasniabte to fMotaafaattont

                                        fcrest teohmattai fljroBgk jwed to assste mt& U^it sdl etjifitjastioB, postauniaatopeveift
                                        s™*,««*—J1~J*^~--«~^---r)eMlratloriki«%e«arjde«ctSwr8      '  *
                                                                       .  As tfceDSS makes dear (DI.B-9J,
                                           evea wljen tte gxss^ mtaingl ieclama£ioa p&n caSii for tije pttmtttig cf toes, excessive
                                           comi«tf(» of to tooflng maanm, wMd swerdy wtew «« grawtt is fht nonn
                                        Fourft, m Umrent obttede is need fcr expedMoSs, gfjiss^ps wpWioB eover to prevent
                                                           . ». Tteresult.it
   ^y<*t' *> ««< wiB l» heviaMe dimMstrna* and ft^maaMkn of «r rtnainiag, native
   kidwooil ferest, at least fertile lifetimes of several generations of TeraessWBj.
                                                           / iffl Apps&B (S. N. Ktedel« M,, JtMfett* Wwsay) Aows the
                                                           )O5o*mflattar«4rffiar4VT5*FVfflhBg. BsTWiteSof
                                     woody species ftress and AMU) imieMaried at tmdistnrtel fcceat asdmtoeil-ftreat sites shows the
                                     TTis ftoner site*, iniMetnw, jeaatste tto trees we ftmlliarly;ass«4itewMiAppaladiiaafi)re«t,SBch
                                     asthehickoriesaDdoaks,hemlcffikandFraserm?^dia1andsugarrrBp!e, and the vines, small trees
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         7-5-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-557
                                                             Section A - Organizations

-------
-n

O

3
:*

Tl
m

U)

T)
c
2
o"

O
o
3


CD

*-*•

O
o

T3
CD
3
Q.
c"
            'i-5
  .8
     !B-B*.g
      Ifil
  *ii
  fi S *** *
3~-iMi
i- rtfirs!
        r*.8
  .tip
 • alta;
                         : ~ " p*»-3

                         rf.S8i
 t|5- •    sill f's1  ll!'!llfIP
•sltf     -Ulli ss  asi-Iilrilg-
                    15- 15
                                       •e   f'
                                       -f.  *
                              ,11  II
                              .1**
                              [S>P
                              •|2
                              • I**
                              is
                                         till
                                          1. «'!
                                                           B.S
                         I-BB-ftj
                         •til it
I
8
                                          t
                                                             .',00'
S?
o"
O
a
Q>
§"
05
                          s:a
        u>
        1
        K>
                           VO
                            J

                           K>
                                                                K)

-------
                                                                                                                                                                                     MegMaguire, Scenic America
                     DEIS, page -7
          •6. Recommendations
          sdvorse 2nd severe impacts on ttis tetuii rraolirccs and, therefcrc, on o:ir economic health in fiie  -
          lOT^eru-mi. We beiievetto the curpjnt>n^]irtoryfiTimevvoric should be strengthtned. However, .
          cxiiKsoliditiai of permitting prc<^urss as eimsioned m the propos^ alternatives aadcUminati
          so;ne cun-ent provisions such as the SPZ rale in Ita vi^e of OTBOlidarion will not achieve
         "
        -  SecUon 40! certificatic^ tie states' regulatory authority shauld continue-to be upheld.  .

          States' authority to derrj- vn!li\' fills in rnountainScp mining operations should be upheld.

       .  . Beero of their iBa^Hte-speefflccr^^
          approved under the indiwdoal rather than the gmcral-pcrrrut review process.    :
                &QB sts&darft sbo&M reinai&.i£iE&ci.
          Fiu^ evi-Juative participation and coiKultalive authoritv- of itatc and fc        .    .,••,           .
          Opportunity for public participatton.tn permit dccbions involving MTM/VF activities should not
          be abridged. Public hearings on trie Draft EIS should be conducted in all the four states to wluct .
          the resaftaEt. regulations would apply.  '  '•',"•    ..•..-         - •-••'    •    '  -

          The scJEntific irfonnatiou ouMTM'VF nuning shoddbe iuUyCTa-%oled and-ail iajplicaticiiS'Of its .
         '                                     v- guidanre. Trns is demanded by botn tle^ro^      '
          inakingtriat protects tie pubhc interest in proper mans^cment of oirrnatural-raources assets.
         . PC' '
1-9

1-10
                                                                                         1-8
                                                                                                                                      Scenic  America
Mr. John Forren
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

       :.Fctrec:
                                               On behalf of ihe Board of Scenic America, I am writing to urge the Bush Administration
                                         to stop ttOUBtoJiirtop twnovid by wat companies. This practice wiU destroy AppahcMa's scemc
                                         bMBty, will wipe oat fcrests and flie critical habitat they contain, bury streams, and threaten
                                         communities.

                                               According to the Administration's draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on
                                         moimtaintop removal cod mining, the environmental effects of mountain top removal are
                                         widespread, devastating, and permanent Yet the draft EB proposes BO restrictions on the size of
                                         valley fill* that bury streams, no limits on the rnanber of acres of forest that can be destroyed, no
                                         protections for imperiled wildlife, and no safeguards for the communities of people that depend
                                         on the region's natural resources for themselves and future generations.

                                               The Administration's "preferred alternative11 for addressing the problems eattsed by
                                         moimtaintop removal coal mining is to weaken existing environmental protections. This
                                         "preferred alternative" ignores the administration's own studies detailing the devastation caused
                                         by mountaintop removal coal milling, including:

                                         •     over 1200 miles of streams have been damaged or destroyed by mountain top removal;

                                         •     forest losses in West Virginia have the potential of directly impacting as many as 244
                                               vertebrate wildlife species;

                                               Without new limits OB mountaintop removal, an additional 350 square miles of
                                         mountains, streams, and forests will be flattened and destroyed by mountaintop removal mining.
                                         In light of these t^cts, we wge you to consider alternatives that reduce A® eavHtmrneBtal
                                         impacts, including the scenic impacts, of moanteintop removal Hunk you for your consideration
                                         of this important issue.

                                                                                    Sincerely yours,
                                                                                                                                      301 ?3nmylv*n& Avev,
                                                                                                                                      Suit* 800
                                                                                                                                             l, DC 20068
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       1-9
                                                                                    1-5
                                                                                                                    ft       €>
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                  A-559
                                                           Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                                                                                   Mary Mastin, Sierra Club
                                           SCENIC SOLUTIONS:
                                       DESIGNS and METHODS TO SAVE
                                          AMERICA THE SEAVTtftJt

                  Scenic Solutions, a fill 1-lcngth multi-media CD-ROM, is now available! In partnership with the
            USDA Natural 'Resumes Coiwstvatioft Service, and wWi feaerous support torn the Meson Foundation in
            New YoikCity.SeaiteAmateahMeaittpitei 45 ease stadias that represents variety of innovative designs
            and methods to sore America's cherished natural beauty and distinctive communities,

                  Scenic Asaeriea sent out an open call for submissions to a wide range of private fiuns, universities,
            businesses, conservation organizatious and governments throughout the coimtiy. A prestigious selection
            panel reviewed the submissions asid selected the best among them. The winning entries are grouped in four
               Cilics, Towns and Neighborhood Character
                 'Be   Dest&iOuMelines far Manchester's Commnrctai and Historic Districts -VT- '
                        Snhm Riverfront Prof set- 0$.           •'
               Highways, Byways and Context Sensitive Solutions
                  EJC   Saving Historic Rautt SO -An Innovative Soktttox-V A.
                        The forth Berm Vegetative Sound Barrier as a Green Alternate in Akron - OH
               Landscape Character
                  Ex:   La^4^mFisu^Bfe^^AltmT^tlmClfar-Catt6^laUmtttesstidfta^nis-"tfU,
                        Sears- Key Main Dap Recreation Area: Preserving a Seme of Discovery in Heritage
                        Imerpretotten - AZ
               Tools
                  Ex:
                        CM$$»rato &e»fc Conservation Unttittthv: Scenic Resource Mifptng Methodology - CA
                        Viaxd Analyses for Utility Siting- CO
                  TMeCDincliidisvideoclips, maps and MSO studies as well a; a Ml co lor 12-page bookJctoutliiung
            to project The cost of ScwfcSrttttow is $20.00 + $2;SO S&H.  To order please e-mail Janet Jones,
                          L at mail the attached order form to:
                                                 Scenic America
                                         801 PeoasylvjBjk Aw SB, Suite 300
                                              Washington, DC 20003
                                      Scenic Solutions Order Form - 2003/2004
            Name:.
            Street,
            City:  '_
    ZipCode_
            Quantity:	.  Credit Card Ittfo:Visa_

            Account N«mber;    		

            Signature:	1
MastciCard	American Express ^_  Total:$,
                                                                                     SIERRA
                                                                                      CLUB
                                                                                      FOUNDID itn
                                                                               John Ponea
                                                                               U.S, EPA (3EA30), 1650 Areh Street
                                                                               Philadelphia, PA 19103
                                                                                                                              REC'D JAM 12;
                                                                                                                              Jaaaaiy 3,2003
Draft Programmatic Enviromnental Itnptct Statement on Mountain Top Mining/Valley Fill
(MIM'VF) in the AppalteMan region of ths easten United States.

Dear Mr. Forren,

Pleas* accept these comments on behalf of the Upper Cumberland Gioup of the Tennessee
Ctapw of the Sierw Club,

We write because of oar concerns 'fiat the environmental degradsttioii and destruction of
mountain Ibjests, valleys md w&ters &at has occurred in West Vijgiaia and Kentucky ifom this
type of mining not be repeated in Teaseaee at fteougfaoitf the AppaJachwi coalfields. Our
experience in looking at fe Environmental Justice, NEPA, Endangered Species and Clesn Water
Act issues connected with the mountaintop BJiaJng project at Zeb Mouatofa in Campbell County
Temiessee leavw us to conclude iha fliis type of lutoiag (here sailed "ooss-ridge" mining, bttf
we believe essentially the same as rr.outytaintop removal) cannot be accomplished without
.devastating destruction of affected stteams and creeks «ad the eco-haWtat fot may species.

While we underMtnd and agree with the need to address the vital water protection issues
involved in this type of miuiBg, the uarww focus of the three alternatives to the PEIS on
interaction between the agencies does not «*oant for other possible alternatives - ie. deep
mining or no tnimag. As the U.S. Pish aad Wildlife Service said in its September 2002 memo,
the tinee 'seSon' alternatives, H eutwctty written, cannot ba interpreted as ensuring any
improved environment*! protection... let don* protection that can be quantified or even
estimated ia advance."

The Ho Action alternative assumes AM mining - and mountaintop mining - will .continue, but
looks only at the issues of whether any change shouM be made in how the agencies {OSM, the
Corps and BPA) interact

Tennessee has a unique situation among the four states involved in the DEIS in that the federal
OSM has SMCRA jurisdiction here, TMs means compliance by OSM with NEPA is required
here and flat should involve early consultation with the Corps and with BPA - and with the state
of Tennessee's Department of Conservation and EnvKonment TMs is not being done. The
recent permitting of over 2100 acres at Zeb Mountain is a prime example.
                                                                                                                                                              1-5
                                                                                                                                                             1-8
                                                                                                                                                                                                          n tttytkiipaper
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                      A-560
                                                     Section A - Organizations

-------
    Because of the difference in the agencies having jtaisdifinon to administer SMCRA, we do not
    believe that Tennessee should Save been totaled in Ms DMS.1

    Whatever the jurisdictions! vagaries of the different states, it is essential that all permits required
    to protect water quality be issued, with appropriate public notice, comment and hearings, prior to
    tiie issuance of the SMCRA permit and cotrnneneemeBt of the mining. Dae to the unique quality
    of the forests and diversify of rare and endangered terrestrial and aquatic species in the region of
    this DEIS, individual Section 404 permits are requited under the Clean Water Act

    He DEIS recognizes that the forests, streams and creeks of Appalaehia are some of the most
    biodiverse to the -world, Tennessee is one of the last remaining habitats for the federally
   • threatened Indiana bat Several aeotropic bbds, such ss the Cerulean and Golden warbler,
    deemed "in need of management" by the State, aw finding a last refijge in the forests of the
    Upper Cumberland region of Tennessee. The Cerulean warbler, in particular, seeds deep forests
    to survive.

    The DEIS fidls to adequately assess (he cumulative impacts to the forests torn fttture
    stripmifiing and the cutting in the region that is predicted by the Southern Forest Resource
    Assessment

    The Southern Appalachian eeoregions are well hwwn for the richness and rarity of their
    terrestrial and aquatic species. There is no doubt that fl» heavy sedimentation of the streams
    involved in a mounteiBtop mining situation makes those streams inhabitable for many aquatic
    species. The 0B1S correctly  recognizes that the Souths* Appalachians haws one of tie richest
    salamander faunas in the world.  The DEIS fails to Bscopfae that salamanders and mussels, for
    example, have a particular difficulty adapting or changing hmbitat to new streams.

    All terrestrial and aquatic animals may have difficulty surviving largeseale mining projects when
    the reclamation is sot reforestation, but to grasses and son native plants.

    The DEIS correctly recognizes that the Southern Appalachians contain some of the last
    remaining stands of a  forest type that was once spread over the northern hemisphere and fliM
    these rich deciduous hardwood forests are increasingly threatened. Tennessee's hardwood
    deciduous forests, the mixed  mesophytic, are the seedbed  for many plant species and habitats.

    Yet the DEIS falls to My consider the value of these forests and the terrestrial and aquatic
    species dependent on them and the very real predictability of their destruction - and extinetianr
    by widespread mouataintop mining and valley fills.

    The DEIS makes false assumptions  about the value of the coal produced, underestimates the
    costs of mitigation measures  and of cleaning up the water, and fells to consider the adverse
    health consequences of increased coal burning by coal burning power plants due to increased
           'The DBIS does not adequately address certain issues specific for Tennessee, when it
    addresses specifics for the other states, ie the extent of remaining coal surfteeminable seams in
    Tennessee or ramming issues specific to Tennessee.
8-1-2
9-2-2
coal supply. The economic value of the losses to the legion's tourism industry from the
degraded environment me not given adequate eoaiiiierittotL

The DEIS description of the choice of different mining methods and the associated costs looks.
only at maximizing the coal recovery in the least expensive possible way and does not
adequately factor to the value to the environment of environmental protection measures. Stream
mitigation and peitnittlng costs are underestimated, as well as dangers from possible dam or
sediment basin breach and from the long term effects of acid and coal mine drainage.

Due to the massive size and devastating effects of these mouataiatop mining operations, many
streams and watersheds are affected So much water is difficult to protect  The DEIS fails to
consider the long term effects on pound water hydrology from widespread mountaintop mining.
Such effects can be predicted to be very sigrifieant Bonta, 3.V, Cjt Amennan, W.A. Dick, G.
F. Hall, TJ. Harlukowicz, A.C. Razeoywd RE. Sneck "Impact Sur&ce Surface Coal Mining
on Three Ohio Watersheds -Physical Conditions and Ground Water Hydrology" Journal of the
American Water Resources Association, Volume 28, Number 3, June, 1992,577-596 at 593.

The DBIS assumes a great vahie for maa-nade ponds or basins as a means of controlling
sediment According to the Stonnwater Center, "... few (sediment basins)  tie probably
capable of consistently removing 70% of the tocoming sediment, much less fl>* 95 to 99%
removal that is typicafiy assumed," and measures te- increase the solids tapping efficiency of
sediment basins are rarely incorporated into the design (Stonnwater Center 2003). Stonnwater
Center (2003), "Improving the Trap Efficiency of Sedimert Basfas." Technical Note #84,
Watershed Protection Techniques. 2(3): 434-439 qtt^>^%ww.stormwatefceBter.Ba1a

 The DEIS recognizes the value of headwater streams to the river ecosystem. Dappelt, et al
1993. "Even where inaccessible to fish, tee headwater streams provide M$i leveb of water
quality and quantity, sediment control, autrlants and wood debris for downstream reaches of the
watershed. latemutteat mid ephemeral headwater steams therefore ate often largely responsible
for maintaining the quality of downstream riverine processes and habitat for considerable
                                                                                                                         11-7-2
                                      Yet, the following quotes indicate ttat me DBS tecoguzes that me dangers of valley fills and
                                      the potential e-f&etttng values of sediment basins need former study.

                                      "Pilling or mining steam treas even in vesy small watersheds has the potential to impact a(juatic
                                      communities some of which may be high quality or potentially support unique aquatic species."
                                      DEIS - ffl-D-4. It tas not been deteimiaed if draiaage structures connected with mining cm
                                      provide some benefit"
                                            2At the Zeb Moontato site in Tennessee, after only a few months of mining in a 10 year
                                      life of urine operation, total suspended solids readings in a major stream (home of the federally
                                      theateued fish flie bladside dice) have steady been consistently more flan ten times the permit
                                      limits. WesubmitthatAec<»lindustiy'suseofmeSedCad4and OSM's permitting
                                      procedures are based on faulty modelling and  inadequate predictions for sediment loads in
                                      sediment basins.
                                                                                                                         5-6-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                   A-561
                                                                Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                                    Landon Medley, Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc.
  "Farther evaluation of stream chemistry and ftjrther investigation iato the linkage between
  stream chemls&y and stream biotic community asd structure are needed." DEIS-IH-D-7.

  "While fhese studies illustrate that aiiaiag and valley fills may alter the sediment composition of
  streams, it is not known if this change may itnptet ftactiQM of streams downstream or how long
  those impacts may last. Assessment of stream sedimestt&aracterisiics should be included in any
  further evaluations or monitoring program for streams downstream from mining and valley
  fills." DEIS- BI-D-8

   ".. potential impacts from valley fills to stream chemistry and possible alterations to stream
  geomorpholgy were discussed as areas of further need for investigation" DEIS -JQI-D-11

  We submit that because these further studies are needed, this Draft Environmental Impact
  statement is incomplete.

  Finally, the DEIS fails to consider the adverse health consequences to the population in the
  region (and in the nation) of increased coal burning by coal burning power plants due to
  increased coal supply from increased coal mining in this region. The Bi$Mh Circuit Court of
  Appeals recently found that NEPA required the Suataee Transportation Board to consider the
  indirect adverse impacts of increased coal supply on air qualify.  Mid-States Coalition for
  Progress v Surface Transportation Bawd of America, No. 02-1359 (f^Ctr, October 2,2003).

  Mcuntairrtop raining and valley fills have the potential, due to downstream reach and widespread
  air quality impairment, for a devastating impact en areas much krger than those permitted. We
  believe that it is a serious mistake - and self desfructive act - fbr this human species to risk
  extinction of so jnsny other species all in the sake of pursuing a noxious source of energy which
  has beea shown to have harmful health consequences for us alt

  We suggest tot this draft Environmental Impact Statement must be re-done for additional
  studies and issues to be assessed.
S-5-2
5-6-2
 15-2-1
  Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments.
                             "I
                                                 Sincerely
                                                 MaryM-
                                                 Conservation Chair, Sierra Club
                                                 Upper Cumberland Group
               Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc.
                    224 South Main Street, Suite 1
                              P.O. Box479
                     Lake City, Tennessee 37769
                                    January Z, 2004

                                    Mr. John Forren
                                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (3EA30)
                                    1650 Arch Street
                                    Philadelphia, PA 19103

                                    e-malledto EPA: ',%•«,••« u.:^.,^,

                                    FIE: Commentson ffectom/ flaafeter. M$v 30. 2003 (Volume eg. Number 104) [Notices!
Engineers. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTEfitOfi. Office of Surface Mining, ana fish arid WMffs Smrice.
                                    Environmental. ftwactSlalmmt, AGENCIES;. U.S.. Arm Corns at ' Engineers,.
                                    of the A/my, OOP; fnyitorimsntal Protection Agfncv: Office of Surface Mining and U.S.
                                    HshandWileilHe.ServiGe. .U£,D6fft,.Qt.the,lnt«ri0t: and West Viminia Department of
                                    Environmental Protection, ACTION; Announcement of Draft Programmatic Environmental
                                    Impact Statement fDFEISi availability ami notice of public hearings. Comment deadline is
                                    January 6, 2004


                                    Dear Mr. Perron,

                                    The Stripmine Issues Committee of SAVE OUR CUMBERLANDS MOUNTAINS, INC.
                                    {SOCM) is submitting the following written comments on the above agencies
                                    announcement of the Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills in Appalaohia. The Draft
                                    Programmatic EtS considers new or revised program, guidance, policies, or regulations to
                                    minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the adverse environmental effects of
                                    mountaintop mining and valley fill operations within the Appalachian study area In West
                                    Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee. Written  comments on the Draft Programmatic
                                    Environmental Impact Statement (PHIS) must b» received by January 8. 2004.

                                    Our comments will address concerns within the Draft PEIS with any mountaintop mining
                                    and valley fills operations in Tennessee and Its domino effects on Tennessee's citizens, its
                                    watersheds and individual county's economic growth plans, and the State of Tennessee
                                    and EPA Water Agreement. SOCM membership is composed of citizens who believe that
                                    they have an inherent power and right to affect the course of our lives and surroundings.
                                    SOCM is committed to using this power to improve the quality of life in our communities.
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                 A-562
                                                       Section A - Organizations

-------
          Craft MonnlaintoP Mining and Valtev fills PEIS Paae
                                                                                                                         Draft Mountalntoo Mining and Vatev Fits PBS Pane
          SOCM believe that citizens have a right to know about and have a voice in developments
          that affect us and communities. SOCM membership is concern with the Draft PEIS lack of
          addressing potential cumulative problems created from long term impacts of "Mountaintop
          Mining and Valley Fills" and 'Mountaintop Removal Mining" and "Crossing Ridge Mining"
          operations which results in problems with restoration, maintenance and protection of water
          resources found in the 22 county area of the Tennessee coal fields.

          EPA's national water program has worked with the State of Tennessee to create
          comprehensive state watershed approach strategies that actively seeks a higher standard
          of protection for the human environment, In an agreement with EPA, the state of
          Tennessee must identify all streams and lakes that do not meet water quality standards or
          do not have the required control strategy in place, must develop strategies to identify
          pollution sources, and purpose water quality improvements, beginning with the highest
          priority streams.  The Draft PEIS does not address how federal agencies  and the State of
          Tennessee plan to maintain the comprehensive state watershed approach strategies and
          grant proposed rnountaintop mining and valley fills and mountaintop  removal operations
          and cross ridge mining operations projects. "MountainiOD mining operations in the
          Appalachian cMUieiqs involved fundamental changes tofts.region's landscape-and
          terrestrial wildlife habitats." [EPA,  OSM, COE and FWS Preliminary Mountaintop Mining
          PEIS, January 2000] Mountaintop mining and valley fills would change the Tennessee's
          watersheds into wasteland of grassy knolls. With the increasing size of mountaintop
          mining operations, a single permit could change thousands of acres  of Tennessee's
          hardwood forests, seriously pollute streams, and damage the sensitive ecological diverse
          watersheds. Tennessee's ecoregions serve as a geographical framework for establishing
          regional water quality expectations.  Tennessee's watershed approach serves as an
          organizational framework for systematic assessment of Tennessee's water quality
          problems. This unified approach affords a more In depth study of each watershed in the
          Tennessee coalfields and encourages coordination of public and governmental
          organizations. The proposed Draft PEIS falls completely to address  how the proposed
          federal action will impact Tennessee's Watershed Management Approach program.

          The proposed federal action on mountaintop mining  and valley fills, mountaintop removal
          mining and cross ridge mining operations weakens the State of  Tennessee's,  U.S. Army
          Corps of Engineers', U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's and EPA's standards for the highest
          priority of environmental management programs and protection  policies to address
          problems associated with hydrologically-defined geographic areas and ground and
          surface water flow in the sensitive ecosystem watersheds of Tennessee's coal fields.  The
          Draft PEIS for mountaintop mining and valley fills under current review weakens
          Tennessee and federal guidelines and principles of assessing proposed federal  actions by
          partnerships, geographic focus and sound management techniques based on strong
          science and the latest data. Federal agencies continue to "re-act" to mine related
          problems instead of anticipating problems.

          Over the past two decades, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),  U.S. Army Corps
          of Engineers (COE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Office  of Surface
          Mining Reclamation and Enforcement {OSM) have achieved important reductions in
          discharged pollutants to the Nation's air, lakes, rivers, wetlands, estuaries, coastal waters,
5-6-2
and surface and ground waters.  These successes have been achieved by controlling
point sources of pollution and enforcing high standards. The Clean Water Act was
a major role player in achieving these improvements in our Nation's drinking water supply.
The proposed changes to mountaintop mining and valley fills permitting would seriously
damage all federal agencies' credibility and accountably to the American public to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our Nation's waters. The
Draft PEIS usage of the so-called "Study Areas" data for Tennessee which consist of data
from known violators of SMCRA  regulations and the Tennessee Division of Water
Pollution Control - Mining Section's NPDES regulations is being used to misinterpret how
the Tennessee Federal Program is addressing program-wide impacts and support of
program-level decisions related to mountaintop mining and valley fills. The Programmatic
EIS should discard all data from  the Tennessee Federal Program in reviewing
mountaintop mining and valley fills.

EPA, FWS, OSM and COE emphasis must be on raising the bar to a high standard to
strengthen the public trust and sustain long-term environment improvements to our
Nation's drinking water supply. The Draft PEIS does not achieve these high standards in
its current form. Nationwide, the Draft PEIS only allows legal loopholes for coal industry
operators and federal agencies to weaken the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA) and the
Surface Mining Reclamation and Control Act of 1977 (SMCRA). In Tennessee it weakens
the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act, and the Tennessee Code Annotated 69-3-101
to 69-3-137, and the Tennessee Safe Drinking Water Act of 1983, TCA $8-221-701 to 68-
221-720, and the Tennessee Federal Program, 30 CFR Subchapter T, Part 942 -
Tennessee.

SOCM is concerned that the proposed Draft PEIS including Tennessee with states that
have actual mountaintop removal mining sites with approved SMCRA permits. The study
area data provides partial useful  information while much of the data is too outdated to
apply to the criteria stated in the  February 5,1999 Notice of Intent. [64 FR 5778]
Particularly alarming are the differences between  the Preliminary PEIS of January 2000
and the Draft PEIS of May S003. The data from Tennessee's "Study Area" is misleading
to the overall impact assessment in the Draft PEIS.

SOCM finds the Draft PEIS document to be inadequate and too deficient to adequately
evaluate the Tennessee Federal Program and its  program-wide impacts and support
program-level decisions that are reasonable and defensible. The Draft PEIS evaluation
does not provide complete environmental review and cost analysis of the array of issues
concerning the natural and built environmental concerns.  Key environmental advantages
and disadvantages such as habitat loss, changes in land use, siting difficulty, sediment
requirements and potential long and short-term consequences, monitoring needs and
aesthetic impacts are not adequately address. The Draft PEIS does not address how the
proposed federal action will affect the State of Tennessee own environmental and
economic development policies.

While the proposed Draft PEIS addresses Issues from the eyes of federal agencies and
the political powers that be in Washington, DC, It fails to address the serious concerns that
mandated the PEIS. Chief U.S. District Judge Charles Haden opened the eyes of America
                                                                                                               5-6-2
                                                                                                               5-5-1
                                                                                                               4-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-563
                                                          Section A - Organizations

-------
          Pratt Ktauntaintop Mining and Valley Rite PEI8 Pane
                                                                                                                     Draft Mountaintoo Mining and Valley Rte PEIS Paae
         to the serious damage being done to tie Appalachian region of America, [cite Judge
         Charles H. Haden's decision October 1999, Brnoo v, Robertson. {Bragg, U.S. District
         Court, Civil Action No. 2:98-0636 S,D. WV} Judge Haden's bold position to hold federal
         agencies accountable for they actions should be the guiding light in drafting any proposed
         PEIS to address significant impacts to our Nation's drinking water supply. The current
         Draft PEIS does not meet its original intent under NEPA. The Draft PEIS only priority is to
         support the use of mountaintop mining and valley fills, mountaintop removal mining and
         cross ridge mining and other types of surface coal mining in the Appalachian coalfields.
          Sincerely,
          LANDON MEDLEY, Chair
          SOCM, Stripmine Issues Committee
          SOSM Staff Contact:

          Jonathan Dudley, Organizer
4-2
          CG: (T«xt only, no attachments)

          Kathsfins Trait, U.S. Asny Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
          Michael Robinson, U.S. Office ol Surface Mining, Pittsburgh, PA
          Cindy TibboK, U.S. fish and WMife Service, 8taia Cdiage, PA
          Russell Hunter, West Virgmia Depadcnsnl of Environmental Protection, Njiro, W.VA,
          Governor Phil Bredssen, Nashvfiie, IN
          U.S. Senator Blif Frfot, Washington, DC
          U.S. Senator Lamar Alsxanctef, Washington, DC
          U.S. f^reaerrfafiye Lincoln Daws, Washington, DC
          Commissioner Betsy Chiida, TDEC, N&shvtBs, TN
                        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND
              SAVE OUR CUMBERLAND MOUNTAINS, INC.
            POSITION ON MOUNTA1NTOP REMOVAL MINING
                        AND CROSS-RIDGE MINING

The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was prepared by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the U.S. Department of Interior's Office of Surface Mining (OSM) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP). The purpose of this EIS was to evaluate options for improving agency
programs under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCHA), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) and the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) that would contribute to reducing the adverse environmental impacts of
mountaintop mining operations and excess spoil valley fills (MTM/VF) in Appalachia.

Preparation of this Draft PEIS was intended to address substantial information gathering
and relevant historical data, detail several possible alternative  policy frameworks, and
contains the result of scientific and technical studies conducted as part of an effort to
address significant cumulative environmental impacts due to mountaintop mining and to
address Impacts from Mountaintop Removal Mining operations pursuant to trie agreement
in the settlement agreement known as  Brsfia v, flofaartson. Ctv. No, 2:9S-0636_fS,D.
W.V.S,  This is a "programmatic" EIS consistent with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in that It evaluate board  Federal actions such as the adoption of new or
revised agency program guidance, policies, or regulations. "Mountalntop mining" refers to
coal mining bv surface methods (e.g.. contour mining, area mining, and Mountaintop
removal mining! in the steed terrain of the central Appalachian coalfields. [PEIS,
Executive Summary, page ES-1,2003)

This Mountaintop Removal Mining and Valley Fills data in the Draft PEIS should give more
than a cursory investigation into the current and potential impacts of Mountaintop Removal
in Tennessee. In the Draft PEIS Tennessee surface coal mining operations are Included in
some of the data.  However the Draft PEIS never examines the history of compliance of
these surface coal mining operations in Tennessee, which are included In the Draft PEIS.
SOCM ocooses MauataintOD Removal and Cross fifete Surface Coal Mining Operations,
These practices are violations of the spirit of federal laws: CWA, SMCRA, FWCA and
ESA. Mountaintop Removal and Cross Ridge mining forever alters the landscape and
destroys mountain communities. Mountaintop removal is incompatible with long-term
economic development opportunities such as tourism.

In Tennessee there have been few if any permits for Mountaintop Removal operations.
Instead OSM's Knoxvllle Field Office has been issuing permits for other types of
Mountaintop Mining. Over the past ten years OSM's Knoxvilte Field Office has issued five
permits for "Crass-Ridge Mining".  SOCM views Cross BMoe Mining" as another tvoeol
Mountaintop Removal and is oooosad  to this oracte. The use of a different name for
what amounts to basically the same  practice is a cynical attempt by the coal industry and
                                                                                                                                                                                                       1-9
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-564
                                                           Section A - Organizations

-------
        Draft Mountaintop Mining and Vatev Fills PEIS Page
                                                                                                                      OaftMountalntepMininaandValtevFisPBSPaoe
        regulatory agencies to avoid the scrutiny that has been focused on Mountaintop Removal
        by Judge Haden's decision.

        Cross Ridge Mines do not receive a variance from AOC; and purport to restore mountains
        to their original contour. In some oases this may lesson the need tor "Valley Fills" or "Head
        of Hollows Fills". However so far in Tennessee afl Cross Ridge Mines have either been
        permitted with or revised to have changes to include fills. Even when Cross Ridge Mines
        do not include valley fills they may be just destructive (through erosion, disturbance of
        large acreage, and potential slope failure) to public waters as valley fills. SOCM is very
        concerned about the safety of operation - there is much potential for hazards both to coal
        industry employees working on site and citizens who live near these mines.

        The impacts of Cross Ridge Mining in Tennessee and potential impacts of the practice
        across the region must be addressed In the Draft Programmatic EIS. The Draft
        Programmatic EIS for the federal program in Tennessee dedicates only a few paragraphs
        to this practice under the title Cross Ridge Mountaintop Removal. The Mountaintop
        Mining Draft Programmatic EIS should take a comprehensive look at Cross Ridge Mining.
        The Draft PEIS should address concerns about disposal of excess spoil, stope stability,
        erosion, safety, and technical feasibility related to Cross Ridge Mining.

        The Draft PEIS only looks  at blasting complaints during the period of June 1998 to July
        1999. During this period there were only 6 blasting complaints in Tennessee. We know
        that at the Cumberland Coal Company site in Cumberland County, Tennessee alone there
        were more then 10 complaints. We know that current SMCRA regulations allow blasting
        which damages homes and wetls. This study should not use the assumption that
        compliance with blasting regulations will prevent damage.

        The Draft PEIS fails to access the significant direct and indirect impacts of mountaintop
        mining on the economies of Tennessee's 22 coalfield counties.  The Draft PEIS should
        examine the full cost of surface coal mining operations on the economy, instead of only
        looking at surface coal mining jobs. The Draft PEIS does not address cumulative impacts
        of changing the topography and land cover or storage of mine waste in head of hollow  flHs
        would have on Tennessee,

        Members of Save Our Cumberland Mountains who fought for the federal Surface Mining
        Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and created the Applicant Violator System (AVS)
        program took seriously the provision of SMCRA which says that Mountaintop Removal
        with a variance from Approximate Original Contour will only be allowed when it is shown
        there is a better post mining use for the land if it Is left flat. These members question
        whether this standard had even been applied. The wids use of granting a variance from
        approximate original contour that we have seen in other states Is unacceptable and is not
        in the spirit of the 1977 Surface Mining Control Reclamation Act.

        The use of "Valley Fife" and other mining practices that store waste or otherwise alter the
        waters of the United States are in violations of the Clean Water Act and should not be
        permitted. Federal agencies should enforce the 100 feet buffer zone and the Clean Water
        Act. Mountaintop Removal operation by design violates these laws.
16-3-2
11-9-2
19-3-2
5-7-1
SOCM strongly disagree with the premise that batter coordination among agencies will
address concerns atiout Mountaintop Removal and Mourtalrfiop Mining.  Instead federal
agencies should study the impacts of these mining practices and- act to protect
communities and the environment by not allowing Valley Fills and Head of Hollow Fills, not
allowing an Approximate Original Contour Variances, enforcing the 100 feet stream buffer
zone, and taking a second look at the feasibility of returning whole mountain peaks to
original contour. SOCM an organization of over 2000 members in Tennessee wishes
to go on record opposing "Mountaintop Removal" mining and "Cross Ridge"
mining operations In theeoameltUt of Tennessee and our Nation, SOCM does not
support Alternatives #l,£jui
-------
       Pratt MouBtaintop Mining and.V«fay.Hte.PBS Page
                                                                                                                    Draft Mountaintao Mlnlna and Vaitev Bite PEIS Page
        Mourttatntop Removal operation with an AOC variance. Most people In Tennessee were
        not aware of the Draft peis.  The Drtft PEIS falls to provide the best available scientific
        and technical information that will facilitate a better informed, more coordinated and
        efficient decision-making process by federal agencies.

        The Draft Programmatic EIS should be discarded and return to its original task to prepare
        a joint voluntary Environmental Impact Statement that will fairly examine agency policies,
        guidance, and decision-making processes in order to determine whether they can and do
        minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects from
        Mountaintop Mining, Mountaintop Removal Mining and Cross Ridge Mining operations
        and the disposal of excess spoil in valley fills. The current Draft PEIS only "rubberstamps"
        the present policies of federal and state agencies and revised the currant procedures to
        do away with surface coal mining law's buffer zone that prohibits mining activities to
        disturb within 100 feet of large streams, eliminating the current limit on using nationwide
        permits to approve valley fills in West Virginia that are larger than 250 acres, and giving
        the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation a greater in Clean Water Act permitting.
        Judge Haden's decision recognizes the damage being done to Appalaehia communities.
        The current proposed Draft PEIS fails to address the irreversible harm to the environment
        and to communities in the coalfields of our Nation. The Draft PEIS at ES*8 states that
        approximately 1200 miles of headwater streams "were directly impacted" by Mountaintop
        Removal Mining and Valley Fills between 1992 and 2002.  There is no scientific basis that
        would confirm an environmentally "acceptable" amount of stream loss. The Mountaintop
        Mining and Valley  Fills EIS Steering Committee agreed that it is "difficult if not impossible
        to reconstruct free flowing streams on or adjacent to mined sites". (August 15, 2002,
        committee's working draft)

        Save Our Cumberland Mountains ask that federal tnd state agencies and their officials I
        realizes that the current regulations, policies, procedures, and guidance has not
        adequately protected the environment and the citizens of the coalfields of our Nation. The
        proposed Draft PEIS is a step backward in time to 1976 before the Clean Water Act, the
        Clean Air Act and SMCRA. Our citizens, their communities and the environment should
        not become a political toy by the coal industry. SOCM urges that federal agencies step
        back to the Preliminary Draft PEIS and start all over again to address citizen's original
        concerns and Judge Haden's decision.
       END
4-2
                                        SAVE OUR CUMBERLAND MOUNTAINS, INC.
                                               STRIPMINE ISSUES COMMITTEE
                                                   WRITTEN COMMENTS ON
                                    FEDERAL REGISTER: MAY 30,2003, PAGES 32487-32488
                              DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENT IMPACT STATEMENT
                                         ON MOUNTAINTOP MINING / VALLEY FILLS
Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. (SOCM) is an organization that was originally
founded by citizens and for citizens affected by stripmining activity in eastern Tennessee
and the Cumberland Plateau. Many of our members livt in the 22 coalfield counties of
Tennessee (Appalaehia).  SOCM has a long-standing history of struggling for citizen's
rights to clean and safe drinking water and to liv» in a safe environment.  SOCM is a
member of the Citizens Coal Council.  The following comments are submitted to
specifically address the Draft PEIS 2003 and its contents as It relates to proposals and
statements made about mountaintop mintng and valley fills in the coalfields of Tennessee,

The definition of "Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills (MTM/VF)  Mining and Mountaintop-
Rernoval Operation used in our comments is pursuant to the Draft PEtS definition found
on in Glossary on pages Vlli-10 and Vlil-11.  While the Tennessee Federal Program's
definition found in OSM-E1S-18 varies somewhat in its wording, the Draft PEIS should
clarify all official definitions for Federal run programs and state run programs. The general
public finds it confusing to determine the differences between the "mountaintop
mining/valley fills mining" and "mountaintop removal operations" found in the Draft PEIS.
SOCM feels that this will cause many problems in written comments being submitted by
citizens during the comment period.

The Tennessee coalfields are made up of the following (22)  counties; Anderson, Bledsoe,
Campbell, Claibome, Coffee (no coal reserves are known to sxist in Coffee County),
Cumberland, Franklin, Grundy, Hamilton, Fentwss, Marion, Morgan, Overton, the eastern
parts of Piekett, Putnam, Fthea, Roane, Sequatchie, Scott, Sullivan, Van Buren, Warren,
and White, [see page 3-1, Final Environmental Impact Statement, OSM-E1S-18],

Under NEPA, the primary  purpose of an environmental statement is to serve as an action-
force device to insure that the policies and goals defined in the Act are infused into the
ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government. [30 CFR Section 1502.1] The
draft environmental impact statements shall be prepared in accordance with the scoping
process. [30 CFR 1502.9(a)J SOCM feels that the current Draft PEIS is so inadequate as
to preclude meaningful analysis that a revised draft PEIS should be done. The current
Draft PEIS fails to assess  the significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of large-
scale mountaintop mining  and valley fills on each individual watershed communities in
Tennessee. The analyses of Tennessee's coalfield counties and the State of
Tennessee's economic development and community growth plans are weak in evaluating
impacts to long-term growth plans. "Environmental impact statements shall serve as the
                                                                                                                                                                                                      4-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-566
                                                           Section A - Organizations

-------
        Draft Mourtaintop Mining and Vatey Bte PBS Page
                                                                                                                      Draft MounteintoP Mining andValley Fife PEIS Page
        means of assessing the environments! impact of proposed actions, rather than Justifying
        decisions already ma*." [30 CFR Section 1502.2{g)] Federal agencies must, at a
        minimum, comply with the CEQ NEPA regulations when conducting their programs. The
        Draft PEIS has not taken a "hard took" at the cumulative environmental impacts of
        mountaintop mining; the viability if reclaimed streams compared to natural waters; the
        impacts that filled valleys have on aquatic life; wildlife and nearby residents; biological and
        habitat analyses that should be done before mining begins; ways to avoid and minimize
        stream filling; and the effectiveness of mitigation and reclamation.

        The Draft PEIS should analyzes the comprehensive impacts to the human environment of
        decisions by federal agencies resulting from all types of coal mining conducted under the
        Tennessee Federal Program. The Draft PEIS should analyze the cumulative impacts that
        would result from any proposals to change current policies. Since October 1,1984, OSM
        implemented a Federal program for the regulation of surface coal mining operations In the
        State of Tennessee, [page 1-1, OSM-EIS-18] The Draft PEIS proposed to changes
        portions of the current program policies to address mountaintop mining and valleys fills.
        This may effect the State of Tennessee statutes or regulations. The Draft PEIS needs to
        document what effects the Draft PEIS proposals will have on State of Tennessee's
        statutes and regulations. The current Draft PEIS has volume after volume of
        documentation on Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia while very little documentation Is
        given on Tennessee within the Draft PEIS.  The federal agencies' press releases refer to
        better federal interagency commitment to require significantly better environmental review
        and protection measures.

        The Draft PEIS needs to analyze all types of coal mining operations under the Tennessee
        Federal Program. Underground and surface coal mining methods, reclamation
        procedures associated with each method, and coal  preparation plants and tipple
        operations that are described in the OSM-EIS-18. Underground coal mining, Surface
        mining, Area mining, Dozer-loader-truck area mines, Contour mine,  Augering, and
        Mountaintop Removal operations data should be  part of the analyzed data in the Draft
        PEIS. The Draft PEIS should state what impacts the proposed policy changes would likely
        have on these methods  of mining operations under  the Tennessee Federal Program.

        Mpyntaintop removal is  the removal of entire mountaintop down to the bottom of the
        lowest coal seam being  recovered, fpaoe 3-9. OSM-EIS-18) Mountaintop Removal
        Operations, includes, those mines that remove all or a large portion  of a coat seam or
        seams running through the upper fraction of a mountain or ridge.  There three types of
        mountaintop removal operations: (1) mountaintop removal with a variance from
        approximate original contour (AOC), (2) mines which remove all of the coal seam or
        seams in the upper fraction of a mountain but which return the land to AOG, and (3) steep-
        slope mines with an AOC variance. Under SMCRA, as well as both Federal and State
        regulations, all mines are required to return the mined land to AOC,  unless the regulatory
        authorities, which, in Tennessee, are OSM, and the US Army Corps of Engineers, grant a
        variance. What is inadequately considered in the  Draft  PEIS is the role of the State of
        Tennessee in the proposed policies, guidance and coordinated agency decision-making
        process.
4-2
                            The purpose of the Draft PEIS, according to the Notice of Intent published In the Federal
                            Register on February 5,1999, Is

                                  'to consider developing aoenov policies. tmiOance. and coontlnated agency
                                  decision-making process to minimize, to the maximum exi@_aLBiaeiieahiSL±tis
                                  itfyerse ertyimntmntal effects to waters of the United States and to fish and wildlife
                                  resources affect 
-------
        Pratt Mountaimoo Mining and Vatev Fills PEIS Pane
                                                                                                                        Draft Mgumaintop Mtnlna and Valley Rfc PEIS Page
        As slated by Kentuckians for the Commonwealth's Daymen Morgan, "Once your old
        Kentucky home Is gone, it is gone." No federal or state agencies can place a price tag on
        such a loss. This emotional statement reaches to the heart of the fundament principles of
        citizens' rights under the Constitution and the guiding principles of NEPA. Citizens across
        our Nation are only asking that federal agencies protect their communities. These
        individual rights and guiding principles are what US soldiers are dying for even today in
        2004.

        The information in the Draft PEIS gives the reader the impression that program's
        improvements put in place by federal and state agencies since 1998 have solved all the
        problems associated with mountaintop mining and valley fills. Here lies the real problem
        with making decisions and evaluations without proven scientific evidence.  Does the Draft
        EIS meet all statutory requirements, as required by Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA [30 CFR
        Section 1502.3)? The Draft PEIS data is a collection of information gathered during a
        three-year period from states which operated their own individual SMCRA programs in
        Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky on mountaintop mining and valley fills operations.
        The Tennessee Federal Program submitted data specifically on cross-ridge mining,
        contour mining, auger mining and area mining operations.  Some of these sites are known
        violators of SMCRA and Tennessee Water Quality Control regulations.

        SOCM believes that the Draft PEIS should include all statutory requirements that should
        be analyzed pursuant to: on proposals (sec. 1508.23), for legislation (See.  1508.17), other
        major Federal actions  (Sec. 1508.18), significantly (Sec. 1508.27),  affecting (Sees, 1508.3
        and 1508.8) and the quality of the human environment (Sec. 1508.14), regarding any new
        proposed policies by federal agencies.

        The Draft PEIS's Tennessee data does not supply adequate data or impacts assessments
        specifically on "mountaintop removal mining" permits in Tennessee since OSM-Knoxville
        had not been issued any permits for mountaintop removal mining during the study period.
        The mixing of data from different types of surface coal mining operations does not address
        the "Notice of Intent" of February 5,1999. Federal agencies cannot apply assessment of
        cumulative Impacts from other types of surface coal mining operations to specifically
        evaluate the impacts from "mogntaintop removal mining" operations. In the Draft PEIS,
        the term "mountaintop mining" is not defined in the Surface Mining  Control  and
        Reclamation Act of 1977. SOCM believes that the require regulation 30 CFR  1502.4(c)(3)
        has not been achieved in the proposed Draft PEIS. SOCM finds that no proven "new
        technologies" are available to date on research, development or demonstration programs
        to address the Tennessee Federal Program pursuant to the original intent of the Draft
        PEIS. The Study Area for Tennessee in the  Draft PEIS does provide some data on
        unproven "new technologies" sites. Many of these sites in the "Study Area" of Tennessee
        are locations of past and ongoing surface coal mining operation's violations.

        Does OSM-Knoxville currently use appropriate standards in evaluating whether a
        particular postmining land configuration constitutes a return to AOC? They are various
        characteristics of land after mining" in terms of elevation changes,  creation of valley fills,
        creation of level sections, and other general descriptive information. The issue is how any
9-2-1
of those characteristics, either by themselves or in combination, may be used in
determining if mountaintop mining in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia has been
achieved to meet regulations. In Tennessee, the situations where OSM-Knoxville has
determined that a waiver from AOC requirements is necessary, has it required appropriate
postmining land use in granting the waiver? Was this information factored into the Draft
PEIS assessment?

While mountaintop removal mining and valley fills are emotional issues, the Draft PEIS
must provide sufficient scientific evidence to conclude that different methods of
mountaintop mining operations are an acceptable risk in Tennessee. Mountaintop mining
operations raise a number of other complex issues and consequences  that are partially or
totally outside the confines of SMCRA. One of the issues that both OSM and other federal
agenciss are continuing to examine is the way mountaintop mining operations affect local
stream through construction of valley flits. The matter of valley fills involves the
overlapping jurisdiction of several federal agencies including OSM, the  U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.  The Draft PEIS must consider how federal agencies will coordinate with
individual state's agencies and regulations to address various issues that are associated
with mountaintop mining and valley fills practices. These various  issues consist of the
NEPA's "hard-look" catalogues for specific impacts outside of the direct and indirect
impacts to the environment,  The Affected Environment (Sec. 1502.15) and the
Environmental Consequence* (Sec. 1502.16) of the Draft PEIS should  included
information and analysis of environmental impacts of the proposal and  the alternatives
of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts.

Past litigation in the Draft PEIS "Study Areas" for Tennessee {see map, Attachment #1]
should have raised serious questions about compliance with the Clean  Water Act in
connection with mountaintop mining and valley fills operations in the future. The Draft
PEIS Study Areas noted mountaintop mining operations (pursuant to Draft PEIS definition)
which resulted in  the following lawsuits during the compiling of the Draft PEIS:

1. (see Attachment #2A): Eastern Minerals Int'l v,  v. The United States, Supreme Court
   No. 01-1100(2002),

2. (see Attachment #28): Eastern Minerals Int'l v.  The United States Fed Cl No. 99-5054,
   -5059 (November 19, 2001) which summarizes ( Eastern Minerals Int'l v.  The United
   States 168 F.  3d 1322 (Fed, Cir. 1988) and (Eastern Minerals Int'l v. The United
   States, 39 Fed. Cl 621,631 1997[Eastern II] and (Eastern Minerals  Int'l, Inc. v. The
   United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 541, 552,1996 (Eastern I]) and Eastern Minerals Infi v. The
   United States Fed Cl filed Dec. 29,1994),

3. (see Attachment 2C); Cane Tennessee,  Inc. and Co/ton, Inc. v. The United States,
   Fed. Cl No. 96-237L Filed September 30,1999).

4. (see Attachment 2D): Rith Energy, Inc. v. The United States, Supreme Court No, 01 -
   1145(2002).
                                                                                                                5-5-1
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-568
                                                             Section A - Organizations

-------
       Draft Mountairtpo Mining and Valley Fills PEIS Page
                                                                                                                       DmH Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills PEIS Page
       5. (see Attachment 2E): Rith Energy, Inc. v. The United States, Fed. Ci No. 99-5153,
           Filed May 2, 2001.

       6.  (see Attachment 2F): Rith £n$rgy, Inc. v. The United States, Fed. CI No. 92-4801,
           Filed June 25,  1999 and Motion for Reconsideration, Filed July 28, 1999 which
           summarizes Rith Energy, inc. v. The United States (No. 89-1-PR, March 26, 1989)
           Rith Energy, Inc. 1111BLA 239, 244 (1989), Rith Energy, Inc. v. The United States,
           Filed November 22,1989, filth Energy, Inc. v. The United States, Filed January 25,
           1989, Rith Energy, Inc. v. The United States, Filed August 31,1988.

       7.  (see Attachment 2Q: Mountains Save Our Cumberland, Inc. v. Office Surface Mining
          Reclamation and Enforcement, and Skyline Coal Skyline, NX-97-3-PR (1998).

       The Draft PEIS fails to assess conflicts with other states agencies' and federal agencies'
       land use and environmental laws, regulations, and policies from mountaintop mining and
       valley fills operations. Are ffie proposed alternatives In ihe Draft PBSJo.ogmpllance with
       the State of Tennessee's laws and regulations? In order to provide an accurate picture of
       mountaintop mining and valley fills operations in Tennessee, the Draft PEIS readers would
       need to know the answer to this question. The data about the actual size of the valley fills
       created in connection with the mountaintop mining operations and valley fills should be
       factor into the evaluation.  The Draft PEIS has omitted assessing limiting sizes of mining
       operation as an option to minimize impacts.

       The draft PEIS fails to answer if mountaintop mining is an acceptable risk in Tennessee.
       All the "Study Areas" in Tennessee were either cross-ridge mining, contour mining, area
       mining or auger mining operations. These sites chosen for data have some of the worst
       surface coal mining violations in the history of the Tennessee Federal Program. [OSM-
       Knoxville Field Office NOV files]  Skyline Coat Company stands as one of the worst
       surface coal mining site for violations. The data provided by OSM-Knoxville from the
       Skyline Coal Company should be question.  The Draft PEIS fails to note the long history of
       problems of surface coal mining the toxic and acid mine drainage of the Sewanee  ooai
       searn. The Draft PEIS fails to note the lawsuits between OSM and SOCM in permitting
       the Big Brush Creek Mining Complex.  The Draft PEIS falls to note other problem areas in
       the Sewanee coal seam such as; Eastern Minerals (Bledsoe County) v.  Rith  Energy
       (Bledsoe County) and Skyline Coal Company (Sequatchie Van Buren Counties). The
       bankrupt Horizon Natural Resources {former AEI Resources Holding, Inc.) and their
       associates companies in Tennessee have serious data accuracy questions.  The
       Cumberland Coal Company's problems with recorded mining violations. [OSM-Knoxville
       Field Office Novs files]  Yet, the Draft PEIS, "assumes that Impacts in fte study ame
       would probably be at least as significant as Impacts in other areas, and that the measures
       to address these impacts for the study area  would teatfeouate for other anas aswetl."
       [page, PART 1-3, PEI81 This leaves SOCM to question the valley fills data associated with
       these surface coal mining  operations resulted in the loss and degradation of Tennessee
       streams, and that ARAP, NPDES and SMCRA permits were being improperly applied.
       And yet, the writers of the  Draft PEIS give the readers the assumption that mountaintop
3-5
mining and valley fills impacts can be "minimize" by state run programs in Kentucky, West
Virginia, and Virginia. Yet, the Tennessee Federal Program can not "minimize" regular
surface coal mining operation's impacts in Tennessee associated with known violator's
surface coal mining operations.

The Draft PEIS 'last-food" approach of selective gathering and assessing of data for a
short 3-year period is not scientifically sound.  The Preliminary EIS of January 2000 raised
a number of concerns with the long-term cumulative impacts from mountaintop mining that
have been shadowed by the Draft PEIS of May, 2003. SOCM questions the reference
data in the Draft PEIS, relating to Tennessee, it is not accurate up-to-date mountaintop
mining date. Since the Tennessee Federal Program is administrated by OSM directly, it
can not accurately represent a state run program such as Virginia, Kentucky and West
Virginia. More complete data collection and analysis, and other actions, such as peer
review, would aid to consider developing agency policies, guidance, and coordinated
agency decision-making process to minimize the adverse environmental effect.

NEPA review sets forth a process designed to ensure that the environmental information
is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made.  Since the release of
the Draft PEIS, SOCM has not seen a printed public notice in any of the 22 county area of
the Tennessee coalfields to let citizens know if the proposed federal action.

There are still uncertainties about how to apply the AOC requirements in the Draft PEIS,
and how broadly or narrowly the postmining land use limitations should be construed by
federal agencies. These uncertainties change with each new administration In
Washington, DC.

SOCM has concerns with the administration of various aspects of the mountaintop mining
and valley fills program. Some of the issues have existed since the early days of the
Tennessee Federal Program [49 FR 15496,49 FR 38874], while other concerns related to
the recent increase in the number and size of mountaintop mining permits that will effect
the future decision-making under the Tennessee Federal program. Such decisions, must
be made with the cooperation of local and state agencies, and have full public
involvement.

The Draft PEIS should assess and analysis the federally operated Tennessee Federal
Program's mountaintop mining and valley fills conflicts. The Tennessee Federal Program
has a long history of problem areas: (1) public notice, (2) regular schedule meetings with
the public, (3) outreach meetings in the coalfields of Tennessee, (4) public involvement
with the SMCRA permitting process, (5) scoping public notices, (6) peer review process,
(7) networking with all state agencies, (8) enforcement of SMCRA laws, (9) holding public
hearings for incomplete SMCRA permits, (10) poor assessments of direct and indirect
cumulative impacts at permit sites,  (11) poor records of site inspections, (12) issuing
permits at National Historic sites: 'Trail of Tears", (13) delaying lands unsuitable of mining
petitions, (14) blasting inspections and enforcement, (15) enforcing the Clean Water Act,
(16) issuing fines for NOVS,  (17) poor assessment of AMD impacts on aquatic life near
SMCRA permit sites, (18) issuing poor water monitoring plans at SMCRA permit sites,
                                                                                                                3-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-569
                                                             Section A - Organizations

-------
       Dra
-------
       Draft. Mountainlon Minion and Valiev Fills PEI8 Page
                                                                                                                  Pratt Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills PEIS Pago
                   CONCERNS WITHTHE DRAFT PEIS "STUDY AREA" DATA
                         AND THE TENNESSEE FEDERAL PROGRAM
                                 AND THE AVS PROGRAM

       The cumulative impact study areas in Tennessee consisted of surface coal mining sites.
       [see again. Attachment #1] These sites received SMCflA permits between January 1992
       to 2002, These sites were approved to use surface mining methods or a combination of
       surface and underground methods to extract coal.  This data from the Tennessee Federal
       Program were used by OSM Pittsburgh Office to study cumulative impacts for the Draft
       PEIS along with data from individual state run programs in Kentucky, West Virginia and
       Virginia.

       What is missing from the database information is

       *  The history of types of  surface mining operations were used and the history of violation
          data from each site.

       •  Additional data characterizing violations would show a clearer picture and
          understanding of problems related to SMCRA permitting in Tennessee.

       •  Information from the AVS Federal database on mining operators at each Tennessee
          Study Areas.

       •  New geographical discoveries in Tennessee's coalfields are missing from the OSM's
          database. Additional discoveries of plants, animals and aquatic life is missing from the
          OSM's database.

       •  The OSM-Tennessee database does not show new state parks and natural areas
          designated by the State of Tennessee,

       •  The total numbers of NOVs from each of the "Study Area" site(s) are missing from the
          OSM's database.  This important information of NOVs would show a clearer
          understanding of potential cumulative problems that could occur with mountaintop
          mining and valley fills.  An example of one of the worst cases of degradation in
          Tennessee is the Big Brush Creek Complex of Skyline Coal Company owned by
          Addington Enterprises  (now Horizon Natural Resources) in Van Buren and Sequatchie
          Counties, Tennessee.

       .  OSM-EIS-18, 3.2.2 RESERVES OF COAL IN TENNESSEE, pages 3-1 to 3-4 gives a
          clearer picture of the reserves of coal in Tennessee. Does the scope of the Draft PEIS
          go beyond the minimum recovery factor of measured coal seams? The potential
          cumulative impacts would vary from county to county in Tennessee due to the depth of
          each individual coal seam,

       •  OSM-EIS-18, 3.3 COAL MINING OPERATIONS, pages 3-6 to 3-10, addresses such
          operations as: 3.3.1 Underground coal mining, 3.3.2 Surface mining, 3.3.2,1 Area
9-5-2
   mining, 3.3.2.1,1 Dragline area mines, 3.3.2.1.2 Dozer-loader-truck area mines, 3.3.2,2
   Contour mine, 3,3.2,3 Mountaintop removal. 3.3.2.4 Augering, and 3.3.3.1 Tipples, and
   3.3.3.2 Preparation plants. Does the scope of the Draft PEIS cover all of the above
   operations?

•  OSM«EIS-18, Figure 3-1, Regional map of the Tennessee bituminous coal field, page
   3-12, The map shows individual counties. Does the Draft PSS include data from ALL
   22 counties?

•  OSM-EIS-18, 3,5,1.1 GEOLOGY OF THE TENNESSEE BITUMINOUS COAL FIELD,
   page 3-13,  Five regions of coal province are named: Cumberland Block Region,
   Wartburg Basin Region, the Northern Cumberland Plateau Region, Southern
   Cumberland Plateau Region and Walden Ridge Region. Does the Draft PEIS
   assessment data include all five regions? They are more than 25 named coal seams
   in the Cumberland Block Region, page 3-17. The Wartburg Basin Region has 16
   commercial coal beds, page 3-18.  The  Northern Cumberland Plateau Region has 5
   commercial seams and 15 named coal beds, page 3-19; The Southern Cumberland
   Plateau has 7 coal seams and 13 named coal beds, page 3-20. The Walden Ridge
   Region has 9 commercial seams and 13 named coal seams. Does the Draft PEIS
   assessment data include all five regions and their Individual coal seams'

•  OSM-EIS-18, 3.5.2.1 SURFACE WATER QUALITY, page 3-21, Abandoned and active
   mines exist in all five-coal regions.  Does the Draft PEIS database assessment Include
   the results from these abandoned and actives mines? To fully assess the intent of the
   Draft PEIS, and address proposed policy changes. Federal agencies would need to
   know past mountaintop mining operations impacts in these regions.

•  OSM-EIS-18, page 3-22, paragraph 2, "Problems associated with surface runoff are
   directly related to climate and precipitation as well as to topography and geology."
   Does the Draft PEIS address potential Increases of these types of associated
   problems with mountaintop mining and valley fills?

•  OSM-EIS-18, Figure 3-5, Wildlife Management areas within the adjacent  to  the
   Tennessee coalfields, as outlined on pages 3-60 of OSM-EIS-18. The information is
   outdated. Does the Draft PEIS show or listed updated sites that have  been created
   over the past 18 years? Does the Draft PEIS evaluation includes these additional
   sites?

•  OSM-EIS-18, 3.5.8 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, pages 3-73 to 3-78, is outdated. Does
   the Draft PEIS include updated information?

•  OSM-EIS-18, 3.5.9 POPULATION  TRENDS, pages 3-78 to 80,  is outdated.  Does the
   Draft PEIS  include the latest known data?

•  OSM-EIS-18, 3.5.11 LAND USE Use, page 3-84, is outdated. Does the Draft PEIS
   include the latest known state  and community growth plan  data?
                                                                                                            9-5-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-571
                                                          Section A - Organizations

-------
       Draft Mountairtoo Mining and Vatev Rite PEIS -Page
                                                                                                                   Draft Mountaintop Mining and Valley Filte PHS Page
       •  OSM-EIS-18, 3.5,12 TRANSPORTATION, pages 3-84 to 3-86, is outdated. Does the
          Draft PEIS include the latest known data on current and future transportation plans?

       The Draft PEIS is in conflict with the purpose of OSM-EIS-18 which in part is to analyzes
       the cumulative impacts and consequences of decisions by OSM on SMCRA permit
       applications under the Tennessee Federal Program. These assessments would address
       how OSM and the SMCRA permit applicant plan to meet compliance of adequacy of
       information to allow OSM to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of  1969
       (NEPA) for any future proposed SMCRA permits.  [30 CFR 942.773(b)(6) and 49 FR
       38892, Oct. 1, 1984 and 65 FR 79582, 79672, Dec. 19, 2000].

       The Draft PEIS does not contain data or information on database information from the
       AVS program. What is the AVS history of individual study areas in the Draft PEIS. If no
       AVS information is  available or operators have no past AVS history then the Draft PEIS
       should state such information for reviewers.

       The Draft PEIS does not provide information on NOV history of the Tennessee Study
       Areas. Reviewers are to assume the Tennessee Study Areas never received any NOVS
       during their operations.  ALL, factual  data and history should be included in the Draft PEIS
       about "Study Areas".  The proposed federal action requires a "hard look" at all  available
       information. Any well-written Programmatic DEIS would have this information for
       reviewers. Both the "GOOD" and the "BAD" of mountaintop mining and valley  fills should
       be within the Draft PEIS pages. Federal Agencies should be free from bias and impartial
       to the either side.

       The Draft PEIS fails to provide the full impacts to the Tennessee Federal Program of the
       proposed federal agencies action. In fact, no in depth assessment of impacts to the
       Tennessee Federal Program is within the Draft PEIS. Specific sections should be added
       to the Draft PEIS that analyses the full scope of administrative impacts, costs and
       changes to the Tennessee Federal Program. Each section of 30 CFR Parts 942,700 -
       942.846 (updated April 2, 2001} should be addressed in the Draft PEIS.
                                  FORMAT OF DRAFT PEIS

       Tennessee reviewers do not have the necessary time to review and analyze the full scope
       of administrative changes to the Tennessee Federal Program due to the format of the
       Draft PEIS. It took federal agencies four years to create the Draft PEIS. Individual
       Tennessee reviewers and Tennessee State agencies can not fully evaluate the Draft PEIS
       in a few months. Fragments of data and assessment information of the Tennessee Study
       Areas and the Tennessee Federal Program are in the many pages of the Draft PEIS.  The
       extensive range and scops of the Tennessee Federal Program requires a broadcloth
       review by Tennesseans, as to the full impacts of the proposed federal action. The Draft
       PES is more of a bronco approach to assessing and evaluating the Tennessee Federal
       Program.
9-5-2
                                                      ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

                           Not only should environmental concerns be address in the Draft PEIS, but also
                           administrative impacts and costs should be included within the Draft PEIS.  The number of
                           personnel employees to oversee the proposed actions, as the preferred alternative should
                           be included in the Draft PEIS documents.
                  TRAVEL INDUSTRY AND TOURISM IMPACTS

The Draft PEIS fails to provide detailed analyses on the direct and indirect impacts to the
Tennessee tourism economy from mountaintop mining and valley fills. In a speech on
Friday, July 6, 2003 in Chattanooga, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen pledges his
support for tourism.  "A $10.4 billion business, nearly 38 million visitors annually and
177,000 Jobs. Those numbers are huge. Tourism is, without a doubt, a cornerstone of
our state's economy," [see Attachment #4, TENNESSEAN, Saturday July 7,2003,
"GOVERNOR BACKS CREDIT CARD CHCCK~bv Bill Poovey, AP] and [ses Attachment
#5, "BB£12£$EN__Q(JILLNES PLANS TO EXPEND TOURISM ECONOMY", by Bob Kenst,
Exeeutive Director of Tennessee Association of Resorts, Marinas and Marine Dealers]

Today, the travel and tourism industry that has developed to serve the traveler contributes
enormously to the U.S. economy. In 2000, direct traveler spending in the United States by
domestic and international travelers reached $583,5 billion dollars, 5.7 percent of the
nation's gross domestic product. This activity generated $100.2 billion in  tax revenue for
federal, state and local governments, [see Attachment #6, THE ECONOMIC .IMPACT.OF
TRAVEL ON TENNESSEE COUNTIES 2000. by the Tennessee Department of Tourist
Development] The Draft PEIS fails to assess and analyze the affected environment (CFR
1502.15) and the environmental consequences (CPH 1502.18) of mountaintop mining and
valley fills on Tennessee's Travel industry and Tourism and the loss of tax revenues for
Tennessee and the coalfield counties' local governments that have gone to great lengths
to develop new markets for domestic and international travelers.  Mountaintop mining and
valley fills sites are not vacation  destinations for tourists that visit Tennessee.

Travelers in Tennessee produce "secondary" impacts over and above that of their original
expenditures. These secondary outputs (sales) and earnings (wags  and salary income)
arise from "direct" and "indirect" spending. The Draft PEIS' economic sections and
assessments do not address ANY of the above travel industry and Tourism impacts from
mountaintop mining and valley fills in the coalfield counties of Tennessee.

The Draft PEIS fails to assess any significant cumulative impacts to Tennessee's business
and economic outlook.  In February 2003, AN ECONOMIC REPOflT TO THE
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE by UT's Center for Business and
Economic Research [see Attachment #7] provide a long-term forecast for Tennessee and
projected trends.  Mountaintop mining and valley fills are NOT noted  in the document, or
                                                                                 11-9-2
                                                                                                            11-7-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-572
                                                           Section A - Organizations

-------
       Drall Mountaintop Mining and Vatev Fills. PEIS Page
                                                                                                                   Draft Mountaintoo Mining and Vafev Fills PEIS Page
       their potential risks to Tennessee's economy. The Draft PEIS fails to give an adequate
       economic impact statement and to discuss Tennessee Economic trends and risk impacts
       from mountaintop mining and valley fills. The February 2003 report noted mining data on
       pages Appendix A, QF5, QF8, QF11, QF12, QF13, QF14, AF5, AF8. AF9, AF13, AFt6,
       and pages Appendix B, QH5, QH8, QH11, QH12, QH13, QH14, AH5, AH8, AH9, AH13,
       AH 16, The Spring 2002. TENNESSEE. BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK bv UT's
       Center for Business and Economic Research [see Attachment #8] provides projected
       growth assessment for Tennessee's economy.  The mining industry data (pages, 21, 22,
       23,24,37,40, 43, 44, 45, and 46) shows mining has a small economic Impact on
       Tennessee's economy, as compare to all other businesses in  Tennessee. Yet, the
       economic draw to travel industry and tourism sites provides long-term revenues and jobs
       for citizens in the coalfield counties of Tennessee. The Fall 2002, TENNESSEE
       BUSINESS AND EQONOMIG OUTLOOK by UT's.Center for Business and Economic
       Research [see Attachment #9) provide additional data on pages 18 and 44 which shows
       more projected assessments of  mining in Tennesses.  In 2001, AN ANALYSIS OF AN
       ECONOMIC REPORT TO THE  GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE. A Report
       to the State Funding Board, Office of Research and Education Accountability, Comptroller
       of the Treasury, {see Attachment #10] shows impacts on the Tennessee State budget
       from tax revenues and predicted levels of economic growth. The report shows no
       evidence that mountaintop mining and valley fills will bring an  economic increase into
       Tennessee. The TENNESSEE ECONOMIC OVERVIEW [see Attachment #11] of October
       2001 showing the index as of January 2002 fails to indicate ANY rise in revenues from
       mountaintop mining and valley fills.  In TENNESEE POLICY RESEARCH BRIEF, Vol. 1,
       No21, November 2001, GENERAL ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN TENNESSEE.
       Examining; Changes In Labor Market Conditions and Income Levels, 1990-2QQQ by UT's
       Center for Business and Economic Research clearly shows that Tennessee's labor force
       is developing to meet current demands for skilled jobs, (see Attachment #12)  The mining
       industry labor force has decreased over the past ten years, (see Attachment #13)
       Furthermore, misleading data are associated with the Draft PEIS. The Tennessee mining
       industry data presented in the Draft PEIS includes information on crushed stone mining,
       zinc mining, Portland cement mining and construction sand mining and gravel mining.
       Inclusion of data for non-coal mining industries is irretevant and does not fulfill the primary
       objectives of this Draft PEIS. The Draft PEIS should be revised to just show data of
       specific surface coal mining operations and the total number employment data. See
       Attachment Section for supplement information on brochures, Attachment f31)
                    IMPACTS ON TENNESSEE'S ART INDUSTRY ECONOMY

       The Tennessee Arts economy provides #143.8 million into the Tennessee economy.
       4,000 jobs are dependent on the nonprofit arts industry in Tennessee, and $134 million in
       income was generated by nonprofit arts activities in Tennessee, [see Attachment #14)
       The Draft PEIS fails to provide assessment and analysis on potential impacts to East
       Tennessee Arts Industry and activities.
11-7-2
          TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOWC AND COMMUNITY
                          DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS

SOCM has expressed concerns with the Tennessee Department of Economic Community
Development, Director of Special  Projects, Wilton Burnett, Jr. on the significant
interdepartmental issues including state and local coordination on environmental and
economic development impacts as well as a possible need to consider the impacts of
potential future large-scale coat surface mining operations, [see Attachment #15) The
Draft PEIS falls to analyze economic and community growth In the 22 Tennessee coalfield
counties, pursuant to Draft PEIS Part II, page A-8, Part 111, page Q-1 to Q-14, Part Hi,
pages R-3 to R-6, Part III, page T-2 and Part IV, pages 1-1 to I-23,  The Draft PEIS should
give reviewers of the above sections of the Draft PEIS a clearer assessment and
evaluation of potential significant Impacts and proposed alternatives.  The Draft  PEIS only
supplies data about the coal industn/s temporary economic impacts in communities. It
fails to give economic impacts data for the period after the coal industries leaves a
community and moves away.  These after-mining economic impacts have historically left
local governments, civic leaders, and local businesses facing dramatic shortfalls in
resources needed to maintain individual communities and counties. These types of
"driftwood-economy" communities are historically cast aside by coal industries.  The Draft
PEIS should assessed and evaluated the full impacts of potential future large scale coal
surface mining operations as suggested by Mr. Burnett above pursuant to the NEPA
process.

The Draft PEIS is inadequate because:

•  It fails to provide  assessment of existing economic base in each of the 22 county of the
   Tennessee coalfield and assess the impact of mountaintop mining and valley fills upon
   the existing economic base.
•  The Draft PEIS economic sections fail  to provide individual assessments of all 22
   counties in the Tennessee coalfields. In  fact, many,  if not all, 22 counties local political
   and civic and business leaders are unaware of the current proposed Draft PEIS.
•  It falls to provide  area development resources availability and quality and the impacts
   of mountaintop mining and valley fills upon these resources.
•  It fails to provide  assessment of impacts of mountaintop mining and valley fills to state
   and local government's tax base.
•  It fails to provide  assessment of impacts of mountaintop mining and valley fills to
   economic development plans and strategies to target and guide growth.
•  It fails to provide  assessment of impacts on business attitude toward growth  and
   development by local leaders and citizens.
•  The Draft PEIS fails to seek direct input from local county governments on economic
   growth plans and strategies and the impacts that mountaintop mining and valley fills
   projects would have on these plans and strategies. And, to provide in the Draft PEIS
   proposed Alternatives Section ways to offset or "minimize" these impacts.
                                                                                                            11-9-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-573
                                                          Section A - Organizations

-------
       Omit Mountaintop Mining and Valiev Fills PEIS Page
                              U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
                          STRATEGliS PLAN FOB CONSERVATION
                    OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TRUST RESOURCES
                   IN THE LOWER TENNESSEE-CUMBERLAND ECOSYSTEM
                                   DRAFT PEIS IMPACTS

       The Draft PEIS fails to address ANY potential significant impacts of rnountaintop mining
       and valley fills with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Strategies Plan for Conservation of
       Fish and Wildlife Service Trust ftesoumfs in the Iowiar-Tenne_ss08-Gumh®rtafid
                  fsee Attachment #16] A number of Tennessee's coalfield counties lie within
       this ecosystem.  Public Land use of such areas as the Big South Fork National River and
       Recreation Area (108,000) acres are significant concerns to Tennesseans. The Draft PEIS
       should be revised to address ANY conflicts between the proposed alternatives and U.S.
       Fish and Wildlife Service's Goals, Objectives and Strategies within the FWS document.
                   CONFLICTS BETWEEN U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                             U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
                          AND OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING OFFICE
                                      NWP PROGRAM

       In a memorandum dated 9/21/2001, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed major
       concerns with proposed changes to the Corps of Engineers nationwide permit program
       (NWP). [see Attachment #17] The draft Programmatic Environment Impact Statement for
       the Nationwide Permit Program released by the Corps on July 31,2001, identified
       numerous deficiencies concerning the administration of the program, including inadequate
       record keeping and data entry, lack of mitigation compliance efforts, poor enforcement
       and failure of any meaningful attempts to quantify and assess the ecological effects of the
       nationwide permit program on the environment. [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
       Memorandum, comment page  1] The Draft PEIS  does not submit how OSM, COE, EPA
       and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reached a programmatic agreement, if any,
       addressing these major concerns.
       Specific cites are maior concerns with OSM's NWP and surface coal mining
       activities not analyzed in the Draft PBS;

       FWS' comments page 1 cites:
       "The Service has determined that surface coal mines authorized under NWP 21 often
       result in tremendous destruction olmmtic and temstfial habitats, and do not meet the
       nationwide permit standard of minimal impacts. Data collected by the Corps for calendar
       year 2000 shows that NWP 21 was used to authorize 306 projects that collectively
       destroyed a/most 14.000 acres of aquatic habitat, and nearly 88 miles of stream channels.
       The average impact per project under NWP 21 was 45,4 acres of wetlands, and  150S
       linear feet of stream channel. To elate, the Corns has not completed studies to quantify or
       assess the effects of this permit on the Nation's natural resources, and therefore has no
1-13
Don Mountalntop Minim and .Vatey Bite PEIS Page                                      25


scientific basis to assert ttiat the permit will cause only minimal individual and cumulative
impacts on the environment. Data gathered for the Corns/EPA draft BSfor movntalntoo
mining shows that the constmctiorj of valley fills has not been authon'xedon 583 square
miles of the Appalachian region: this floursdoes not take Into account fee acreage extent
of the coal mines that utilize the valley tills,"

FWS' comments pages 6 to 9:

•  The Service has determined that surface coal mines often adversely affect large areas
   of upland and wetland habitat, and In general, do not meet the standard of having "no
   more than minimaf impacts on the environment,

•  We recommend that use of this permit be suspended, and further recommend that the
   Corps commit to completing peer-reviewed scientific studies analyzing the effect of this
   permit on the environment.

•  The Service believes that these losses do not represent a "minimal impact" on the
   environment.

•  Furthermore, none of the Corps districts that use this permit have conducted a
   cumulative effect analysis of the use of this permit on the environment.

•  The large average wetland and stream losses, coupled with the lack of knowledge
   regarding the effects of these permitted losses on the environment, demonstrates that
   th» Corps has insufficient basis to declare that this permit has only minimal individual
   and cumulative effects.

•  The individual and cumulative Impacts on both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
   caused by mining projects authorized in the Appalachians via this nationwide permit
   are unprecedented.

•  The Service estimates that over 900 miles of streams have a/ready Oeen filled.

*  Information complied by researchers In aquatic ecology has documented that the first
   and second order streams being destroyed via NWP 21 are critical to the proper
   functioning of downstream aquatic ecosystems, including fisheries.

•  NWP 21 authorization may affect SO federally listed threatened or endangered species,
   including 7 fish and 25 mussel species.

•  In addition, terrestrial species such as the Indiana bat and forest interior migratory
   birds are also adversely affected through  the loss forest habitat caused by the coal
   mines authorized under NWP 21.
                                                                                                            1-13
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-574
                                                           Section A - Organizations

-------
       Orail Mountaintop Mining ami Vatev Blls PEIS Page
                                                                                                               Draft Mountaintop Minina and Vallsv Fills PEIS P.aat
       •  Neither the notice of intent nor the July 31, 2001, draft PBS provide a detailed
          description of the kinds of habitat losses associated with the issuance ol Individual
          section 404 permits,

       •  The aquatic habitat losses associated with the NWP 21 have far exceeded the Corps'
          predictions.

       •  The acreage impacts from NWP 21 accounted for 71 percent of all NWP Impacts in
          calendar year 2000.

       •  Currently,  NWP 21 does not have any upper limit on the amount of aquatic resources
          that may be impacted by the authorized project,  and is therefore out of line with the
          acreage limits adopted for many other nationwide permits.

       •  We believe that the text of the nationwide permit should be expanded to incorporate
          more complete guidance to the District Engineer that describes how the determination
          of minimal effects should be conducted, and if feasible, the level of environmental
          impacts that would indicate that the upper threshold of "no more than minimal" impacts
          has been reached.

       •  "the need to carefully evaluate and closely monitor the effects thai the use of NWP 21
          permit has on the aquatic  environment, particularly stream channels and riparian
          corridors,

       •  "we believe that coal mining projects authorized by NWP 21 routinely violate General
          Condition 21 of the NWP program."

       *  "The Corps of Engineers'404 permit review will  address the direct and indirect effects
          to the aquatic environment from the regulated fill,"

       *  The Corps should properly be examined the effects of the authorized project on the
          entire mining site, rather than merely examining the direct and indirect effects ol the
          footprint of the fill in /urisdictional waters of the United States.

       The Draft PEIS for mountaintop mining and valley fills should specifically document that all
       of the above major concerns of the US Fish and Wildlife Service with mountaintop mining
       and valley fills activities have  been resolved by federal agencies prior to the release of the
       Final PEIS. More detail assessment pursuant to Tennessee coalfields by the Cookeville,
       Tennessee office of US Fish and Wildlife Service should be implemented into the Draft
       PEIS.
1-13
                                               CONCERNS WITH EPA AND CORPS
                                                    PROPOSED REVISIONS
                                     TO THE CLEAN WATER ACT REGULATORY DEFINITIONS
                                                 65 FEDERAL REGISTER 21292

                          In July 16, 2000, SOCM submitted comments of concerns with the Corps and EPA
                          proposed revisions, [see Attachment #18), As of December 2003, SOCM has not
                          received any reply addressing our concerns. The Draft PEIS fails to note how EPA and
                          the Corps have resolved citizens concerns, specifically with moyntaintop mining and
                          valley fills. The range of alternatives in the Draft PEIS fails to explore different intensities
                          and quantities of mountaintop mining and valley fills and its relationship with 65 FR 21292.
                       PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT
              AMONG THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
                       THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
            TENNESSEE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
       TENNESEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION
             THE EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS (EBCI)
                   THE CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA
                       THE CHICKASAW NATION (CN)
                   THE CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
                THE SEMINOLE NATION OF OKLAHOMA (DSNO)
                   THE CUMBERLAND TRAIL CONFERENCE
                   REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
                CUMBERLAND TRAIL TENNESSEE STATE PARK
                            [see Attachment #19]

The Draft PEIS fails to assess and evaluate ANY potential conflicts with mountaintop
mining and valley fills and the Programmatic Agreement between the Federal Highway
Administration and the above organizations and Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation  (TDEC) and Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office. The
Cumberland Trail state Park is located in Anderson, Btedsoe, Campbell, Claiborne,
Cumberland, Hamilton, Marion, Morgan, Rhea, Sequatchie and Scott Counties,
Tennessee. The development of the Cumberland Trail  State Park is a major recreational
land use project in Tennessee, The Draft PEIS fails to provide analyses of alternatives to
minimize potential impacts to the above Programmatic Agreement.
                                                                                                                                TRAIL Of TEARS NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL
                                                                                                                           DHADT COMPREHENSIVE INTERPRETIVE PLAN IMPACTS

                                                                                                               The Draft PEIS does not assess significant Impacts of mountaintop mining and valley fills
                                                                                                               to the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail in Tennessee, [see Attachment #20]
                                                                                                        1-13
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
          A-575
                                                        Section A - Organizations

-------
       Draft Mauttoiotop Mining and Valtev Fills PEIS Pane
                                                                                                                 Draft Mteunlaintop Mining and Valley Fills PEIS Page
                    TENNESSEE PARKS AND GRENNWAYS FOUNDATION
                         STRATEGIES CONFLICTS WITH DRAFT PEIS

       The proposed Draft EIS tails to provide assessment and evaluations of alternatives to off
       set conflicts with TPQF's strategies: (1) actively pursue and acquire lands for public use,
       (2) offer small grants to others to create connections, (3) work with private landowners and
       accept conservation easements, and (4) conduct educational sessions to stimulate
       conservation initiatives by others, [see Attachment #21]
               RARE SPEC1IS IN THE 22 COALFIELD COUNTIES Of TENNESSEE

       The Draft PEIS does not provide assessment or analyses data on alternatives and efforts
       to minimize potential impacts to rare species found In the coalfield counties in Tennessee.
       [see Attachment #22) The lack of complete assessment and analysis of the significant
       risk factors posed by mountaintop mining and valley fills and mountaintop removal and
       cross ridge mining operations impacts to rare species and their habitats in Tennessee's
       coalfield watersheds leaves the Draft PEIS Section III and IV and the Draft PEIS Appendix
       F (see Attachment 22 A) fails adequately assess Tennessee's Rare species that are listed
       by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage,

       Based on our review of positions published by the Tennessee Natural Heritage (TNH),
       Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency (TWRA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
       Tennessee/Kentucky Field Office (FWS), the Draft PEIS descriptions of ecological
       resources, Including Federally threatened and endangered species are not
       comprehensive and do not reflect the current knowledge of ecological resources present
       in the 22 coalfield counties of Tennessee. The proposed Programmatic Environmental
       Impact Statement does not reflect past U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consultations for a
       number of OSM, COE and DOE projects in the 22 coalfield region in Tennessee.
       Examples include the NEPA Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) for the U.S.
       Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Implementation of a Comprehensive
       Management Program for the Storage, Transportation, and Disposition of Potentially Re-
       use Uranium Materials (DOE-EA-1393), The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
       Enforcement's individual EISs for Frozen Head State Park and Natural Area, Fall Creek
       Falts State Park and Natural Area, North CWekamauga, Rock Creek and Fern Lake, and
       U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Spencer Artillery Range and the National Historic Trail of
       Tears  Historical Trail projects. The Draft PEIS fails to assess, analyze and submit
       alternatives to minimize direct and indirect cumulative impacts to rare species and their
       habitats. It is important that the Draft PEIS answer the concerns surrounding significant
       impacts to intermitted and perennial streams.
1-13
8-3-2
                 TENNESSEE'S BIOASSESSIWENT PROGRAM

The Draft PEIS fails to assess potential impacts to the State of Tennessee's
Bio-assessment Program, [see Attachment #23] The Tennessee Division of Water
Pollution Control has an extensive bioassessment program that has not been addressed
in the Draft PEIS.

                     APPLICANT VIOLATOR SYSTEM (AVS)
                           The Draft PEIS fails to address any potential impacts to the AVS program from the
                           proposed federal action. How will the proposed changes impact the AVS program?
                           (see Attachment #24}
                                                   TENNESSEE AML PROGRAM

                           The Draft PEIS fails to identify and assess any significant impacts to SOCM and Governor
                           Bredesen joint efforts to address the Abandoned Mine Lands problem in Tennessee.
                           (see Attachment #25)

                                            TENNESSEE RESTOCKING ELK PROGRAM

                           The Draft PEIS fails to address in detail how the proposed federal action wHl impact
                           Tennessee efforts to restock eastern Tennessee wilh Elk. (see Attachment #26)
                                              TENNESSEE FEDERAL PRPGRAM {OSM)
                                REFORESTATION AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVE

                           The Draft PEIS fails to address any significant Impacts to the OSM's Reforestation and
                           Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Initiative under the Tennessee Federal Program.
                           (see Attachment #27)
                                               DRAFT PEIS APPENDIX C CONCERNS

                           The Draft PEIS Regional Setting Supporting information (see Attachment #28) for
                           Tennessee does not use up-to-date information on the regional changes since 1985. The
                           Tennessee Division of Groundwater programs and regulations are not address. It is
                           important to address concerns raised regarding any Programmatic EIS approval by
                           federal agencies that do not look at impact assessment of mountaintop mining and valley
                           fills and Mountaintop Removal mining and Cross Ridge Mining in the Tennessee
                           coalfields.  "Mountaintop ftemamt Mlntna; An Environmental Impact Assessment
                           (EIA) Scoolno Exercise and Impact Assessment of Mining Activities on Aquatic
                           Resources. By Jeff Lee Hansbarcter, (see Attachment #29)
                                                                                1-13
                                                                                                                                                                                                  5-2-4
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-576
                                                          Section A - Organizations

-------
       Draft Mountalntop Mining and Valley Fills PEIS Page
                                                                                                                    Draft MounlainlopMining and Valtev Rite PEIS Page
                               IMPACTS TO MET TENNESSEE'S
                  STANDARDS FOB DRINKING WATER AND SURFACE WATER

       The Stats of Tennessee's Controller of the Treasury, Division of State Audit issued a
       Performance Audit on "Water Quality" on May 2001, The Draft Programmatic EIS fails to
       provide any review agreement with the State of Tennessee and the other federal agencies
       to assess the impacts of the proposed federal action on Tennessee's availability
       to meet its high water quality standards, (see Attachment #30) Tennessee Division of
       Water Pollution Control has invested a large amount of its budget's dollars and
       employee's time to develop a waste water pollution NPDES permit scheme to meet
       federal standards.

       The Draft PEIS fails to assess how federal agencies and the State of Tennessee will be
       meet the high standards within the Tennessee Safe Drinking Water Act of 1983. The Draft
       PEIS does not provide any documentation from the Tennessee Division of Qroundwater
       Protection, the Division of Grouftdwater Protection, the Division of Water Supply, the U.S.
       Army Corps of Engineers - Nashville District and EPA Region 4 office on potential
       mountaintop mining, mountaintop removal mining and cross ridge mining to Tennessee's
       water quality programs.
                                          SOCM's
                    SPECIFIC CONCERNS WITHIN THE DRAFT PEIS


       DRAFT PEIS. PART I. PURPOSE AND NEED, MMTOS1-1 to 1-21

       COMMENTS:

       The purpose of this EIS is:

              "to consider developing agency policies, guidance, and coordinated agency
       decision-making process to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the adverse
       environmental effects to waters of the United States and to fish and wildlife resources
       affected by mountaintop mining operations, and to environmental resources that could be
       affected the sfee and location of excess spoil sites in valley fills." [64 FR 8778)

       This a programmatic EIS, according to federal regulations (40 CFR  1502.4(b)),
       preparation of a programmatic EIS serves as a valuable and necessary analysis of the
       affected environment and the potential cumulative impacts of the reasonably foreseeable
       actions under that program or within that geographic area (46 CFR 18026, 51 FR 15618}.
       A programmatic EiS facilitates tiering to an impact assessment of narrower scope to
       eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues (30 CFR 1500.4(1}).
1-13
The Draft PEIS should state:

 *  How did federal agencies' policies, guidance, and decision making process work in
   Tennessee prior to the December 1998 settlement agreement?

 •  The outcome of the developing agency policies?

 •  How each federal agency will coordinate to achieve developing policies?

 *  How successful will be the developing agency policies?

 •  Describe the successes and challenges developing such agency policies?

 •  Describe key lessons learned?

 •  How federal agencies short-term outcomes affect the long-term goals identified in the
   Draft PEIS?

 *  How federal agencies will define and measure success of proposed developing
   policies?

 «  How federal agencies will monitor the long-term results of proposed developing
   policies?

 «  How federal agencies will use and share the results of proposed developing policies,
   internally and externally?

 •  How will federal agencies improve its process in the future?

Pursuant to the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act of 1977and the Federal Clean
Water Act, and appropriate Federal and state regulations, SOCM views the Draft PEIS
proposed Alternatives (all three) to consider new or revised program guidance, policies, or
regulations to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, and the adverse
environmental effects of mountaintop mining/valley fills operations will harm and put at risk
the human environment in Tennessee's watersheds. Pursuant to the Federal Register
Notice of February 5,1999, no public scoping hearings have been conducted in
Tennessee, no public meetings have been conducted in Tennessee, and no meetings with
citizens groups have been conducted in Tennessee to address any proposals relating to
the Draft PEIS for mountaintop mining and valley fife. However the Draft EIS case "Study
Area" shows that a "closed circle" of OSM-Knoxvllle Staff and TDEC's Environmental
Policy Office have exchanged communications about the Draft PEIS. This lack of the
NEPA scoping process (Sec 1501.7) voids the credltabiiity and accuress of the
Tennessee's data used for the Draft PEIS.

The proposed Draft PEIS fails to consider its impacts on the watersheds located in the
Tennessee coalfields. The proposed Draft PEIS will have significant impacts on the
                                                                                                                                                                                                       1-13
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-577
                                                           Section A • Organizations

-------
       Dm(t Mauntaintop Mining and Valley Fills PEIS Paae
                                                                                                                    Pall Mourtalntoo Minlna and Vallos Filte PEIS Pane
       classified uses of the receiving waters and contain limitations on the amount of pollutant
       discharges and/or other conditions and will harm the human environment in the
       Appalachian study area. The Draft PEtS (ails to address its impacts on TDEC's
       watershed management approach programs. The watershed approach is TDEC's key
       program at restoring water quality to the stete'8 impaired waters.

       White Tennessee's water resources are clean enough for most designated uses, there are
       some significantly impaired rivers and streams in the coalfields of Tennessee,  The Draft
       PEIS fails to consider its long-term cumulative impacts of mountaintop mining upon these
       rivers and streams.  TDEC's watershed approach programs considers the entire river
       basins of the coalfields of Tennessee. While the Draft PEIS addresses only the acreage
       surrounding a mountaintop mining sites, it fails to gather and document data on impacts
       on the complete watershed.

       Much of the Draft PEIS sections are written in terms that the average citizens can not
       understand. The scientific terminology of mountaintop mining makes it hard for citizens to
       fully understand the terms and concepts with the Draft PEIS. SOCM finds that many of
       the graphs and other figures are not clear and understandable to the reader.

       The Tennessee Federal  Program is the only such federal program in Appalachia.
       Tennessee was the only state represented In the Draft PEIS that was reguJated by OSM.
       NPDES and ARAP permits are regulated by the Tennessee Division of Water Pollution
       Control - Mining Section in Knoxville, Tennessee.  The Draft PEIS is unclear as to
       Tennessee State agencies' roles if any alternatives to existing regulatory provisions and
       procedures are approval.
       PART I. PURPOSE AND NEED. Section E. STUDY AREA, naoe t-S

       COMMENTS;

       Complete Tennessee Study Area data are missing from the Draft PEtS. The lack of
       complete information on the Study Area leaves the readsr(s) to question If the sections of
       the Draft PEIS: Part II. Alternatives, and Part III. Affected Environment and Consequences
       of MTM/VF, and Part IV. Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives Analyzed are
       accurate and credible in assessing the potential significant cumulative impacts in
       Tennessee from mountaintop mining and valley fills.

       PART). PURPOSE AND NEED. Section G. SCOPING ANP PUBUCINVOLVMENT.
       pages 1-11 to 1-1.2.

       COMMENTS;

       SOCM finds that the general public in Tennessee is unaware of the proposed federal
       action and the Draft PEIS comment period due to multiple failures by the Department of
       the Interior to inform the public of this impending federal action. Neither OSM-Knoxville
1-13
3-2
nor other federal agencies had any scoping hearings if! Tennessee.  Neither OSM-
Knoxville nor other federal agencies have held afiy public meetings to discuss the
proposed federal action.  Neither has there been sufficient communication through
established tocal and state media. SOCM finds that some Tennessee State agencies do
not even know about the proposed federal action. SOCM finds that some counties are
unaware of the proposed federal action. SOCM finds that the Draft PEIS does not listed
all state and county government officials that should have been contacted for scoping
input prior to the released of the Draft PEIS,  In fact, 11 of the 22 counties have not been
sent copies of the Draft PEIS.  Overton County Library has not received a copy of the
Draft PEIS. White, Warren, Van Buren, Hamilton, Franklin, Coffee, Rhaa, Ftoane, Pickett,
and Putnam counties have not received a copy of the Draft PEIS. SOCM finds that
county's Department of Environment and Conservation, usually the office of county
executives, have not been notified about the  Draft PEIS,  This lack of communication with
the directly affected public does not meet basic NEPA requirements.

ORAFT PBS. PART 1, PURPOSE AND NEED. Section I (QK1 Ma) Public Meetings and
(1 Kbi • Meeting with Citizen Groups, page 1-12:

COMMENTS:

The Draft PEIS does not include concerns from Tennessee stakeholders. In fact, SOCM
cannot find any  records of meetings in Tennessee, or out reach meetings, conferences,
informal hearings, or letters from federal agencies: EPA,  OSM-Knoxvllle Field Office,
FWS, or COE seeking input on the proposed mountaintop mining and valley fills Draft
PEIS.

EPA, OSM, FWS and COE have not complied with NEPA requirements to seek scoping
Information or input from Tennessee's stakeholders. The general public has not seen any
information from the media, tocal and state political leaders, the offices of US Senators
and Representatives, or the Governor's office on the proposed federal action.
Stakeholders are individuals and organizations that have an interest  In identifying water
quality problems and in monitoring the effectiveness of these proposed solutions over time
as it relates to mountaintop mining and valley fills. 10 of the 22 coalfield counties in
Tennessee have not received a copy of proposed Draft REIS.  The make up the
Programmatic EIS review committee should consist of:

Geologist
Physicist
Historians
Archaeologist
Environmental lawyers
Environmental chemist
Wildlife botanist
Hydrotogist
Socialist
Environmental economist
                                                                                                             3-4

                                                                                                             3-2


                                                                                                             3-1
                                                                                                             3-2
MTMA/F Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
           A-578
                                                           Section A - Organizations

-------
       CraimeMHtMntop Mining and Valley Fills PEIS Pace
                                                                                                                   Draft Mounialntop Mining and Valley Fills PEIS Page
       Marine scientist
       Health expect
       Geologist
       Environmental engineer

       Missing from the Draft PEIS are such Tennessee stakeholders as1 [not identified in the
       Draft PEIS]
           Individuals citizens who live in the coalfields of Tennessee.
           Municipal and county governments.
           Local councils of governments.
           Local soil and water conservation commissions or districts.
           County boards of commissioners.
           Chambers if Commerce organizations.
           Local and national citizens action groups.
           Local industries.
           Water suppliers.
           State ground water agency.
           Native American groups.
           Local Electric Cooperatives.
           Friends groups.
           Tennessee Wildlife Resource Foundation.
           Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency.
           County Historical Societies.
           Tennessee fisheries.
           Recreational Clubs.
           Wildflowers Clubs.
           Bird Watchers organizations.
           Statewide Biking Clubs.
           Statewide Fishing Groups.
           Statewide Hunting Clubs.
           Ducks Unlimited organization.
           Tennessee Rivers organizations.
           Tennessee Department of Tourism,
           Tennessee Department of Air Pollution.
           Tennessee Department of Agriculture.
           Tennessee Arts Commission.
           Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development.
           Tennessee State Board of Education.
           Tennessee Department of Forestry.
           Tennessee Emergency Communication Board.
           Tennessee Emergency Management Agency. (TEMA)
           Tennessee Board of Equalization.
           Tennessee Film, Music and Entertainment Commission.
2-1
                              Tennessee Ftre Service and Codes Enforcement Academy.
                              Tennessee Geographic Information System (GIS).
                              Tennessee Department of Health.
                              Tennessee Historical Commission.
                              Tennessee Office of Homeland Security.
                              Tennessee Human Services.
                              Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development,
                              Tennessee Department of Solid Waste.
                              Tennessee Department of State Parks and Natural Areas.
                              Tennessee Wildlife Management Area officials.
                              Tennessee United States Senators and Representatives.
                              Individual coalfield counties' Department of Environment and Conservation, usually
                              located in the County Executive's office.
                              Individual statewide organizations: SOCM, TEC, TCWP, TCWN, TWRA, FFA, etc.
                           The Draft PEIS should address the development of a programmatic process designed to
                           actively and meaningfully obtain public Input on the content and nature of the data and
                           analyses necessary to define alternatives at the program level and to identify potential
                           impacts to the physical and human environment. The Draft PEIS does not present
                           procedures to address programmatic process with current state and federal mountaintop
                           mining and valley fills permitting programs that do not include environmentally sensitive
                           planning. The current review process in coalfield states should attempt to anticipate and
                           prevent mine-related problems rather than to react to them.
                           DRAFT P6IS. PART I. SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. SECTION (GK2)
                           ISSUES RASIEP DURING THE SCOPING PROCESS - teaoes 1-12 to 1211

                           COMMENTS

                           Since no public scoping process was carried out in Tennessee, the following Draft PEIS
                           sections should be revised to reflect evaluation and assessment of the Tennessee Federal
                           Program and its Subchapter T - Programs for the conduct of Surface Mining Operations
                           within Each State Part 942 -Tennessee, Sections 942,20 to 942.955.

                           The revised PEIS sections should reflect how the Tennessee Federal Program has
                           assessed, evaluated and addressed the following:  [before SOCM can give comments on
                           mountaintop mining and vaHey fills]

                           (a) Direct Stream Loss, mm 1-12
                           n>) Stream Impainaani. 1-13
                           (c) Fill Minimization, page 1-13
                           (d) Assessing arm Mitigating Stream Habitat and Aquatic Functions, uaae 11-14
                           (e) Cumulative Impacts, page 1-15
                           (0 Deforestation, page 1-15
                                                                                                                                                                                                    1-3
                       3-3
                       3-1
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-579
Section A - Organizations

-------
       Draft Mountaintop Mining and Valley FJHs PEfS Page
                                                                                                                      Pratt Mountalotop Mining antjjMfXlBjjH3i.g.afljj
       (qj  Blasting, page 1-16:
       (h) Air Quality, page 1-17
       (i) Flooding, page 1-17
       (i) Land Use, paoal-18
       (kl Threatened and Endangered Species, pane 1-18
       (I)  Scenery and Culturally Significant Landscapes. Paw 1-19
       (m) Exotic and Invasive Species, page 1-10
       (n) Valley Fill Stability, page I-20
       (o) Economics, page 1-20
       (P) Environmental Justice, page 1-21
       (q) Government Efficiency, page 1-21

       COMMENTS:

       Executive Order 12898 was designed to focus the attention of federal agencies on the
       human health and environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income
       communities. It requires EPA, OSM, COE and FWS to adopt strategies to address
       environmental justice concerns within the context of agency operations, within the
       proposed Draft PEIS on yountaintop Mining and Valley Fills. This document fails to
       provide the detailed guidance necessary to incorporate environmental justice goals and
       list actions that federal agencies would take to incorporate environmental justice into their
       missions. Small low-income communities are dismissively characterized in the Draft PEIS
       as "minor" impacts areas. Collectively, the affected rural communities of Kentucky, West
       Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee represent not only a large regional area, but also values
       basic to the heart and soul of the United States, The goal of "Environmental Justice" is for
       "fair treatment" of each unique small community of Appalachia.  It is not to shift risks
       among populations, but to identify potential disproportionately high and adverse effects
       and  identify alternatives that may mitigate these impacts.  The Draft PEIS analyses makes
       inappropriate assumptions regarding cumulative effects to these communities.  The Draft
       PEIS falls to exhaust all applicable analyses inside federal agencies and to incorporate
       the best data currently available from outside resources.

       The Draft PEIS falls to identify:

       All indirect impacts (40 CFR 1502.16(b)(, 1S08.8(b) 1508.9]

          growth effects
          population density
          changes  in infrastructure
          growth rate
          air
          water
          ecosystems
          sacred sites
10-7-2
DRAFT PBS. PART II. ALTERNATIVES, pages IIA-1 to IID-8

COMMENTS:

SOCM does support any of the proposed alternatives. Has the "no-action" alternative
been fully considered by federal agencies? Many environmental impacts have been
dismissed or understated by federal agencies. These federal agencies only address their
responsibilities within their  agencies while leaving the NEPA's "hard-look" to other
agencies to address. There are important data gaps within the Draft PEIS. The "worse-
case" analysis was not fully addressed within the Draft PEIS. The Draft PEIS is
inadequate and does not justify the alleged "Purpose and Need" requirement of NEPA to
conduct mountaintop mining and valley fills in West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia and
Tennessee. The feasible alternatives to the proposed federal action are not fully
considered within the Draft PEIS.  The Draft PEIS proposed mitigation plans are not
adequate to address potential direct and indirect impacts. Again, the Draft PEIS is unclear
to Tennessee State agencies' roles if any alternatives are approved.

SOCM expresses its concerns with the proposed three alternatives if each one weakens
Tennessee's more restrictive standards, limitations, and requirements of its Water Quality
Control's regulations and its NPDES and ARAP permitting programs. Pursuant to passed
law cases and court decisions that give states the right to set effluent limitations that are
more stringent than federal requirements. The 4* Circuit Court stated that the "NPDES
permit program serves at least two purposes: It ensure that discharges are subjected to
the scrutiny of the application process...; and it enables specification of discharge
limitations, including more  stringent state guidelines, for all effluent point sources." [53 FR
20764 and 54 FR 23868]

Tennessee administers its  own NPDES program. According to EPA regulation 40 CFR
122,44{d) a state can set NPDES water quality standards which are more stringent than
federal standards. Here lies the conflict with the proposed three alternatives within the
proposed federal action regarding mountaintop mining and valley fills in Tennessee. In
some permitting applications, not  only would Tennessee have to revise its current NPDES
permitting program, it would have to lower its current stringent standards and
requirements.

The State of Tennessee would have to revises its current laws; Tennessee Water Quality
Control Act, its Tennessee Code Annotated 69-3-101 to 89-3-137, and its Tennessee Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1983, TCA 68-221-701 to 68-221-720 to comply with the tower
standards within the proposed three alternatives outlined in the Draft  PEIS.

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement would need to revise it own
Tennessee Federal Program, 30 CFR Subchapter T, Part 942 - Tennessee to meet the
weaker proposed discharge and valley fHls standards. The three alternatives raise
concerns with the abilities of the State of Tennessee to "implement, administer and
enforce all applicable requirements consistent with 30 CFR Subchapter T, Part 942. ° [see
30 CFR Sec. 732,15(b)(1)] The Draft PEIS does not provide a cost assessment review to
                                                                                                               1-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-580
                                                            Section A - Organizations

-------
       Pratt Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills PEIS Page
                                                                                                                    Pratt Mourteiotop Mining and Valley Fills PBS Page
       implement any of three alternatives.  The proposed Draft PEIS places the burden on
       Tennessee to adopt "irrelevant and Inapplicable standards."

       The Draft PEIS falls to identify the following sections in assessing how the Tennessee
       Federal Programs compare to other programs. The Tennessee Federal Program should
       already be carrying out much of the suggestions in following the alternatives sections:

       PART II. Alternatives. Section A. 11) Programmatic Review, page II. A-1
       PART II. Alternatives. SeMon A ffi) Technical Studtes. pane II. A-2
       PART II. Alternatives. Section A QMaMbMcMMe) and (». pages II. A-S to II. A-8 does
       not fully cover the disposition of the issues.
       PART II. Alternatives. Section (JMli Overview ot the Alternatives.
       PART II, Alternatives. Section (BM2) Specific Actions Proposed bv the  Alternatives.
       PART II, Alternatives. Section (B)(3) Regulatory and Environmental Benefits of the
       Alternatives,
       PART II. Alternatives. Section (Oil) Government efficiency; Sub-issue; Coordinated
       Decision Making.
       PART II. Alternatives. Section (Cl{2) Government Efficiency. Sub-Issue:
       Consistent/Compatible Definition for Stream Characteristics and Analyses.
       PART II. Alternatives. Section (CM3i Direct Stream Loss.
       PART II. Alternatives. Section  Stream impairment.
       PABT il,_ Alternatives. Section f CMS) Bll Minimization.
       PART II. Alternatives. Section (C)(6) Assessing and Mitigating Stream Habitat and
       Aquatic Functions.
       PART II. Alternatives. Section (C!(7) Cumulative Impacts,
       PART II. AlternMvas. Section (CM8) Diforestatlon.
       PART II. Alternatives, Section (CM9) Air Quality.
       PABT II, Alternatives. Section (CM10) Flogging.
       PART II. Alternatives. Section (C1(111 Threatened and Endangered Species,
       PART II, Alternatives. Section (Did) Restricting Individual Valley Fills.
       PART II. Alternatives. Section (DK2) Fill Restrictions Based on Identification of High-
       Value Aquatic Resources.
       PABT il. Alternatives. Section fDM3) Fin Production.
       PART II. Altarnatives. Section (DM4) Summary of RU Restriction Alternatives.
       ALTENATIVES 2: fthe Preferred Alternatlvel

       COMMENT:

       SOCM questions the Draft PEIS lack of assessment on the role of states and citizens
       during the deersionmaking process outlined in the Preferred Alternative.  NEPA requires
       that all indirect impacts be addressed in the Draft PEIS.  Without question the role of
       states and citizens in participating during the decision making process as it relates to
       preferred alternative should be stated in the Draft PEIS.  All alternatives in the Draft PEIS
       are inadequate. Each fails to assess the full direct, indirect and cumulative damages to
1-13
our nation's watersheds. The preferred alternative doss not consider the log-term impacts
for Mountalntop Removal mining and Cross Ridge mining In Tennessee.

DRAFT PEIS. PABT III. AFFECTED BWMONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF
MTMAff. MOBS III A-1 to III W-6

COMMENTS;

Pages III, A-1 to III, W-6, describes the affected environmental and consequences of
mountatntop mining and valley fifls in the states of Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia.
It does not provide the necessary science and rational framework which to identify and
evaluate the impacts occurring from mountaintop "Removal* mining in Tennessee, in fact,
SOCM knows of no SMCRA permits being approved for mountaintop "removal" mining (by
definition) in Tennessee during the Draft PEIS study area project by OSM-Knoxville.  The
long-term impacts and its consequences in the coalfields of Tennessee are not
documented in the "Study Area" which is described in Part  III of the Draft PEIS.

Much of the data in the Draft PEIS for Tennessee is lacking to provide the needed
scientific information for long-term impacts.  Landscape disturbance affects the
abundance and diversity of fish and game resources, drinking water quality and quantity,
and the character of human communities. Federal and State agency management of
landscape changes are often "after the fact". Federal agencies should gather more on
gathering data over a longer period than the data in the Draft PEIS. Tennessee's data for
the Draft PEIS from the "Study Area" of known violators of current regulation
requirements.

The Draft PEIS, PART ill fails to:

•  Provide long-term impact data on the human environment impacts
*  Provide long-term impacts data on assessments of mountaintop mining activities in
   Tennessee.
«  Provide specific impacts arising from mountaintop mining in Tennessee,
•  Provide investigation data from past EISs used to assess mountaintop mining
   activities.
•  Provide direct and indirect aquatic resource impacts, along with documentation and
   validity data.
•  Provide literature review of technical reports, newspaper articles, books, current
   journal articles, as well as the creation of impacts matrices information on mountaintop
   mining and valley fills.
•  Provide adequate assessment and monitoring data from mountaintop mining
   operations.
•  Provide aquatic impacts data from past mountaintop mining activities.
•  Provide data to show the usefulness of mountaintop mining techniques for future
   mining activities in Tennessee.
•  Provide data on the results from physical alternations of streams and aquatic
   resources, or even its impacts on aquatic life in streams.
                                                                                                            4-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-581
                                                           Section A - Organizations

-------
       Pratt MpunteintOP Mining and Valley Flte PEI8 Pa«
                                                                                                                 Drjjt Mountalntoc Mining and VaUty. Rlls.PEIS Pa«
       •  Provide assessments comparing the impacts from other types of surface coal mining
         operations to impacts from rnourtaintop mining activities, on-site and off-site,
       *  Provide data on the effectiveness and validity of current mountaintop mining
         techniques to assess current, if any, practices in Tennessee.
       •  Provide data on the impacts of rnountaintop mining on the aquatic and woodland
         ecosystems in Tennessee.
       •  Provide scoping information from Tennessee State agencies other than TDEC.
       •  Provide more in-depth scientific analysis database on potential impacts in Tennessee
         coalfields,
       •  Provide additional scoping data from outside specialists and resources that have the
         expertise on mountaintop mining impacts.
       •  Provide accurate and up-to-date information to assess future potential impacts.
       •  Provide information on the problems associated with the Tennessee Study Area data
         for each site listed  in the Appendix: PtggRIPTIQNS OF GIS MINE POLYGONS IN
         THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT STUDY: TENNESSEE, naaes 1-3.
       *  Provide information on the cost to implement changes to 30 CFR 942.20 to 942.955 for
         each alternative being proposed in the Draft PEIS.
       •  Provide performance standards impacts to groundwater.
       «  Provide assessment for changes to 30 CFR 942.824, Special Performance Standards
         - Mountaintop mining of the Tennessee  Federal Prog/am.
       •  Provide effectiveness of mitigation and reclamation measures for mountaintop mining
         and valley fills program
       •  Provide post land use data to assess impacts.
       •  Provide forestry reclamation approaches to be used after mountaintop mining
         operations
       •  Provide data on Karst Systems in Tennessee.
       •  Provide assessment data on the three alternatives' effects on 30 CFR
         942.700(a)(b)(c)(d).

       The Draft EIS following sections does not cover all 22 counties in the Tennessee
       coalfields. The Draft PEIS is inadequate  without complete data of all 22 counties covering
       Part III A to Part III W, The Draft PEIS should be revises to reflect this information.
       federal agencies are required to integrate social science and economic information in the
       preparation of informed,  sustainable land use planning decisions. Federal agencies are
       require under Section  102 of NEPA to Insure the integrated use of the natural and social
       sciences... in planing  and decision making."

       DRAFT PEIS. PART III,  A Description of Study Area
       PBAFT PEIS. PART III.  B Physical Setting
       DP.AFT PEIS. PART HI.  C Appalachian Aquatic Systems
       OftAPT P61S. PAftTII).  P Impact Producing Faetofi to Headwater Systems from
       Mountaintop Mining
       OflAFT PEIS. PART ill.  E Coal BMne Orainaaa from Surface Mining
       DRAFT PEIS, PART HI,  F Appalachian Forest CommunMts
       DRAFT P6IS. PART Mi.  6 ReiatioftShifm of Mountaintop Mining to Surface Runoff
       Quantity and Flooding
                           PR AFT PEIS. PART ill, H Relationship of Mountainlop Mining to Groundwater
4-2
                           PR AFT PEIS, PART III. I  Overview of Appalachian Region Coal Mining Methods
                                    S. PART 1H. J tfTM/VF Characteristics
                          jDJMFT. EEIS.. PMt m, £ ixoss SooJI Dianosai
                          DRAFT PEIS, PART III . L Mine feasibility Evaluation and Planning
                          ORAFT PBS. PART 111. M Coal Olstrttmioo and JtedMtft
                          DRAFT PBS, PART M. N Past mA Current Mining In the Study Area.
                          GRAFT PEIS. PART III. 0 The Scope of remaining Surface-Minable Coal in the Study
                          Area.
                          DRAFT PBS. PART III. P Pemogfaphie Conditions
                          DRAFT PEIS, PART m. Q Economic Conditions
                          DRAFT PBS. PAW 111. R Land Use and Potential Development
                          DRAFT PEIS. PART m. $ Historic and Archaeological Resources
                          DRAFT PBS. PART Ml. TEcoftomic Importance of existing Landscape and
                          Environmental jj^MjHtv
                          DRAFT PEIS. PABT 111. U Social and Cultural Connections to Coal Mining and the
                          Natural Environment
                          ORAFT PB$. PART III. V Relationship ot Surface Mining antj Air Quality
                          DRAFT PBS, PART ill. W Blasting and the Local Community
COMMiNT:

The above sections does note some data on the Tennessee Federal Program on pages:

Part III B-3, Part 111 K-26, Part III K-36, Part III K-42, Part III K-51, Part III N-5, Part III T-2,
but to specifically address mountaintop mining and valley fills, all above sections should
have Information about the Tennessee Federal Program.
                           OBAFT PBS. PART IV. ENVIRONiaENTAl. CONSEQUENCES OF. THE
                           ALTEBNATIVE8 ANALYZED, oaoes IV A-1 to IV K-t

                           COMMENTS;

                           The Draft PEIS is not accurate in describing and quantifying the extent and the nature of
                           direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts associated with mountaintop mining and valley
                           fills in Tennessee. The Draft PEIS fails to provide a coherent, organized agenda or
                           schedule of commitments, proposal instruments and/or activities that elaborate and
                           implement mountaintop mining and valley fills policy.  It is in conflict with EPA's vision for
                           watershed approaches.  The watershed approach is a coordinating framework for
                           environmental management that focuses public and private sectors efforts to address the
                           highest priority problems within hydroioglcally-defined geographic areas, taking into
                           consideration both ground and surface's water flow. The Draft PEIS is in conflict with
                           Tennessee Division of Water Pollution's watershed approach policy and Tennessee/EPA
4-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-582
                                                          Section A - Organizations

-------
       Draft Mountaintop Mining and Vallav Fills PEIS PaflB
       Water Agreement. Much Ilka EPA's watershed approach policy, Tennessee's has
       developed and implemented watershed approaches that do not address large-scale
       mountaintop mining and valley fills operations. The proposed federal action would require
       Tennessee to redesign its watershed approach policies and implement new costly
       strategies.

       While the Draft PEIS does address some specific problems associated with on-site
       mountaintop mining and valley fills impacts, it fails to:

       •  Assess high priority problems associated with off-site impacts to the adjacent and
          surrounding watersheds, ecologically diverse hills and hollows, streams, and
          waterways.

       •  Assess impacts on future timber growth in the area.

       •  Assess the damage to the biological integrity of the study area,

       •  Assess functions lost by filling of headwater streams or the indirect to segments of
          streams from filling upstream portions.

       •  Assess biological needs of the aquatic ecosystem downstream.

       •  Assess operations that may severely impact biodiversity and environmental
          sustainability.

       «  Cumulative impacts from changes in topography and land cover results in the
          elimination of large tracts of habitats tor native forest-interior species, the invasion of
          exotic plant, animal, and  insect species, and micro-climatic changed.

       •  The scientific and analytic basis for comparisons lack complete and accurate
          information.

       •  Hollow fills associated with Mountaintop Removal mining that eliminates intermittent or
          ephemeral streams.
       The following sections fall to provide assessment and evaluation of the
       Tennessee Pectoral Program relating to mountaintop mining and valley
       fills per Alternatives notedin theDraft PllS:

       DRAFT PEIS, PART IV A Introduction
       DRAFT PEIS, PART )¥ B Aquatic Resources
       DRAFT PEIS. PART iv c Soils and Vegetation
       DRAFT PEIS. PART IV P Rah and Wildlife
       DRAFT PEIS. PART l¥ E Air Quality
4-2
Draft Mountalntep Mining and Valley Fills PEIS Pay                                     43


DRAFT PEIS, PART IV f Energy. Natural, or Oepletafale Resources Requirements
DRAFT PEIS. PART IV G Cultural. Historic, and Visual Resources
DRAFT PBS. PART iv H Social Conditions
DRAFT PEIS. PART IV I Economic Conditions
DRAFT PEIS. PART IV J Recreation
DRAFT PEIS. PART IV  K Environmental Justice

COMMENT:

Each of the above sections should be revised to include information how the Tennessee
Federal Program has implemented its program in relating to mouhtaintop mining and
valley fills.

                           APPENDIX COMMENTS

APPENDIX A Ideas tor Government Action
APPENDIX B Programmatic Reviews
APPENDIX C - REGIONAL SETTING SUPPORTING INFORMATION, oaoes. C-3. C-17.
COMMENT:

The quoted reference data is old data that should be updated to reflect new research
information and discoveries over the last ten years.

APPENDIX D Regional Selling Supporting Information
APPEMMX E Terrestrial Technical Studies
APPENDIX f - FEDERALLY LISTED T & E CANDIDATE AND SPECIES OF
CONCERN. 22 panes.

COMMENT;

The draft PEIS falls to address concerns with cumulative Impacts in all 22 counties. The
proposed federal action would allow the potential opening of sensitive watersheds to
serious cumulative impacts to state and federal species. The NEPA "bigger picture"
assessment is missing from the Draft PEIS as it relates to Tennessee's Division of Natural
Heritage's state and federal listings In all (22) coalfield counties. The Draft PEIS fails to
provide to Tennessee reviewers a clear picture of possible stats and federal species put in
harms way within the 22 county coalfields of Tennessee.

APPENDIX G  Socloeconomic Technical Studies
APPENDIX H  Engineering Technical Studies
APPENDIX!   Cumulative Impact Study
APPENDIX J  AOtofroHCV
APPENDIX K  Flooding Analysis Guidelines
APPENDIX L  Cumulative Guidance
                                                                                                         4-2
                                                                                                                                                                                              9-2-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-583
                                                         Section A - Organizations

-------
          Orall Mountaintop Mining and Valtev Fills PEIS Page
                                                                                                                         Pratt Mounlaintop Mining and Valley Rite PBS Page
          AOC assessmtnt concerns:

          COMMENTS;

          The following was used to assess "state run programs" concerns relating to AOC.
          However, Tennessee's concerns are not specifically addressed since Tennessee was
          already under a federal program. Many of the below suggestions should have already
          been in used by the Tennessee Federal Program.  After short term analyzing of the
          information gathered during the Draft PEIS process, the following conclusions and
          recommendations were developed by OSM to address state run SMCRA programs.

          •   OSM's own oversight evaluation indicates an industry trend of proposing to return mine
              sites to AOC with no AOC variance.

          •   Also, the evaluation revealed fftar policies or procedures used for determining when a
              mining operation's reclamation plan satisfies requirements established for AOC are
              either applied inconsistently or are overly broad, resulting in varied interpretations of
              what constitutes AOC.

          *   A major source of confusion over what qualifies as mountaintop mining operations,
              which require a variance from AOC, arises from OSMs method of classifying, in its
              permitting database, various mining methods as mountaintop operations, regardless of
              whether an AOC variance has been obtained or not.  Although the tracking of
              mountaintop operations and associated waivers is not required by State or Federal
              law, OSM has made changes to its database and is in the process of reviewing all
              current surface mining permits to clearly identify which sites should be classified as
              mountaintop operations.

          *   OSM identified three significant areas in which  the language of the approved State
              program differs from that of SMCRA and the Federal regulations.  These language
              differences, which may have contributed to some of the other problems addressed in
              this report, relate to the following areas:

              (1) documentation of  the need and the market for the designated postmining land
              use,

              (2) use of "woodlands" as an approved postmining land use, and

              (3) allowing "public use" instead of "public facility (including recreational facilities) use*
              as a postmining land use.

           *  OSM has not determined the extent to which the above differences have contributed
              to inadequate documentation justifying an AOC variance and non-approved
              postmining land uses.
                       Future discussions with WVDEP will identity the source of the problems and, if they
                       are related to the approved program language, OSM will provide the State a
                       notification mqu&sting that the language be changed to correct the deficiencies.  If,
                       however, the problems are merely the results of inadequate implementation of the
                       current State program requirement, OSM will work with WVDEP to put in place
                       procedural revisions to prevent further occurrences.

                       The oversight evaluation found that mountaintop permits have teen issued with
                       postmining and uses "forestry" and "fish and wildlife habitat" not authorized in the
                       approved State program, although a program amendment to authorize "fish and wildlife
                       habitat and recreation lands" is pending before OSU.

                       OSM has requested that WVDEP immediately discontinue approving permits for
                       unauthorized land uses, and that, in addition to those permits OSM examined in
                       preparing this report, (f review other permits currently in effect for similar problems.
                       For all current mountalntop-removal permits already issued that have not properly
                       applied the postmining land use provisions of the approved State program, OSM is
                       requesting that WVfXP work with operators to ensure, where practicable, final
                       reclamation achieves a postmining land use authorized by the program.  OSM
                       recognizes that the pending program amendment is intended to resolve some of these
                       concerns and,  with the release of this report, OSM plans to reopen the comment
                       period on the State's proposed amendment concerning "fish and wildlife habitat and
                       recreation lands." A notice will be published in the Federal Register, and comments
                       will be solicited from the public.

                       OSM found that all of the mountaintop-removal permits with AOC variances lacked at
                       least some of the documentation required for approving the designated postmining
                       land use. OSM has  requested VDEP to initiate an immediate review of its permit
                       application and permitting process to assure that the program requirements are being
                       fully implemented. OSM is not proposing any corrective action for previously issued
                       permits.

                       In the review, OSM found tour situations whare steep-slope AOC variances had been
                       granted,  but where mountaintop-removal AOC variances would have been more
                       appropriate because the entire coal seam or seams had been removed.  OSM
                       requests that WVDEP implement proper classification procedures for operations
                       seeking AOC variances and review the appropriateness of AOC variances issued to
                       steep-stope operations, taking corrective actions on existing permits, where
                       practicable.
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-584
Section A - Organizations

-------
           Pratt Mountantoti Mining and Valley fills PEIS Page
                                                                                                                          Draft MountainBa Mining and Vaitev Fills PUS Page
           *  The approved West Virginia program does not limit approval of m AOC variance for a
              steep- stops mine to the specific postminlng land uses that ate specified In SMCFIA.
              OSM has requested that WVDEP submit an amendment to correct this deficiency, and
              WVDEP has filed a proposed rule with the West Virginia Legislative Ftutemaking
              Review Committee to address the required amendment. OSM requests that WVDEP
              consider whether it is appropriate to issue any steep-slope AOC variances until an
              amendment is approved,

           COMMENTS:

           Does Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia currently use appropriate standards in
           evaluating whether a particular postmining land configuration constitutes a return to AOC'
           In Bragg v, Robertson, Memorandum opinion and Order of October 20, 1999, Judge
           Haden clearly points out that Director of West Virginia Department of Environmental
           Protection was enjoined from approving further permits because of inappropriate
           standards. Stats rum programs have misinterpreted standards for characteristics of land
           after mining in terms of elevation changes, creation of valley fills, creation of level
           secttons, and other general descriptive information. The Issue Is how many of those
           characteristics, either by themselves or in a general combination, may be used in
           misinterpreting if AOC has been achieved. VA, KY and WV state run programs have
           determined that a waiver from AOC requirements is necessary, has used misinterpreted
           standards to require appropriate postmining Itnd uses In granting the waiver?
           FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

           General AOC Requirements

           1.  Statute Section 701(2) of SMCRA defines "approximate original contour" to mean, that
              surface configuration achieved by backfilling and grading of the mined area so that the
              reclaimed area, including any terracing or access roads, closely resembles the general
              surface configuration of tha land prior to mining and blends into and complements the
              drainage pattern of tha surrounding terrain, with all highwalls and spoil piles eliminated;
              water impoundments may be permitted where the regulatory authority determines that
              they are in compliance with Section S1S (b)(8) of this Act.

           30U.S.C. 1SS1(2).

           Section 51 5 of SMCRA sets forth environmental protection performance standards
           applicable to surface coal mining operations.  30U.S.C.  1285. Among these is the
           requirement to return the land to AOC pursuant to Subsection S1S(b)(3), mine operators
           must "backflU compact . . . and grade in order to restore the approximate original contour
           of the land with all highwalls. spoil piles, and depressions eiiminated. "  30 U.S. C.
           126S(b)(3).
                    Z OSU's Treatment of AOC in Rules

                    In its national regulations and in approving individual State programs, OSM adopted the
                    statutory definition of AOC essentially unchanged.  In the development of national
                    regulations, the only discussion whore elevation change was mentioned in relation to AOC
                    is in the preamble to the rules regarding thick or thin overburden.  The permanent program
                    rules promulgated In 1979 defined thin overburden as overburden where the final
                    thickness is less than 0.8 times the initial thickness and thick overburden as overburden
                    where the final thickness is greater than 1.2 tlmss the initial thickness. The preamble
                    stated:

                    The definition of approximate original contour states that the reclaimed area should
                    closely resemble  the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining.  OSM
                    interprets this to mean that the approximate original contour, or configuration, of the
                    premining land is Intended, and minor changes in elevation are anticipated.

                    44 Fed. Reg. 15S31 {March 13. 1979).

                    Thus, an elevation change of plus or minus SO percent was accepted as AOC in those
                    rules. In 1983, those numerical limits wsm deleted from the thick and thin overburden
                    rules. See 48 Fed. Reg. 23356,23385 (May 24, 1S83).  In 19$$, the D.C. Circuit upheld
                    the remand of tfiose rule changes because the Secretary had failed to explain his reasons
                    for removing the numerical limits. National Wildlife Federation v. Model, 830 F.2d 694, 734
                    (D.C. Cir. 1988).  In 1991, OSM again published rules addressing thick and thin
                    overburden.  Again OSM declined to set a numerical limit and asserted that the is$ue was
                    best left to the regulatory authority.  The preamble contains cross sections showing
                    elevation changes of greater ten plus or minus 20 percent that would still be considered
                    AOC.  This rule was never challenged and remains in place today.  See 56 Fed. Reg.
                    65629-95833 (December 17, 1991).

                    In 1387, OSM issued Directive INE-26 to provide guidance to OSM field personnel in
                    evaluating AOC issues during oversight. The Directive makes three points with respect to
                    AOC. First, because both the permittee and the regulatory authority (as w$H as other
                    interested parties) need a clear understanding prior to mining of what the final postmining
                    topography will be, the anticipated postmining topography must be determined in the
                    permitting process to enable a determination If AOC will be achieved. Second,
                    inspections should ensure that the approved postmining topography is being reasonably
                    achieved, Including general surface configuration, drainage, and elimination of higbwalts
                    and spoil piles. Third, in oversight, considerable deference should be given to prior
                    decisions by fte Stole, particularly where the final grade work has been done, in
                    recognition of the emphasis that the 1987 Directive places on the role of the permitting
                    process in applying AOC requirements to specific operations, the current review looked to
                    see what WVDEP was accepting as meeting AOC requirements in the permitting process.
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-585
Section A - Organizations

-------
           Drall Mountainloc Mining and Vafcv Fills PEIS Page
                                                                                                                           Draft Mountalntoc Mining and Valtev Fills PEIS Page
           federal Requirements Relating to Mountaintop Removal Mining Operations

           Section 515 of SMCRA contains specific performance standards for mountaintop-removal
           mining. Subsection 515(c) permits an exception to the AOC restoration requirement for
           mountaintop removal operations which, after reclamation, would be capable of supporting
           specific postminlng land uses. In such operations, instead of restoring the site to
           approximate original contour, the operator is permitted to remove all of the overburden
           and create a level plateau or a gently rolling contour with no highwalls remaining. 30
           U.S.C.  1265{c). Subsection 515(c}(3) tists the allowable postmining land uses:
           "industrial, commercial, agricultural, residential or public facility (including recreational
           facilities) use[s]." 30 U.S.C.  12S5(c)(3). In demonstrating the feasibility and practicability
           of the proposed postmining land use, the applicant must include specific plans and show
           that the use will be:

           (1) compatible with adjacent land uses;

           (2) obtainable according to data regarding expected need and market;

           (3) assured of investment in necessary public facilities;

           (4) supported by commitments from public agencies where appropriate;

           (5) practicable with respect to private financial capability for completion of the proposed
           use;

           (8) planned pursuant to a schedule attached to the reclamation plan so as to integrate the
           mining operation and reclamation with the postmining land use; and

           (7) designed by a registered engineer In conformance with professional standards
           established to assure the stability, drainage, and configuration necessary for the intended
           use of the site.

           30 U.S.C.  1265(c)(3)(B).

           The Federal regulations pertaining to mountaintop-removal operations are found at 30
           C.F.R. 785.14 and Part 824.  The regulations generally track the language of SMCRA, but
           do clarify the applicable requirements in the following respects:

                   •  A requirement for compliance with the alternative postmining land use
           provisions of 30 C.F.R.  818.133(a) through (c)[30 C.F.R.  824.11(a)(4)J;

                  -  A specification that final graded slopes on the plateau portion of the operation
           not exceed 1v;Sh (20%) [30 C.F.R.  824.11(a)(7)];
                            -  A requirement that plateau outalopes attain a minimum static safety factor of
                    1.S or that they not exceed 1v:2h (50%) [30 C.F.R.  824.11(a)(7)};

                            -  A requirement that the resulting level or gently rolling contour be graded to
                    drain inward from the outslope [30 C. F. R. 824.11(a)(8)J; and

                            -  A clarification that the prohibition on damage to natural watercourses applies
                    only to watercourses below the lowest coal seam to be mined [30 C. F. R.  824.11 (a)(9)J.

                    Must a/so constitute an equal or better use Pursuant to SMCRA, the State may grant a
                    permit with a rnountaintop-removaJ AOC variance only after finding that:

                       *   the proposed postmining land use constitutes an "equal or better use;"

                       •   the proposed use will be compatible with adjacent land uses and existing land use
                          plans;

                       *   county commissions and other State and Federal agencies have been provided an
                           opportunity to comment on the proposed land use; and

                       *   the application contains specific plans and assurances th&t the proposed use will
                          be (1) compatible with adjacent land uses; (2) practicable with respect to financing
                          and completing the proposed use; (3) supported by commitments from public
                          agencies where appropriate; (4) planned pursuant to a schedule that will integrate
                           the mining  operation and reclamation with the postmining land use; and (5)
                           designed by an approved person to assure the stability, drainage, and
                           configuration necessary for the intended use of the site.
                    KVieW. METHODOLOGY

                    Beginning in 1997, the public and media began to focus increasing attention on
                    "mountaintop operations* in West Virginia. Commonly understood, this term refers to any
                    operation that removes all or part of the top of a mountain or ridge and places the
                    overburden or excess spoil resulting from the removal into valley fills. As used in this
                    report, the broad tarn "-mountaintop operations" should be distinguished from the
                    narrower term 'mountaintop-removal (AOC variance) operations*.

                    Three types of "mining practices are included in the term 'mountaintop operations".
                    These types are:

                            1. "Mountaintop-removal (AOC variance) operations" - Mines which remove all
                    of the coal seam or seams in the upper fraction of a mountain or ridge and request a
                    "mountaintop-removal variance from AOC. Only this kind ot operation constitutes a
                    "mountaintop-removal mine in the regulatory sense.
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-586
Section A - Organizations

-------
      Dmft Mounlaintoc Mining and Valley Fills PEIS Page
                                                                                                                    Draft Mounteirtop Mining and Valley Fills PBS Paoe
              2.  Mines which remove all of the coal seam or seams in the upper fraction of a
      mountain or ridge and return the land to AOC.

              3,  Mines In steep-slope areas (slopes exceeding 20 degrees) which have
      received steep-slope AOC variances according to State records.  Notwithstanding
      regulatory definitions, OSM recognizes that the public's concern Is not confined to any one
      of these "mining scenarios, but encompasses all three.

      The Draft PEIS has not addressed these standard requirement issues, but has proposed
      developing even a more confusing reviewing  SMCRA permit process as an alternative.

                    TENNESSEE STATE PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS
                     AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS CONCERNS

      The Draft PEIS fails to provide detail scientific information on any significant impacts to
      Tennessee's State Park Systems, Natural Areas, and Wildlife Management Areas found in
      the coalfield counties of Tennessee.
9-2-2
                             A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that would represent Tennessee needs
                             to provide comprehensive scoping from coalfield citizens and state and local agencies, as
                             well as the business community in each county, include an updated and consistent
                             baseline data, be free of inconsistencies, have proper levels of analysis and explanation,
                             and present impact assessments to Tennessee's natural environment and Tennessee's
                             economy in the communities of the Tennessee coalfields.  The Draft PEIS should conduct
                             a "hard look" scenario at every significant impact. SOCM believes that these federal
                             agencies should go back to the preliminary Draft EIS and start all over again,
Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc.
Stripmine Issues Committee
                                                                                 4-2
                                    CONCLUSIONS
      SOCM finds the Draft PEIS to be inadequate and too deficient to assess and evaluate the
      proposed federal action on the Tennessee Federal Program and its program-wide impacts
      and support program-level decisions that are reasonable and defensible to the current
      issues surrounding potential mountaintop mining and valley fills, mountaintop removal
      mining and cross ridge mining in the coalfields of Tennessee.  The Draft PEIS baseline
      data has been inconsistent and used inappropriately to analyzes the potential impacts of
      mountaintop mining and valley fills, mountaintop removal mining and cross ridge mining
      operations in the coalfields of Tennessee.  The specific data needed to analyze the
      Tennessee Federal Program has been insufficient to support the proposed Alternatives
      listed within  the Draft PEIS. The fundamental requirements of CEQ and/or NEPA process
      require the lead agency to begin with comprehensive scoping.  The scoping process in
      Tennessee was inadequately carried out by federal agendas whose only scoping seems
      to be inhouse. Input from scoping process should then be used to define the proposed
      alternatives  that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of proposed
      mountaintop mining and valley fills.  These requirements have not been met in the
      circulated document in Tennessee. The stated objectives in the "Notice of Intent" of
      February 5,  1999 would not be realized through the preferred Alternative. The Draft PEIS
      is bias in that it fails to take the required "hard look" at the proposed federal action.  The
      proposed Alternatives are misleading and inaccurate in representing the Tennessee
      Federal Program.
4-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-587
                                                           Section A - Organizations

-------
          Draft Mounlaintop Mining and Valley Fills PEIS Page
                                                                                                                Pratt Mounteimop Mining and Valley Fite PEIS Paa«
                                      ATTACHMENTS

          1.  Map and listing of the Draft PEIS "Study Areas" in Tennessee.
          2A. Eastern Minerals int'l v. The United States, Supreme Court No. 01-1100 (2002)
          2B. Eastern Minerals Int'l v. The United States Fed Cl No. 98-5054, 5059 (2001)
          2C. Cane Tennessee, Inc.  and Colton, Inc. v, The United States Fed. Cl 96-2371 (1999)
          2D, Rith Energy, Inc. v. The United States, Supreme Court No. 01-1145 (2002)
          2E. Rith Energy, Inc. v. The United States, Fed. Cl No. 99-5153 (2001)
          2F. Rith Energy, Inc. v. The United States, Fed. Cl No. 99-4801, (June and July, 1999)
          20. SOCM v. OSM and Skyline Coal Company, NX-97-3-PR (1998)
          3.  Article by Mr. Bob Keast, Executive Director of Tennessee Association of
             Resorts, Marinas and Marine Dealers.
          *•  Article' ^GOVERNOR. BACKS CREDIT CARD CHECK', by Bill Poovey, AP Wire
             Service, THE TENNESSEAN NEWSPAPER, Saturday, July 7, 2003.
          5.  Article, BREDESEN OUTLINES PLANS TO EXPAND TOURISM ECOMONT by
             Bob Keast.
          6.  Report. THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TRAVEL ON TENNESSEE COUNTIES, by
             The Tennessee  Department of Tourist Development (2000)
          7-  Report, AN ECONOMIC REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
             TENNESSEE, by the UT's Center for Business and Economic Research  (February,
             2003)
          8-  Report, TENNESSEE .BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK, by UT's Center for
             Business and Economic Research (Spring, 2002)
          9.  Report, TENNESSEE BUS.iNESS.AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK, by UT's Center for
             Business and Economic Research (Fall, 2002)
          10. Report, AN ANALYSIS OF AN ECONOMIC REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE
             STATE OF TENNESSEE. Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury, (2001)
          11. Report, TENNESSEE ECONOMIC OVERVIEW (2001)
          12. Report, GENERAL ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN TENNESSEE, Examining
             Changes in Labor Market Conditions and Income Levels, 1990-2000, by UT's Center
             for Business and Economic Research (2001)
          13. Mining Industry Labor  Force data.
          14. Information on Tennessee Arts' economic impacts in the Tennessee coalfields
          15. Letter to State of Tennessee on SOCM's concerns to Economic and Community
             Development in the Tennessee coalfields
          16. US Fish and Wildlife Service,  "STRATEGIES. PLAN FOR CONSERVATION OF FISH
             AND WILDLIFE TRUST RESOURCES IN THE LOWER-CUMBERLAND
             ECOSYSTEM"
          17. Memorandum, US Fish and Wildlife Service, September 21,2001)
          18. Letter, SOCM to US Army Corps of Engineers and EPA on concerns with proposed
             revisions to the Clean Water Act. Dated July16, 2000.
          19. Copy, Programmatic Agreement between the Federal Highway Administration and
             other organizations and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
             and Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office.
                  20.   Information on the Trait of Tears National Historic Trail's Draft Comprehensive
                       Interpretive Plan.
                  21.   Information on Tennessee Parks and Greenways Foundation Strategies conflicts
                       with proposed federal action.
                  22.   Listings of Rare Species in the 22 coalfield counties of Tennessee.
                  22A. Listings of species found in the Draft PEIS.
                  23.   Information on State of Tennessee's Bioassessment Program.
                  24.   Information on AVS program.
                  25.   Information on Tennessee AML program.
                  26.   Information on Tennessee Elk Restocking Program.
                  27.   Information on OSM's Reforestation and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Initiative
                  28.   The Draft PEIS Regional Setting Supporting information.
                  29.   Report, "Mountalntop Removal Mining: An Environmental Impact Assessment (ElA)
                       Scoping Exercise and Impact Assessment of Mining Activities on Aquatic
                       Resources", by Mr, Jeff Lee Hansbarger
                  30.   Copy, State of Tennessee's Controller of the Treasury Performance Audit on "Water
                       Quality" in Tennessee. (2001)
                  31.   Supplement Informational Brochures from Tennessee's coalfield counties.
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-588
Section A - Organizations

-------
Vince Meleski, Wild Alabama/Wild South
                —- Forwarded by David Rider/RS/USEFA/US on 03/0B/2004 11:39 AM -----

                            Virrce Meleski
                                      cc:
                                         Subject: Mountaintop Removal Mining Comments
                            12/23/200302:24
                            I'M

                Mr, John Barren
                U.S. 1-;PA OMA30)
                1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
                It is hard to believe that the Bush administration plans to continue to
                allow coal companies to destroy Appalaehia with mining practices that
                level mountain tops, wipe oul forests, bury streams, and destroy
                communities. The existing evidence of recent events and the facts
                presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement should he enough
                to convince you thai mountain top removal coalmining must be
                significantly  limited or stopped.

                As described in the administration's Draft Environmental Impact
                Statement (DBI8) on mount&irtlop removal coal mining, the environmental
                impacts of mountaintop removal are widespread, devastating, and
                permanent. Yet the
                DHIS proposes no restrictions on the sr/s of valley fills that bury
                streams, no limits on the number of acres of forest that can be removed,
                no protections for wildlife, and BO safeguards for the communities and
                peopk  thai  weaken existing environmental protections. The DEIS
                proposes streamlining the permitting process and allowing mountaintop
                removal and  associated valley fills to continue at an accelerated rate.
                The DHIS also proposes doing away with a surface mining rule that
                makes it illegal for mining activities to disturb areas within 100 fcet
                of streams unless it can be proven that streams will not he harmed. This
                is ridiculousIThis "preferred alternative" ignores the administration's
                own studies
                detailing the  devastation caused by mountaintop removal coal mining.
                including:

                - without new limits on mountaintop removal, additional  mountains,
                streams, and  forests will he destroyed
                by rnountaiittop removal mining
                - the fact that impacts to streams would be greatly  lessened by reducing
1-9
1-5
the sixe of the valley fills where raining wastes ace dumped on top of
Breams
 'the impact on wildlife species
- the total of past, present and estimated future forest losses
- even if hardwood forests can he reestablished in mined areas* which is
unproven and unlikely, there is no way these areas can be restored
similar to the handiwork created by God
The "preferred alternative" ignores these and hundreds of other
scientific facts contained id the DEIS studies. It appears the only goal
is to increase mountaintop removal coal mining with little regard for
the environment,In light of these facts, the Bush administration must
consider alternatives that reduce the environmental impacts of
mountaintop removal and then implement measures to protect natural
resources and communities in
Appalachia, such  as limitations on the si/c of valley fills to reduce
the destruction of streams, forests, wildlife and communities.

 Better yet mountaintop removal should not he permitted at all,
Vince Meleski
i^ogram Director
Wild Alabama/Wild South
PC Box 11?
Moullon, AL 35650
Phone:  (256)974-6166
Fax:     (256) 974-5406
E-mail;   vmce@wildalabama.org
Member of:
Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition
National Forest Protection Alliance
                                                                                                                        1-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-589
                                                         Section A - Organizations

-------
Amanda Moore, Appalachian Citizens Law Center, Inc.
                               APPALACHIAN Craams LAW CENTER, INC.
                                          PKi.STON5.lWKr,, KENTUCKY <1SB-'72S
                                             69MM-1M!  l^CO-SlS-1442
                                                  (REC'D JAMfl6»
                                                         January 2,2003
Mr, John Fatten
U.S.EPAJ3ES30)
1650 An* Steel
Philadelphia, PA 19103

      Re   MoontatotopMraingA'alley Fills mAppalaehia Draft Programmatic
            Environmental Imp act Statement

DearMr.Fonen;

      Uhank you for the exteniied oprxirtumty to comment on the IVaft Environmental Impact
Stateaaat (Draft HS) on Mwrttffltop&aiA>giBid Valley Fib ta ApptaJbia. Tins letter is to
addition to oal comments presented by the Appabdiiaa Citizens tsw Center (Law Ceater) at the
public taring Md to Hood, Kentesky 01 My 22,2003.

      The Law Carter is a noa-praflt law office serving tie AppalKMmi coalfields by
providmg fiw legal services to tow-tftpoBie &mlies md coffimtmities oil coaJ-reMed issi^s such
a> black hing benefits, mine xifety inarters, and tnvironmenlzl concerns. By having such a bio.id
focus on the in^acts of to coal indasfty, we see the consequences of moanSaintop mining both
on the surrcunding communities and on the miners Iheinselves.

      As we stated at the public hearing, tlie law Center is exttemely disappointed in this
much-anticipated Draft EIS.  Attached to the Draft EIS arc numerous studies detairing the
enviroumeiital destrucriou caused by mouataiatop rmniag and valley fills, yet the Draft EIS fails
to suggest even one alternative to curb the destniction. This chasm between the scientific stndies
and fte proposed tctions hi^di^its fl» aWtrary and e^aicioas Mtnie of the entire Dwft EIS.
The following exasiples highlight the disparity between the documeBted environmental impact of
mountaintop mining and tk'agencies'propostxi actions in respoase:

      •      Data: During the study fKriod, 724 roiles of stream were covered by valley fills.
            Daft EIS, H.C-30. Ojasttnefii^vdleyfiHjontopof*a«n»wfll'*eli!niiBte
            stream biota atid the ability of these organisms to synthesize organic material to
            provide life... for down stream reaches." Draft HS, H.C-30,
            Proposed Action: Ejflw than proposing additional protections for streams torn
            valley fills, the Draft BIS proposes excusing "valley fills &QSI the stream Isiffer
            zoaerale. Draft HS,H.C-35.
                                                                                               1-5
                                  Data: In just the last ten years, !,200mi!esof streams have been affected by
                                  surface mining activities.  Draft HS, H.C-30. In addition, 438,472 acres of
                                  watersheds haw been affected by valley fin construction. Draft EG, IHJC-38.
                                  Proposed Aclinn: Rather flan curbing the amount of streams and watersheds
                                  aflected by mtmng,lhcagt"ticii3 will instead "continue to evaluate" the effects of
                                  mountaintop mining and "continue to work" to refine protocols, decisions, and
                                  Rsqutremeats. Draft BIS, H.C-44.

                                  Data: From the late 1980s to fie late 1990s, the averagL-fill increased in sbc by
                                  72 percent and the average length of stteam affected per fill incwased by 224
                                  percent Draft HS, 1-5. From 1985 to 2001,83,797 acres of land were covered by
                                  valley fills in fte study area. Draft K1S, DLK-32,33.
                                  Proposed Action: Rather thaa imposing limits on fill size, OSM will "continue
                                  the oo-going rule-making process to clarify obligations of the operator" and will
                                  "consider whether additional {tore rolanaktog is warranted." Draft BIS, B.C-49.

                                  Data: Matj&tatatop raining is likely to increase floodisg from intense sratimer
                                  thunderstorms, particularly during storm systems that last several days. Draft EIS,
                                  Appendix H, 0SGS Executive Summary; Cosnparison of Storm Response of
                                  Streams in Small, Unjoined and VaMey-Fllled Watersheds, 1999-2001, Batted
                                  Fork, West Virginia (pp. 5-6). Even ate reclamation, discharge from valley fills
                                  was 42 perceat higher ttett premiriing renditions. Tt&s increase raised the 100-
                                  year flood stage by more thai two feet Draft BIS, Appendix H, OSM Valley Fill
                                  Study, Hobet Mine Westridge Valley Fill, U.S. Amy Cotps of Bigineers,
                                  1'iHsburgh District (p.22).
                                  Proposed Action: In spite of these studies, the Draft EIS contends that no
                                  conclusions can be made about the impacts of miai.ng on ninoff. Therefore, (he
                                  EIS proposes that the agencies de\-e!op guidelmes to cvalu-ite flooding risk, \vhicli
                                  "could make the permit evaluation more efficient." Draft EIS, H.C-90.

                                  Data:'He forests in the study area are verjr diverse, but a fimdamental change
                                  from a forested habitat to grasslands could occur, thereby jeopanlizing the
                                  "Trfolo^cd intepfty of flie «ndy area" asd leading to "biological coHapse." fe
                                  eastern Kentucky alone, 255,582 acres of forest have been lost to moimtaintop
                                  mBBUginjustfliepaseteiyearn. DraftHS,Appendix 1,EPAiandseapeScale
                                 IVoposed Action: OSM will compile a manual with guidelines for post-minmg
                                 land use. OSM wll require reclamation with trees only if legislative autliority is
                                 established. Even tlicn, there might bean exception to t)ie requirement if the
                                 applicant could demonstrate that uses other than forestry would provide greater
                                 environmental benefits. Draft EIS, II.C-83.

                           The environmental problems chronicled in the Appendices are serious and potentially
                     devastating, yet me r>aft EIS siiggests"a(rtioris''that do nothing to curb the enviroumental
                     detraction. TheresMentsofAjjpalachiaseedfealgK^onstojsotect&eiriandaiid^
                     torn tte deamcfiai that is so dearly detailed fa the Appendices to the Draft BIS.

                           The Draft EIS additionally fails to consider an adequate range of alternatives. Rather than
                     proposing alternatives to limit the environmental impacts of mountaintop mining, the Draft EIS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    1-5
MTM/VF Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
A-590
                                                                                                                                                                           Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                                       Bryan Moore, West Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited
   goes to the extreme opposite and presents alternatives to nuke the permitting process easier. A
   jKeUminaiy Draft EIS torn fattuary 2001 presented ttoe separate alternatives that limited valley
   fills in some way. The current Draft EIS, however, does jast fee opposite by proposing three
   alternatives that in no way limit fills.  The stated reason for not including at least one alternative
   that limits fills - that thews is not enough scientific evidence that such limits isould reduce
   stream impacts — defies common sense as well as the findings of the studies attached to the Draft
   EIS. The narrow range of alternatives examined m this Draft EIS is aibtoaiy and capricious, and
         As we have stated in earlier comments on separate proposals, the Law Cotter does not
   believe that issuing permits to dump mining waste in streams is legal under the Clean Water Act
   as jassed by Congress. However, given the narrow options p.isscnted by the Draft EIS, one
   aspect of Alternative 1 is preferable to the other altenatross — that valley filb will be presumed
   to require individual 404 permits (IPs) from the Anay Corps of Engineers Hither than falling
   within nationwide permit 21 (NWP21). However, Alternative 1 remains flawed because it
   tacludes the offensive proposal to eliminate the stream buffer zone rale wffl* regard to excess
   spoil disposal. We have submitted comment!! previously opposing such a potential rule.

         White the Law Center certainly is sot opposed to increased government efficiency, such
   efficiency must Dot come at the expense of the human or natural environment The agencies
   responsible for (his J>aftEIS liave made just such a mistake, however, by choosing a course; of
   action that will make the mining permitting process easier for coal cornpanies \vWlefiiiling to
   provide any increased protections for the environment or Use communities living near these
   mines. The agencies'chosen "efficiency alternative" docs not even meet the stated purpose of
   Uiis EIS, which is ^o mutmiizLs to me rtiaximum extent practicable, the adverse eavtonmental
   effects to waters of the United States and to fish tad wildlife resources affected by inountaintop
   minmg operations, and to envtaanwattal resources that could be affected by the size and location
   of excels spoil disposal sites in valley fills."  Draft EIS,!-2.  Once again, this Draft EIS is
   internally inconsistent and arbitrary and capricious.

         In addition, we support the comments submitted to you by Kentuckiaas for the
   Commonwealth, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Kentucky Wtterw^s Affiance, Sierra
   Club, Earfhjnstice, and Trial Lawyers for Pubic Justice. Tbs Law Center arges you to consider
   these commcrts and return to the Draft FIS to make chaises that will provide a real benefit to
   the whole of Appalaehia by preserving its natural environment and protecting its residents. Give
   the public a meaningful range of alteniatives and proposed actions that are based on the studies
   detailing lire myriad problems caused by mottntaintop mining.  Give us a Draft EIS that is not an
   arbitrary and capricious abuse of Agency power.

         Please feel iree to contact me If you would like to discuss ow concerns Iwther.

                                              Sincerely,
                                          1-5
                                           1-1

                                           1-10
                                          4-2
Amanda Moore
Staff Attorney
                                                                                                                           West Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited
January 6, 2004

Mr. John Forren
U.S. EPA (3EA30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
rnountaintop.rS 
-------
                                                                                                                                                                               Joan Mulhern, Earthjustice et al.
               zones filter water runoff from the surrounding lands, provide nutrient matter for
               benthte populations and shade the stream helping to cool the water during warm
               temperatures. The elimination of riparian buffer areas causes a direct impairment
               to water quality, and negatively influences designated and existing uses.

               WVCTU Is opposed to mountaintop removal coal mining in general due to the
               overwhelming loss of aesthetic values. Our members have a great affinity for
               being outdoors enjoying our forests and streams. There is probably nothing more
               unpleasant than  being outdoors with the backdrop of a barren, rubble strewn
               wasteland created by mountaintop removal. That backdrop is becoming far too
               common in many areas.

               WVCTU looks forward to working with the EPA in protecting our irreplaceable
               resources from the type of devastation brought about by mountaintop removal
               coal mining. Our water resources are a very important part of our heritage and
               they must be preserved and protected for the generations to follow. WVCTU will
               pursue any appropriate means necessary to protect these streams and
               resources from total destruction.

               Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on behalf of the
               members of the West Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited,

               Sincerely,
5-3-2

1-9

10-6-2
               Bryan K. Moore, Chair
               WVCTU
               787 Twin Oaks Dr.
               Bridgeport, WV 28330-1645
                     Natural Resources Defense Council * Amerkan Rivers *
   Friends of tin- Earth * National Amlubon Society * Vuion;tl Wildlife Federation +
       Sierra Clwb * Shagbark * VaHey Wateh 4 West Virginia Citizen Action *
        West Virginia Environmental Couad! * West Virginia Rivers Coalition


January 6, 2004

Mr. lohn f orren
US EPA(3EA30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Delivered via U.S. Mail and Email (0HMHi.isfc^HilffiSOSJI:iiI.)

Dear Mr, Forren;

These comments are submitted by Barthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council,
American Rivers, Friends of the Earth, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation,
Sierra Club, Shagbark, Valley Watch, West Virginia Citizen Action, West Virginia
Environmental Council, and West Virginia Rivers Coalition in response to the request for
comment on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") on mountaintop
removal coal mining and associated valley fills in Appalaehia, published at 68 Fed Reg, 32487
(May 30, 2003) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Office of Surface Mining (O8M)
and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (W.V. DBF) (hereinafter ''the
agencies")  We hereby incorporate by reference all documents citied in these comments.

In mountaintop removal coat mining, vast areas of forest are stripped from the land and the tops
of mountains are blasted apart and removed to extract thin seams of coat within the mountains
The waste rock, or "excess spoil," from this process is usually disposed of in nearby valleys,
creating enormous "valley fills" that have already buried and destroyed hundreds of miles of
Appalachian streams, Generations-old communities are forced from their homes by the blasting,
flooding, and environmental destruction. Fish and wildlife habitat is damaged or destroyed,
including habitat of threatened and endangered species. An environmentally, socially,
economically,, and historically important region of this country is being leveled by mountamtop
removal coal mining. It is rto overstatement to call this an environmental  apocalypse - it is
certainly one of the worst examples of plundering the environment occurring anywhere in this
country today.

The original purpose of the mountaintop removal programmatic E1S was to develop policies and
procedures to "minimize, to the maximum eitent practicable, the adverse environmental
effects to waters of the United States and So fish and wildlife resources from mountaintop
[removal] mining operations, and to environmental resources that could be affected by the size
and location of fill material in valley fill sites."' The May 36,2003 DEIS has completely
abandoned this purpose.  It contains no msaningfut substantive alternatives or
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  1-9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  1-5
                                                                                                                                1 Set 64 Fed. Reg. JS30 (Ft&nmy 29.1999) (emphasisadded).
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-592
                                                          Section A  - Organizations

-------
             recommendations that woyM atiniaiKge tg any degree the eavir&nmggtal barm caused bv
             inoiitiiiuniaii removal coal mining* let alone policies or procedures to reduce these harms to
             "the maximum extent practicable!"2

             Instead, the only alternatives offered by the DEIS ail involve changes to the federal permitting
             process that are calculated to "streamline" agency decision making to make it easier for coal
             companies to continue mountaintop removal strip mining, and weaken existing environmental
             safeguards that are designed to reduce the environmental  destructiveness of mountaintop
             removal and valley fills. All of the DEIS' alternatives (even the so-called "No Action"
             alternative) propose gutting the surface mining Jaw's Buffer Zone rule that currently prohibits
             mining activities from disturbing areas within 3 00 feet of larger streams.

             Unlike the DEIS released by the Bush administration, earlier drafts of the programmatic EIS did
             consider alternatives that would substantially reduce the harm caused by mountaintop removal,
             most significantly by limiting the size of vaHey fills. The January 2001 Preliminary Draft
             evaluated four options, including two that would have restricted the size and placement of valley
             fills in certain types of streams." But these and similar alternatives for limiting the sixe and
             location of mountaintop removal and valley fill operations have been completely eliminated from
             the May 30 DfilS, despite the fact that the studies accompanying the DEfS fully support options
             to limit mountaintop removal and valley fills.4

             In sum, the DEIS ignores the scientific and economic studies it was supposed to be based upon,
             contravenes the very purpose of the EIS, violates the National Environmental Policy Act
             (NEPA), and demonstrates a startling disregard of the agencies' legal duties to protect the natural
             resources  and people of Appalachia and the rest of the country.  This approach is not supported
             by law, policy, science, common sense, or humanity. The studies accompanying the DEIS
             confirm that mountaintop removal is wiping out an entire region of the United States - hundreds
             of square  miles of communities, wildlife resources, streams, mountains, and forests  - human
             communities and natural resources that can never be replaced.

             Xhfe,iy$pc^
             pervasive environmental deyastatioa caused b> mount aim op removal goat mining
                    eHUd b> the apmoximateh 5000 pages of scientific studies itccompinu fag the REIS,
             Theife studies not onl> confirm the obvious conclusion that blowing up mountains, wiping out
             forests  and burvmg streams under millions of tons of rubble has irreversible and extensive
             environmental consequences, but also that a failure to impose meaningful limits on such
             practices will moie than double the widespread damage that has already been done to resources
             of regional and national importance  The failure of the DEIS to even consider  let  alone select,
             '  i lit DLIS slates thai its purpose is to  c\ aliufe options for iiiiprov mg agency programs    liwt w iil coiUnbutc to
             reducing flic ,Khenc em iroiimeitt.it imp.iu$ ol itiountamSop (reino\iitf mining QfKrahom and cvce1?; "spot! %«ilie>;
             fills (M"IM VF) m AppAi^iUtia   DEIS Eb-1 fmo\ert\ optittmtKdescrifttiangncntheaaiwi cortlemof the DEIS.
             but (i purpose that falls far short of minimising such imjMds to the m&Miwe extent practicable
             ^MmmtmiiopMimng'V tlios hi! i Is I'n.hmirittn Diatt  imiuan 2IXH it! S-6
             ! \ hi studies in the DTIS supported the contention that limiting flie &t/e and placement of \ rfle\ fills «.is
             emiromncntalh preferable So en«iom cmsse or contribute to significant degradation of
                                     waters of the U.S." DEIS O.D-9 Such claims are irrefutably contradicted by the data coutained in tlffi EIS studies,
                                     s The studtes accompanying the May 30 DEIS - tlic icclMsicat, scientific sod economic studies contained in the
                                     sppcndicfS-werept^aredfor^i^MtliebiisifioftheJaisRiarj', 2001 Preliminary BIS, These findings of ihese
                                     sitidies fatly support action alternatives to Jiinil maumaintgp lemovai attd valley fills As discussed further below.
                                     while these studies Perm tlie appendices of the May 30 DEIS, ihey do not provide a basis of stspporl for the DEIS'
                                     action alternatives,
                                     "" \\ is important fo note ttiat iimay studies indicate ttuit these mported stream impacts a Be !ike!v to be a gross
                                     tmderestunaftem of tfte stream miles filled in the study ama The inventories used in ilse EIS rely heavily on
                                     topographical maps thai often do »ol map smaller headwater streams, despite their ecological iniporfsmce. See
                                     Testimony of j. Bruce Wallace, Professor, University of Georgia, before the US Senate Committee on Environment
                                     and Publrc Woifcs. June 6. 2002.
                                                                                3
                                                                                                                                5-7-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
             A-593
                                                                 Section A - Organizations

-------
             established for arriving at an environmentally "acceptable" amount of stream loss and it U
             "difficult if not impossible to reconstruct free flowing streams on or adjacent to mined sites.
     minimize the downstream or "indirect5* environmental impacts of valley fills are
ly unavailing- For example, available evidence strongly points toward valley fills causing
cantly elevated levels of selenium, a highly toxic bbaccumulant.  DEIS studies found
             Attempts to mi
             similarly
             significan                            ,                           .
             elevated levels, with 66 violations of stream water quality criteria, below valley fills and none
             found at test sites without valley fills upstream,9 In addition, the studies found that numerous
             other indirect impacts to streams, including the reduced ability of headwater streams to maintain
             their nutrient cycling function, increased sedimentation* reduced floodwater attenuation
             potential, and temperature changes, are of great concern.  The Cumulative Impact Study found
             that "[f]or both  direct and indirect impacts to ecological processes resulting from alterations in
             hydrologic patterns, [tnountaintop removal and valley fills] would appear to be the major impact
             producing activity in the study area "(fl

             Moreover,  the DEIS shoves to one side the environmental implications of massive deforestation
             in Appalachia.  The studies accompanying the DEIS found that when adding past, present and
             future terrestrial disturbances, the estimated  area that will be stripped and flattened encompasses
             1,408, 372 acres of forest resources - which roughly equates to 1 1,5% of the entire study area,11 -
             an area larger than the entire state of Delaware. The destruction of these nearly 1.5 million acres
             of some of the most diverse temperate forest in the country has widespread environmental,.
             economic and social consequences for the region and the nation, It is extremely unlikely that
             even a small portion of this forest will be restored, and the timeline for even that minute level of
             restoration is hundreds, if not thousands of years.12

             In evaluating whether there are significant impacts to the environment from mountaintop
             removal and valley fills, the primary authors of the DEIS ignore the catastrophic impact to
             wildlife that has already occurred or is projected to occur in the near term as documented in the
             appendices. For example, as is noted in the  EPA's Cumulative Impact Study;

                    The southern Appalachians have been identified by the Nature Conservancy as one of the
                    hot spot areas in the United States for rarity and richness. This region is known to have
                    the highest regional concentration of aquatic biodiversity in the nation. For this reason, it
                    is hypothesized that impacts  which result in decreases in genetic diversity, as measured
             * See"MTM/VF ESS Steering Committee, "Probtetns (dcnHficd/Confimted/infcrmd by Technical Studies/' August
              15. 2002 working draft.
             ^ EPA's stream chemistry study found that "The selanitifiidata clearly show 'hot spois" with higher concentrations
             of selenium in each of the five wateraireds [tisat were s&Hjiedl atsi located downsfteam of 'Filled' sites ON!., Y.
             Tiiere are &6 violations of the stteam water quality criteria identified and each is al a filled Site. No otter category of
             site iiad violations of selenium!" EtfiaiJ from Gary Biyattt (EPA WV) to William Hofffnam (EPA Region 3). Match
             21. 2002 (capitali/aHon and exclamation point in original).
             "JDE!S App, I at 75.
             11 DE1SIV.C-I.
             t: Email from Cindy TibboU, FWS, re: MTM/VF EIS cumulative  impact assessment. June 26,2001 ("wen if
             hardwood focesSs can be rc-eslab!i$hed, k should be intuitively obvious thEU iltey "11 be a dffl

                                                         4
                                                                                      1-13
       by loss of species, loss of populations or logs of genetic variants, would have a
       disproportionately large impact on the total aquatre genetic diversity of the nation."

The Cumulative Impact Study further explains:

       Riparian habitats are generally ecologically diverse and they often provide habitat for
       unique, or ecologically important species... The projected potential adverse impacts in the
       West Virginia study area is 7,591 acres, or 3,2%. Approximately 55% of the projected
       riparian habitat impacts occur in first and second order streams which are important
       habitats to many species of. . - wildlife. l4

       [F]orest loss in the West Virginia portion of the study area has the potential of directly
       impacting as many as 244 vertebrate wildlife species. 1?

       Assuming that 80% of the salamanders are lost in the projected forest impact areas,
       approximately 1,232,972,280 have the potential of being adversely impacted.'6

The DEIS states that;
                                                                                                                                 jTJhis EIS describes biotic interactions common in headwater streams and various
                                                                                                                                 vertebrate species including birds, salamanders (including newts), and mammals which
                                                                                                                                 require interactions with the aquatic environment in order to maintain their iife
                                                                                                                                 cycle. . , Filling would eliminate ail aquatic and aquatic-dependant interactions that would
                                                                                                                                 formerly have occurred in the filled area. . ,[T]he permanent nature of filling would
                                                                                                                                 suggest that .MTM/VF impacts to biottc interactions in headwater stream systems  .may
                                                                                                                                 constitute a[n] irreversible impact to this system m the study area.17

                                                                                                                          The widespread deforestation of Appalachia will also have detrimental impacts on forest birds,
                                                                                                                          particularly fragmentation-sensitive species including the cerulean warbler, Louisiana
                                                                                                                          waterthrush, worm-eating warbler, black-and-white warbler and the yellow-throated vireo. The
                                                                                                                          DEIS found that the potential adverse impact of loss of habitat for forest interior bird species
                                                                                                                          "has c\ t ri-ni c tM'okii;iciil siinii fit- SHUT in that habitats required by these species for successful
                                                                                                                          breeding are limited in the eastern United States. "!S

                                                                                                                          As succinctly summarized in the Cumulative impact Study:

                                                                                                                                 Mountaintop mining and valley fill activities significantly affect the landscape mosaic
                                                                                                                                 Landcover changes occur as forests are removed, the topography and hydrology is
                                                                                                                                 altered, and vegetation is eventually re-established. The result is an area drastically
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     1-13
                                                                                                                          " DEIS App. I. p.?8
                                                                                                                          "DEIS App. 1. p.vi.
                                                                                                                          "J4.IIS6.
                                                                                                                          "14 « 92-93.
                                                                                                                          '"DEIS I VIM-5.
                                                                                                                          " DEIS App. 1. at 90 (emphasis added).
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                  A-594
                                                                Section A - Organizations

-------
                    different fr»m to ore-mining C»IIJ||JJJBB. Soil qualities are different, the vegetative
                    community has a different structure and composition, and habitats are altered.'9

             Finally, but no less importantly, the DEIS also downplays and dismisses the damage caused to
             the human communities living within the shadow of mountaintop removal operations.2^ For
             example, the blasting involved in mountaintop removal coal mining causes significant harm to
             local residents, including structural damage to their homes, excessive noise and dust, damage to
             wells, and psychological harm From the very real fear of flying rock and other debris. A report
             by West Virginia's legislative auditor found that "[cjitizens... could be living in hazardous
             conditions due to damage sustained in a blasting incident."" The DEIS admits that blasting "will
             continue to have periodic adverse effects on the quality of life of residents living in close
             proximity to the mine sites "a Yet, instead of evaluating reasonable steps that could be taken to
             reduce or eliminate these adverse effects, the DEIS cavalierly suggests that coalfield residents
             can file lawsuits to abate the nuisance.23  This failure to address one of the important problems
             identified by local residents is not only illegal but also insulting to the communities who are
             forced to live near these mining sites.

             In sum, the DEIS' conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to link mountaintop removal
             mining and valley fills with substantial and permanent environmental harm to streams, forests,
             wildlife and people is unsupported by the record and violates NEPA.

             B. The OTIS Must Consider Alternatives to Minirm/.i- the Environment*! Impacts of
             Moiintaintop Removal Coal Mining and Decument the Imp acts of Alternatives, Including
             the "Preferred Alternative"

             The May 2003 DFJS fails to conclude that mountaintop removal mining should be curtailed or
             mat its impacts, should reduced, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary provided by the
             OH1S' own studies  In fact, through Hie DEIS, the Bush administration is actually culling
             for eating existing environmental restriction; on this damaging mining incihod in direct
             (•oiUnidiciion to the findings of the scinuific and technical studies.

             The DEIS contains "four alternatives" - a "No Action" alternative that purports to maintain
             current regulatory programs, policies, and coordination processes24 and three "Action*'
             alternatives, each of which only considers making administrative changes in the permitting
             process.  None of the "alternatives" considered in the DEIS would impose new limits or clear,
             objective, substantive restrictions on mountaintop removal operations.
             '"DEIS App. 1. al 23 (emphasisadded).
             K S» DEIS ID, W-1 el mi]., "Biasing and the Local Community "
             "' We$ Virginia LegtsSsilivc Auditor, Preliminary Performance Review, "The Office of Explosives and Blasting Is
             Not Meeting All Required Mandates," p 15-16 (December 20(12).
             "DEBIIIW-6.
             :'M.
             -1 As noted betow in Section C ofihese comment's, even the so~eaHed "*No Action" alternative inexplicably
             contemplates amending the exrsiiflg streasn Buffer Zone nifc.
                                                        6
1-13
1-5
 The Bush administration's "Preferred Alternative" in the DEIS suggests changes to "streamline**
 the permitting process and shuffle authority between the agencies - often in violation of federal
 law - while setting no meaningful limits on the size, location, or impacts of mountaintop
 removal operations, including valley fills  The DEIS1 "Preferred Alternative" would attempt to
 combine the Surface Mining Reclamation and Control Act  (SMCRA) and Clean Water Act
 (CWA) permitting processes in the name of bureaucratic efficiency  However, many of the
 intended benefits of both taws would be largely undermined by this proposed approach, which
 would give the OSM a greater rale in Clean Water Act permitting decisions - a responsibility
 Congress entrusted to  EPA, not the Office of Surface Mining In addition, ai! of the DEIS
 alternatives assume the federal government will rewrite and weaken the SMCRA Buffer Zone
 rule, a long-standing Jaw adopted to protect streams from coal mining activities

 The Bush administration's policy recommendations in the DEIS are completely at odds with  the
 scientific studies. A January 2001 Preliminary Draft EIS15  more accurately (though still
 imperfectly) reflected  the Cumulative Impact Study's analysis of the effects on aquatic and
 terrestrial resources and species of several different scenarios for future mountaintop removal
 mining.  The studies accompanying the Preliminary Draft HIS looked ai alternatives including-  I)
 no limits on the size of valley fills, 2) a 250 acre limit, 3) a  i50 acre limit, 4) a 75 acre limit and
 5) a 35 acre limit on the si/e of fills2(> Not surprisingly, the cumulative impact report found that
 the most restrictive alternative studied - the 35-acre limit -  would result in the fewest
 environmental impacts on streams, forested areas, and species The study noted that there would
 still be significant environmental damage even under this scenario, especially to headwater
 streams  Each of these preliminary alternatives assumed continuation of existing environmental
 protections, such as the stream Buffer Zone rule that limits  mining damage within 100 feet of
 streams.

 The Preliminary Draft EIS contained three action alternatives that restricted valley fills to
 ephemeral or intermittent streams and retained the 100-foot stream Buffer Zone (SBZ) rule, and
 a "No Action" alternative.  The uncontrolled "No Action" scenario was shown to have the worst
 environmental impacts.  Nonetheless, that is what the Bush  administration essentially proposes  in
 its May 2003 DEIS as rhe "Preferred Alternative" - a proposal that  does not even consider, let
 alone recommend, any "bright Sine," objective acreage limits on valley fills  The May 2003
 Bush administration "Preferred Alternative" also fails to propose an end to the use of Clean
 Water Act §404 general permits to authorize valley fills or any other meaningful limit on valley
 fills, regardless of whether an individual or genera! permit is used, despite the fact that limits on
 the size of valley fills is what the cumulative impacts study  evaluated.

 The May 30 DEIS itself confesses that there is little substantive difference between the
 alternatives considered.  For example, the document states  that "|a|II alternatives.,. are based
 on process differences and net directly on measures that restrict the area of mining."* The
 DEIS states that "[tjtte environmental benefits of the three action alternatives are very similar,"
 and further acknowledges that ll[t|he regulatory responsibilities ... are common to al! the

 ~- Mountaintop Mhuqg/Vjtfcy Fill EIS, Preliminary Draft, January 2001.
 n 
-------
             alternatives . , -. However, the lead agency for each responsibility under the action could vary
             under each alternative,"29 The DEIS further admits that "[t]he proposed action alternatives are
             largely administrative and as a result, accurately projecting their environmental consequences is
             difficult"110

             These stark but perhaps unavoidable admissions demonstrate that the DEIS does not really
             consider any real limitations on mowntmntop removal or action alternatives that would minimize^
             to the maximum extent practicable, the environmental effects of this destructive mining
             practice.*4

             The dramatic shift from the Preliminary Draft to the May 2003 DEIS appears to he primarily due
             to the influence of the Office of Surface Mining {OSM) on the development of the EIS under the
             Bush administration   Under the previous administration,  meaningful limits on the effects of
             mountaintop removal  coal mining were at least being studied and considered  But in October
             2001, J  Steven Griles, a former coal industry executive and lobbyist appointed to the post of
             Deputy  Secretary of the U S Department of the Interior, issued a letter to the  OEQ, Office of
             Management and Budget (OMB), EPA, and COE, stating in pertinent parr

                    We believe the [mountaintop removal/valley Fill] EIS is the logical vehide to address
                    environmental protection  and promote government efficiency, while meeting the nation's
                    energy needs  .   We do not believe that the EtS,  as currently drafted, focuses
                    sufficiently on these goats  We must ensure that the EIS lay (sic) the groundwork for
                    coordinating our respective regulatory jurisdiction in the most efficient manner. At a
                    minimum, this would require that the EIS focus on centralizing and streamlining
                    coal mine permitting, and minimizing  or mitigating environmental impacts1J

             This was a none-too-subtle  directive to the other federal agencies to shift the F.IS's focus away
             from minimi/ing environmental effects in favor of permit streamlining and, at best, trying to
             "mitigate" the destruction of mountaintop removal, rather than avoiding it  A follow-up email
             from OSM"s Mike Robinson explained to the other agencies that
               0E1S H W
              * DEIS fV 4-1
              ' Vc WioDfrJS IV /V) ( I lie No Action Alternative and action alicnwJivcswtH ml eliminate the tea of si ream
              segments and reduction «i organic matter transported dosvaswtana"), DLIS IV A-D7 fTliert are no sigmficani
              dincfentcs aruoi^ithc No Auiitm AUenwine and AKernatnes !. 2. and "* in terms of ihcirabtlitv to protect
              jtlwcaletKXJ and etidin(*erredj specie5;  ) DEIS IV G-^ f "AH a!leniats\es ma% continue  to displace local communities
              in e$*iCiUttiJh equal amounts wnce the tiltefreiuv^s jrc based on process difference's and not direct!) on iiicjisures
              ititit restrict (tie .ircapi mmnij>    all rtMenutKes will produce indistinguishable indirect unpacfs in this regard")
              DEIS TV1-! (SocMl Conditions) ([Sfiiveallofthe as ihcv affect social impacts"}
              1 letter from J Ste\ en Onfes Ki t tQ OMB HP A ,ind COf re MoumaiMop MmifigA'alie* Fills issues Octobei
              ^ 2i HU It a viorth notmj, Usal Mr Gnles is a ioniiercoal iiidustn  cxeculnc and lofebjist \\liocontinues totecctte
              jmuiid pav tncnts of $284 (WK! per vc«tr fiom (lie sale of his former !obb% mg firm. National Em irmimcittai Strategies
              V\ IKn appointed to In-, present po*,t Mr Cmlf s sold ins lobbying firm and Signed a recimi agreement ptcd|>ing tl«it
              «fiile at liitenor I&: w ouid tioi be ist\ oh cd in Jnv particular matter tn\ oiv nig specific parties in \vhich au> of inv
              fnnner clients  (^ or repn?senfs a part\  (jriles  former clicrth include n\nn\ coal companies HMU conduct
              niountamlop rcmo\ ;il mtrang as vtelf a^tlic National Nfining Association, the indusrn ir.ide group and a*oc.il
              «iJ\ otrftt for n eakening federal enviromtvnyl Mw s to benefit die cfaas!s added)
                                  MEtwitllVomDd\
-------
             would be- "Process v. Environmental ^rafeetjon; Where's the matt? What is beiftg proposed that
             will improve environmental protection?  What proposals will place limits on MTM/VFT37

             Not only did the DEIS approach fail to meet the requirements of the original scope intended for
             the programmatic EIS, it completely ignored the millions of dollars and thousands of pages of
             technical and scientific studies that the agencies' staff had been working on for years.  As aptly
             explained by the FWS's Mr. Densrnore:

                    The ETS technical studies carried out by the agencies -• at considerable taxpayer expense
                    - have documented adverse impacts to aquatic arid terrestrial ecosystems, yet the
                    proposed alternatives presented offer no  substantive means of addressing these impacts.
                    The alternatives and actions, m currently written, belie four years of work and the
                    aecuBiiilateii evidence of environmental harm, and would substitute permit process
                    tinkering for meaningful &nd nmism ;ibie change.38

             The DEIS' failure to address meaningful alternatives disregards the findings of the studies on
             moufttaintop removal and flies in the face of common sense - and it clearly violates the law
             governing the EIS process, the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA^X39 NEPA requires
             that Environmental Impact Statements describe (1) the "environmental impact of the proposed
             action," (2) any "adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
             implemented," (3) any "alternatives to the proposed action," and (4) any "irreversible or
             irretrievable commitment of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it
             be implemented."* NEPA  implementing regulations make clear thst an E1S must "present the
             environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply
             defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker
             and the public," and to "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate ajjhn^onalble


             NEPA's requirement that federal agencies evaluate all reasonable environmentally
             distinguishable substantive alternative to agency actions and to fully evaluate the consequences
             of these alternatives is flatly violated by the mowntaintop removal DEIS- The three "action
             alternatives" in the DEIS are purely process alternatives, they provide no meaningful btsis for
             analyzing, much less reducing, the environmemal impacts of continued federal approval of
             rnountairjtop removal operations. By failing to consider reasonable alternatives that would
             restrict the size, scope, and number of valley fills, the DEIS fails to consider a reasonable range
             of alternatives, as NEPA requires.
             3 EiMil from John FQTOII 12: Briefing Outline, with Attachment: Briefing, MouaUuntop MuiiBg/Valley Fills
             (MTM/VF) Draft Programmatic Environmental Impis:! Statement Ma> 21, 2003.
             ^ Email foam Dave Dcnsmore re: PWS Comments &n Chapter IV. September 30, 2fl02 (emphasis added),
             ** 42 U.S.C § 4321 rt wg. MOTE: This section only addresses a few of the maw ways the DEIS violates NEPA
             staiutory and regulatory requirenjents; il is HOI meanl to be ft coniptetasfisive evaluation of all NEPA violations
             evidenced by this DEI'S.
             *'42U.S,C.*g4332(2)(C>.
             '1? 40 C.P.R. jf 1502.14 (emphasis added)
                                                        10
4-2
                                    te addition, NEPA requires that an EtS accurately portray the impacts of the proposed action,
                                    and alternatives to the proposed action,4* NEPA requires that »n EIS prepared by a federal
                                    agency include "a dejiaiteA stateffleaf ' on "the environmental impact of the proposed action,
                                    , . .any adverse environmental effects which tannot he avoided should the nronosal be
                                               d. [and] alternatives to the proposed action.
The alternatives analysis, including discussion of the proposed action is "the heart of the
environmental impact statement,"  The analysis, based in targe part upon the environmental
consequences section of the EIS, should "[d]evote substantial treatment to each alternative
considered in detail including the propo*d action so that reviewers may evaluate their
comparative merits,"45

The environmental consequences section of the EIS "forms the scientific and analytic basis5' for
the required comparison of alternatives; this section must contain discussions of, inter atia^
"direct effects sod their significance, indirect effects and their significance," and "environmental
effects of alternatives including the proposed action,"415 Effects  that must be analyzed include
"ecological (such as the effects ort natural resources and on the components, structures, and
functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health,
whether direct, indirect or cumulative."47 Direct effects "are caused by the action and occur  at
the same time and place."* Indirect effects "are caused by the action and »re later in time or
farther removed in distance, but are stilt reasonably foreseeable."* Cumulative impact is "the
impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added
to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-Federal) or person  undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result
from individually minor birt collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.""

The mountaintop removal DEIS tails in this regard  According to claims made in the document,
the "Preferred Alternative" - Alternative 2 - would, like the other "action" alternatives
considered, result in "significant environmental benefits" }  but this assertion is not backed up
with any description of or factual information about whst those benefits would actually be.  At
best, the DEIS further asserts that the coordinated permit process that comprises Alternative 2
might result  in the identification of ways that could be used on a case-by-case basis to avoid or
minimize adverse  effects, but nowhere in the document do the agencies actually identify any
actual resources that would be protected - at individual sites or on a cumulative basis - as a
result of the  selection of their preferred alternative.52
                                     0 42 USC 4332 (NEPA KH(C 4 E)), 40 CFR 1502.14, 1502.16; 40 CFR 15(18.8.
                                     " 42 USC 4332 (NEPA 10J(O) (emphasis xtted).
                                     •H40CFR1S)2.14.
                                     "14
                                     *40 CFR 1502.16.
                                     ''" 40 CFR 1508.8.
                                     '040CFRt5M.8(a),
                                     *«1 CFR 1508.1Kb).
                                     "40CFRI.W8.7.
                                     51 PHIS II. B-17,
                                     K See DELS II. Section C "Dojitod Analysra of tne Action ID Address hsvK'  The lilte of this section is
                                     misleading in the seme that it contains no detailed analysis of the actions MKjtiding the preferred alternalive,
                                                                               11
4-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
             A-597
                                                                Section A  - Organizations

-------
Perhaps even more importantly, the DEIS fails to describe (either in detail or in general terms)
the environmental resources that would be harmed under the agencies* preferred alternative. For
example, the DEIS does not discuss the direct, indirect, or cumulative effects of Alternative 2 on
stream losses, the consequential size of valley fills, future forest losses, effects on fish and
wildlife resources, including endangered  species, flooding or other environmental damage
associated with mountaintop removal coal mining.s3

This omission in the DEIS itself is especially striking, given that the scientific studies contained
in the appendices so vividly describe the environmental destruction that has been and currently is
being caused by mountaintop removal. As the Cumulative Impact Study mate clear, without
new restrictions on mountaintop removal, these impacts are likely  to double over the next
decade. Yet, the DEIS itself contains none of the detailed analysis NEPA requires saying what
impact - if any - the proposed action alternative would have on the future of these resources,5'1

Thus, a decision-maker reading the DEIS would not be able to figure out from this document that
the federal  action at issue is oae that is destroying an environmentally sensitive area the size of
one of the SO United States (and not even the smallest one) - violating the very purpose of the
NEPA analysis.

C.  Elimination of Existing Protections, Siitli as the Buffer Z«ne Rule, Are  Not Reasonable
Alternatives

One of the  most important components of current SMCRA law is the so-called buffer zone rule.
This regulation, adopted in 1983 by the Reagan administration, prevents the OSM and state
agencies from issuing permits for coal mining activities that would disturb land within 100 feet
of streams, unless the permitting agency affirmatively confirms that the activities will not violate
               M hi addition under basic principles of  be atbtirarv orcapncioas  enobffet/thi'tuttr}-* tn \tnke titmtt  n\arfattran  «sjewv
              at ft m that A tltsviiltidfttetkltfd fttc mo! AttfytoH " AMB^ofData ^OC^BMjg,>,. Bo.^L0£Qi^grj^rs  ?4S F 2d 677
              681-S4(DC Of 1984) («mpha&!$i« original Internal quotations and eilip&is omitted) Under tins standsid UK
              .iuencies must ofier credible c\ jdeiice  not mere speculation iotmilress  facliwi conclusions 5^ £-£. £SB3SSUylB
              Rec\t.lingCojliUoa\  LPA 2«F MM* 866 (DC Cir ?001)(icimndcdutiac <$cnu  had failed (o
              'demomtmtcfj* rein am point wiih "substantial c\ tdcisce ~ not mere assertions"),M^Mifkcjss:1&M_\JUSEE4. 2
              FM4^H  446(0C Cir I*W) (aguKA \ jnirpoiteJ "ii&lilkatictn on fhe nxord" mjccicd «hcit it 'tomtslsof
                                ijomt*i CMffloL.MTiS.>.-Assft...\.....EPAJ2SF Id 1259 12(DC Cir I994)c«'»ne) jjnjgjj
                         .    TbKC S8 F Id 11OS i ift^^tit (D (  Cir t(DC Cir  2(i(H}(Hgeiia "fasied in provide anj record
              litstificauon" for in ke\  .mertioti, but instead Hstmp!v assumed it Has so")
              w Under Ihcaibiirsm jud c.jpnciotis si5indard anagcmn  must e\ttt»tfte ilw ffilc%a»tdala cMid articulate 8(iy&2)  Attdgenc\ attioncanbtdibitran ^uid
              utpricious if i\K dgciicx    cuJireh faiied to consider tin imporyni aspcc! of i!ic probictn oficmi att e\piaiidtion
              for tls decsstou thai runs counter lo she ei idence before Hte agency or is so implausible Uwt it coald IIDI be .istribed
              10 j diffcreno: IBMCH  oriiie product of agencv expertise " Motor \ctacle Ass n\ SUie lartnMut  46^ U S 2l>
              (1983).
                                                          12
                                                                                                          4-2
                                                                                                          1-10
                        water quality standards artd will not adversely affbet wM'er quantity, quality, or other stream
                        resources 55 This regulation is needed to implement the provisions of SMCRA that require the
                        protection of water courses from mining damage.

                        Remarkably, all of the "alternatives" considered in the DEIS propose (or assume) that the Buffer
                        Zone rule will be rewritten by the Bush administration to allow- coal mining waste to be dumped
                        into streams, burying them - essentially eliminating the stream "buffer" from the Buffer Zone
                        nile. This is perhaps the most outrageous part of the DEIS, While the document overall fails to
                        live up to the purpose of finding ways to mmirma the already devastating effects of
                        mouniaintop removal foy ignoring alternatives needed to limit the impacts of this form of mining,
                        the propMiil.ta .
-------
      upstream of a sedimentation pond located within the stream channel, provided thai the
      pond meets the location requirements of § 816 46(cXlX») of this part
      0) Be conducted in a manner that minimizes disturbances and adverse impacts TO fish,
      wildlife, and related environmental values of the stream
      v the CWA. since it i
                                                                                                                                                      v wkh botfi
                                                                                                                                                                      lfes y e
                                                                                                                                                                                     IB enlv those activities au$pHzgt! bv both
                                                                                                                                                 statates '

                                                                                                                                          Thus, OSM's interpretation of the existing Buffer Zone rule in the DEIS is incorrect, and is
                                                                                                                                          directly inconsistent with the interpretation given by the United States before the 4* Circuit in
                                                                                                                                          Btayg.  In addition, EPA's Office of Water warned OSM in December, 2002 that the DEIS' legal
                                                                                                                                          position on the Buffer Zone rule is incorrect, commenting that:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   1-10
             ** DEB II.C-34 to C-35 (crapben added). Stt also. DEIS n.B-7. regarding the "No Actieo Alternative" ("OSM
             initiated a SMCRA regulatory program enharcement to ftfltaid attd clarify tfee stream buffer torn (SBZ) rales at M}
             CM 816.57 and 817.57"); DEB ll.B-19, regarding tie "No Action Alternative" ('SMCRA buffer zone (SBZ)
             subject lo imapreutioi)"): DEIS H.C-J, regarding the "No Action AHenotire" ("Consul SBZ rule-making
             (OSMD; DEIS ii.D-2, regarding " Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forwatd Hi this E1S," C'Use of the
             ^existing) OSM SBZ role was considered to implement the alternatives establishing vaiiey fiJI restrictions for certain
             strejMn segments jbiti not carried forwardf")
                                                       14
                       *" This argument is especially cjnital and disingenaons given that to May, 2002, MB Bush adrninistottio* tewntc
                       25^year-o!d Clean Water Act regulations pralubiting tbe disposal of waste material - including mo»r«jiratop rcinm-a!
                       wsste - from being dnHiped ift stftjattis m ati attempt to allow sueh waste disposal in waters to occur.
                       111 DEBILD-2.  &K30U.S.C. § 1292
-------
      There are fairly sweeping legal conclusions here that the stream IxiUfcr zone rule ccmW
      not be used to determine allowable stream segments for filling because doing so would
      supersede the C W A, something f C]ongress precluded in SMCRA. The lawyers need to
      look at this more closely. I'm uncomfortable with the breadth of this argument...64

The DEIS' interpretation of the Buffer Zone rule, as supplied by OSM, is erroneous as a milter
of policy and of law. and is an arbitrary reversal of the prior position taken by the U.S
government before the federal courts

All of the alternatives considered in the DEIS, including the "No Action" alternative and the
three "action alternatives^" contemplate (hanging the Buffer Zone rule so that the rule is
weakened or eviscerated   No alternative contemplates keeping the Buffer Zone rule in place as it
currently exists  This failure to consider any alternative which includes the option of not
changing current law violates NEPA, under which the BIS must "fijnclude the alternative of no
action''1'5  Bv JlegallY inchidii>j_a r«le chaflee tn tto "No Aetton"  «t»rMtlvf. .rttt.PEIS
         te^vad^ a fniKtqmenl&t reqiriif itretit af Nj^PA to fcoasidef the.hetietife of
                                                       i the law, unchanged*  Rather, the
                   aMe 8lteriiit(lveir« i
                                             the aiteraMiV€ ,
             '" .««• "ill
                                                                                                                             tuve more dim a "minima] athwe cm iromm-ntal effects «lien peifturad separately and wiH Save only minimal
                                                                                                                             cmilatiw adveee effect on Die tnimmfut.' M U.S C 31W4(«) (emphasis added). Thus, *c analysis of lltt
                                                                                                                             tarn caused by (lie activity pispositig » discharge pollaant into wa«r is not limited 16 the tarm caused only to the
                                                                                                                             aquatic environment, but necessarily- consider UK harm fifcit would rt-sutt to the environment generally, indudbig the
                                                                                                                             temjstrfal emutniraetw
                                                                                                                             "'We hertjy incorporate bj- reference additional rcasQBSWhy Ibece-nH'nueduseofNWP2l violates the Clean Water
                                                                                                                             Act M stated m NRPC's October 2001 comments on the NWP proposal published til Ihe Federal Reghter a< ftft Fed
                                                                                                                             Reg M070 (August 9.2001)
                                                                                                                                                                       17
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    1-13
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                      A-600
                                                               Section A - Organizations

-------
E. The DEIS*
Cann
                                       s&lysjis Is rumliimt'nt illy Flawed Because Burin! sf Streams
             The 0EIS further violates NEPA by failing to adequately analyse the effectiveness of proposed
             mitigation measures. Specifically, the DEIS wrongly relies on the effectiveness of in-kind
             mitigation to justify failure to recommend other stream protection measures" despite the fact
             that the DEIS and its accompanying studies admit that on-site headwater stream reconstruction
             has never been successfully accomplished and that the technology to reconstruct free-flowing
             streams does not even exist. Thus, there is no rational basis for the DEIS' reliance upon stream
             mitigation as a method of reducing impacts of mountaintop removal mining to m
             environmentally acceptable level.

             The DEIS states that "[ntjitigation for lost stream functions is important to ensure that significant
             degradation to waters of the U.S. does not occur"74 and that "Pin-kind mitigation must restore or
             create headwater stream habitat on the reclaimed mine area to replicate the functions lost form
             direct stream Joss."?i

             The Fish and Wildlife Service's  reviewer of the DEIS has commented that ", . .the ability of
             compensatory mitigation to reduce impacts to minimal levels is the linchpin of each of the
             alternatives" but that such mitigation for buried streams "is an untested, unproven concept, and
             many believe it can't be accompli shed. "l7fi

             The DEIS states: "'[wjhile proven methods exist for larger stream channel restoration and
             creation, the state of the art in creating smaller headwater streams onsite has not reached the
             level of reproducible success required for these efforts to be reasonably relied upon
             prograrnniaticatiy as an option for full compensatory  mitigation."^7 And elsewhere: "[djuring the
             development of this EIS, technical representatives from GSM and from West Virginia have
             suggested that groin ditches constructed along the edges  of fills may represent an opportunity for
             in-kind replacement of streams with an intermittent or ephemeral regime. To date, no drainage
             structures observed appear to have successfully  developed into a functional headwater stream,"78'

             While it is true that NEP A does not require aft agency to mitigate adverse environmental
             impacts,  where, as here, "an agency's decision to proceed with a project is based on
             imconsidered, irrational, or inadequately explained assumptions about the efficacy of mitigation
             measures, the decision must be set aside as 'arbitrary and capricious,"'7'*
             11 DEIS 1I.C-2-3 (stating thai burial of streams by valley fills "can be fistccessftriiy offset by a com
             mitigwiioi! proposal").
             ''DEISH.C-49.
             "? DEIS IV.B-9.
             ''L Email from CMv Tibboii, FWS. ne: Chapters ! & II eammenls, November 1 5. 2001
             " DEIS H.C-50.
             "
                     ..
              v Stein V. Barton, "?•*() F. Supp. 745. 753-54 (D- Alaska 1 990) (eemctusion that mitigation "will prevent any
             sigiufieimt reduction itt fish ha&iiaT was a&iintty in HgNt of evidence in ttic record deiiiomlraiing mitigasioii
             failures).

                                                        18
                                                                                          4-2
                                                                                                                                                                                                        dliii. th  DEi$ c:uinoi
                                                                                                                                            little bask lit fealty. and no crcdililc prMmcctof success.  Accar
F. The Economic Impact «f Reducing the Sf» of Vafley Fills Would »e Minimal

The failure to consider new restrictions on mountaintop removal - especially objective limits on
the si-ze of valley fills - cannot be justified on economic grounds,  Studies prepared for the DEIS
concluded that limits on valley fills would not only have significant environmental benefits, but
also that the economic consequences would be moderate, or relatively insignificant.  Even after
the ffrsl economic study was rewritten for the DEIS in order to be more sympathetic to the coal
industry's concerns, the second version of the study concluded that the economic costs would be
small

As part of the programmatic EIS effort, EPA contracted with Hill &  Associates (H&A), an
economic modeling Firm, to mode! the economic impacts of the various alternatives - still under
consideration at that time- for restricting the six® of valley fills. In a December 2001 "final**
report to EPA, H&A concluded that evert the most severe restriction on valley fills studied tn the
report -• one that barred fills covering watersheds more than 3$ acres- would raise the price of
coal by only $ ( per ton and raise the cost of electricity by & few cents per megawatt-hour,88 Is  a
March 2002 slide show presentation to senior EPA officials in its Washington, D.C.
headquarters, EPA Region 3 officials characterized these effects as "a minimal impact on the
price of coal" and "virtually NO impact on electricity  prices,"81  The presentation revealed that:

   «   Sufficient coal reserves appear to exist under the 250,  ! 50, 75, and 35-acre restriction
       scenarios necessary to meet demand during the 10 year study period  . .
   »   Restricting valley fills to 250, 150S 75, or 35-acre watersheds will increase the price of
       coal by only $ I/ton under each respective restriction scenario
   »   Restricting valley fills to 250, 150, 75, or 35-acre watersheds will increase the price of
       electricity by only a few cents/MWHr under each respective  restriction scenario.

Another EPA draft study, dated April 23, 2002, concludes that  even under the most restrictive
option studied - limiting the size of valley fills to 3 5-acre watersheds -  annual average impacts
to total statewide employment in Kentucky and West Virginia are no more than 0 3% of total
year 2000 employment In addition, this study found that there are no ''notable differences in
[wholesale electricity] prices or generation levels among the alternative [restrictions]    due to
the competitive nature of the  energy markets "81
                                                                                                                               ^ Hill & Associates, "Ecosotnic impact of Mountain Top Mining atid Vallcv Fills. Eavifixunenial htipaef
                                                                                                                               Statement.* for U S EPA. Deccinbcr 2001  The H&A study assumed tlsat vaHcv fill nstnctioia urntld 8pply
                                                                                                                               uiunoduftch to all exiting mtnc^whrie a Rwnciikely scenario is fiuif new res)ncttomttoulclQiil> appiv ioftitare
                                                                                                                               pennits  Ttais the study oxersfaies the likci> econonac impacts of iiinittftg future Clean Water Act § 404 permits to
                                                                                                                               dump moHiifaifitop removal ttitste into utitcis
                                                                                                                               " ttomtaintop Mining EIS Presentation, HPA Office of Water, Office of Federal Actn tucs, and Office of General
                                                                                                                               Counsel. Miircli 5, 2003 (emphasis in original)
                                                                                                                               <:a.
                                                                                                                               " Gamea Fleming. Draft Banana: Qmmmeiiees Study for MTM'VF.EIS. April 21. inn
                                                                                                                                                                          19
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        4-2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         11-9-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                       A-601
                                                                Section A - Organizations

-------
             Apparently because the coal indu$try was unhappy with the conclusions of Use first "final"
             report, Hill &. Associates was directed to reopen their study by conducting a "sensitivity
             analysis" that consisted mostly of interviewing coal company officials to incorporate their
             opinions of the economic effects of limiting the size of valley fills. m Even with this industry
             input, the economic consequences of limiting the size and location of valley fills was found to be
             minimal.

             Thus, the May 30 DEIS finds that "in most situations the restriction would change the price of
             coal to less than One dollar per ton," and "ftjhe price of electricity would continue to ris«
             approximately 1 to 2 percent across the scenarios, IhgJjBBftStsjjyjg to restrictiofls will have little
             eljfeclon^piice. ** ' Even after adjusting the models based on the cos! industry's inputs, the
             change in the price of coat rose to only two dollars a ton.

             Morgan Worldwide Consultants, inc. (MWC1) conducted an analysts of the economic reports.
             As OSM's Mike Robinson observed in a January 2003  e-mail, the MWCI analysis concluded
             ". ..it is evident that the ejja&iflityjiDflajtejBiife .msemiti ye tq the MTM /W.;.f.estrictJOttS.
             showing differences of only l%-2%, or 3% at the maximum     Perhaps recognising this might
             be a public relations issue for the agencies -~ since no other reason to avoid limiting the si^e of
             valley fills had been produced - a background memo for the agencies' "Communications Team"
             dated January 16, 2003, warns that "[a|s part of the studies conducted is conjunction with the
             DEIS were studies to assess the economic impacts that would result from implementing actions
             considering limits on the size of valley fills.  Information from the economic studies ... suggest
             that limits on the Abe of fills will have .only minima] economic : .consequences M.COJ!. and
             Therefore, one of the coal industry's - and this administration's - primary rationales for failing
             to rein in the worst abuses caused by mountaintop removal coal mining is refuted by its own
             economic studies.

             Con elusion

             The environmental and economic studies prepared for the mountaintop removal programmatic
             EIS do not lend any support to the administration's proposed "Preferred Alternative" that would
               Although ilic "Phase U* H£A carch actual oti-tftc-gmtifid"
             iinpticft experienced ami protected due fo *  fill rcsf ncuosts Coal producers ^presenting appK>vinutct> 60° a at
             Ihc affected suffice mine lonitapc in soiitJjem West Virginia and eastern KcittiicK^ were \ tsded  DFIS, App G
             HPhau.ll Sttid\"at6
             s* DOS App 0 [> 6 istiinman of Pirate M economics stutlv In Hill and A«<*x:taic$) (emphasis added)
             *" Em,iii fmmMikeRobtHson n; H&A economic anah sis citing Letter from Morgan World* tAe CoiuuUaiiis Iiic
             Jantyh  10 2001
             n Mouaianiiop Mining > V'aHcx TtH DFiS Btn p
             2 (emphasis added)
                                                        20
11-9-2
result in the weakening of extstmg environmental laws that liffiit the si^ and location of valley
fills. In fact, the studies support the opposite conclusion: moimtaintap removal must be much
more strictly limited to head off additional and significant devastation of the Appalachian
region's tmtutaj resources - and the communities that depend on those resources now and for
future generations,

The DEIS represents a wholesale retreat from the promise made by the federal government in
1998, when the agencies involved pledged to develop a programmatic E1S to minimize to the
maximum exteat practicable the environmental harm caused by rnoimtaintop removal and valiey
fills - not prolong or exacerbate the problem. The DEIS also violates or calls for changes in
long-standing environmental protections that would violate numerous federal environmental
laws, including the National Environmental  Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act.

As stated above, the DEIS must be rewritten to consider substantive alternatives that would
minimize the environmental harm caused  by mountaintop removal and select a preferred
alternative that would truly protect the resources and people of the region.
                                                                                                                             4-2
                                    Sincerely,

                                    loan Mulhern
                                    Senior Legislative Counse-!
                                    Earth] ustice

                                    Fred Sampson
                                    President
                                    West Virginia Environmental Council

                                    Melissa Samet
                                    Senior Director, Water Resources
                                    American Rivers

                                    John Btair
                                    President
                                    Valley Watch, Ine

                                    Ed Hopkins
                                    Environmental Quality Director
                                    Sierra Club

                                    Norm Steenstra
                                    Executive Director
                                    West Virginia CUixen Action
                                               Daniel Rosenberg
                                               Staff Attorney
                                               Natural Resources Defense Council

                                               Liz Garland
                                               Issues Coordinator
                                               West Virginia Rivers Coalition

                                               Julie Sibbing
                                               Wetlands Specialist
                                               National Wildlife Federation

                                               Bob Pereiasepe
                                               Chief Operating Officer and Acting Senior
                                                Vice President for Public Policy
                                               National Audubon Society

                                               Sara Zdcb
                                               Legislative Director
                                               Friends of the Earth

                                               Andy Mahler
                                               Coordinator
                                               Shagfaark
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-602
                                                                Section A - Organizations

-------
Diana Mullis, Potomac Valley Audubon Society
                                                            "WEC'D  OFC 3 1 2M3

                              Potomac \?alleg Audubon Society
            www.potorateaudabon.,Qrg
          P.O. Box 578
Shepherdstown, WV 25443
We value the aquatic resources, biologically rich forest and stream ecosystems, the
streams themselves, md OOT drinking water. Moreover, DO wilcUifc babitat destruction
studies have be« RxftcoiMBg ta iito matter, m& to tapaet of MTR on dl wldMfe is
unknown. leveling mountains and burying streams needs to aop and these issues need
to be more ftffly evaluated.
            December 26,2003
            Mr. John Forrea
            U.S.Et>A{3A30)
            16SO Arch Street
            Philadelphia, PA 19103

            Bear Me. Fonw.

            R^arding: MounlAtop Removal tni Valley Fifls

            1 am writing fins lettiron bdjalfof die Potomac Valley Au&Aon Society.  We are a
            Chapter of fl* National Andutei Socsie^ with a MfimbaAip of ^^raxbnately 600
            members in tile eastern panhandle cxranties of West Vire,mm.

           The Potomac VtHey AwWson Society (PVAS) is opposed to njountMUWp fonowl and
                                                                                                                      rtruly
            proMKt tie «e of vallef fiDs and mmint«intop

            Scientific stndiea document tile widespread and irreversible damage that mounteintop
            removal and valley 411 ffi having on Appalachia, bit yet the Environmental Impact
            Statement (EIS) rejects the science based restrictions related to the size of the fill,
            cumulative impacts, types of streams affected, and value of the aquatic resources in the
            region.

            We specifically oppose any changes that would weaken the laws and regulations that
            protect dean water. In particular, we oppose tlie proposed elimination of tiie stream
            buffw-zone tule that pmMbtts njtoiag activfy wltMn 100 feet of streams. This rule
            should be strictly enforced. We do tat st^port AJtemaflve 1, 2 or 3 as described in the
            EIS report.  These optima do not protect Appalachian forests, water, or eomtnofflties.
                                                                                                                   Diana LMaffis
                                                                                                                   President
                          1-10

                          1-5
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                    A-603
                                                  Section A - Organizations

-------
Janice Nease, Coal River Mountain Watch
                    December 20,2003

                    Coal River Mountain Watch
                    Post Office Box 651
                    Whitesville, West Virginia 25209

                    Mr.johnForren
                    United States Environmental Protection Agency
                    1650 Arch Street
                    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

                    To Whom It May Concern:

                    Coal River Mountain Watch Is t local grassroots organization dedicated to
                    protecting the heritage and environment of the West Virginia coalfields white
                    also promoting vibrant and sustainable communities. Our members and staff
                    all have d««p personal connections to the mountains of West Virginia.  Virtually
                    all of our staff *nd numbers have personal connections to the coal industry.

                    Our organization feels It is tragic that the hard working miners and families of
                    this region have been forced to believe they must destroy the physical and
                    social fabric of our communities In order to mate a living. We firmly believe
                    that this situation Is not accidental, nor Is It the Inevitable oytcome of economic
                    circumstances. The chronic economic problems of central Appalachta ire the
                    result of extractive Industry's economic dominance over the region, and
                    mountalmop removal coal mining is Its poster child. The people of central
                    Appalachla are hunters, fishermen, farmers and woodsmen in addition to coal
                    miners.  It is truly a shame that people have to choose between feeding their
                    families and destroying art ancestral hunting ground. If other employment
                    opportunities existed In our region, we believe our people would take them
                    rather than flatten their mountains and forests.

                    Against this regional and organizational background, Coal River Mountain
                    Watch offers the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
                    Statement on Mountaintop Removal / Valley Fill coal mining:
                             Though the EIS is in enormous document that Includes many detailed scientific
                             studies, we believe the fatal flaw In the statement is readily apparent In the
                             executive summary. This flaw is to the very structure of the statement and
                             reveals the influence of the industry in the preparation of the document.
                             Unfortunately, this flaw undermines the hard work of the scientists employed
                             , by the study.

                             following standard procedure for an EIS, the "no action* alternative would make
                             no changes to the existing practice of mountalntop removal coal mining.  Coal
                             River Mountain Watch  adamantly argues that for tte EIS to be » credible
                             document, the abolition of mounttintop removal must be vigorously evaluated
                             as a legitimate alternative. The lack of an abolition option is a glaring omission
                             that points to the coal Industry's influence in the preparation of the EIS.

                             Two of the "action* alternatives would build on existing pieces of the permitting
                             framework. The **ction" alternative that would eliminate the so-called
                             Nationwidt-21  permit and subject all permits to a more thorough individual
                             review IS NOT sn acceptable concession to the environmental community. Coal
                             River Mountain Watch  believes that this "action* alternative should be imposed
                             as a MINIMUM tnttrim reform whfie other proposals ar« considered.

                             An "action" altef naive that would permit all mines under Natlonwiele-21 Is
                             blatant pamtertag to the coal Industry. Coal Wver Mountain Watch believes that
                             tht Nattenwlde-21 permit Is, In fact, Illegal under existing mining laws. Our
                             organization Is currently participating In litigation to establish this fact.
                             Regardless of Its legality, this permit has been recklessly applied to surface
                             mines throughout Appalachia, allowing them to  operate without proper
                             oversight or safeguards to the public.

                             The reason for including this alternative, we believe, Is that it creates an Illusion
                             of what the coal Industry Ilkts to call "balance."  It is worth repeating that we
                             DO NOT regard the elimination of Nationwide-21 as a concession. The Illusion
                             of balance played out  in the EIS public hearing held in Charleston.  The coal
                             Industry played its part by arguing in favor of the Nationwide-21 permit.
                     1-8
                     1-5
 MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-604
Section A - Organizations

-------
                    Concerned citizens largely refused to play their part, Instead of arguing in
                    favor of the option to eliminate Nationwide-21, most argued that the BS is a
                    flawed document. These comments ranged from the poetic (the EI5 is a "shame
                    and a sham") to the blunt ("this is bullshit").

                    The EIS has a built in escape hatch for Its creators. The third "action"
                    alternative is a vague statement calling for more cooperation between
                    permitting agencies to expedite the review process. This option is trulv
                    obscene.  This option contradicts th« volumes of scientific evidence included in
                    the EIS, all of which testifies to the adverse effects of mountatntop removal and
                    valiey fills on the environment The vague generalities of the option and its
                    emphasis of expediting permit review are blatant gifts to the coal Industry. The
                    entire issue of mountaJntop removal coal mining has arisen because the
                    industry has exploited similar vagaries in the Surface Mine Control and
                    Reclamation Act,

                    If adopted, this "action" alternative would have no substantial difference from
                    the "no action* alternative. Sy choosing this (no) action alternative, the EIS
                    authorities can complete their balance charade. They can choose to "act" by
                    adopting a proposal that will allow them to take virtually no action. There
                    would be  no substantial changes to current mountalntop removal practices. In
                    fact,  the proposed "action* would directly contradict the purpose of the EIS and
                    the extensive scientific data included In It.

                    We are dismayed  by the EIS. It doss not fulfill its court-ordered mandate.
                    While the  science In the statement testifies to the adverse Impacts of
                    mountalrrtop removal, the summary and proposed alternatives does not
                    honestly consider that evidence or the impacts of mountalntop removal on the
                    citizens of central Apptlaehia.
1-5
                                               step In no way adequately addresses the needs of coalfield residents in central
                                               Appalaehte.

                                               Coal River Mountain Watch recommends that the Draft EIS be rejected.  Rather
                                               thin make cosmetic changes to existing permitting policies and procedures, we
                                               recommend that the EIS provide leadership in developing new standards for
                                               coal mining. For the £15 to be regarded as a legitimate document, It must
                                               Include a thoroughly evaluated plan for abolishing mountaintop removal.

                                               On behalf of our members, staff and board of directors,



                                                nice Neasi, Executive Director
                     4-2
                                               Bill Price, President
                    Coal River Mountain Watch believes that mountaintop removal coal mining is
                    human, economic and ecological disaster that should be completely abolished.
                    The Nationwide-21 permit should be eliminated as an Initial step towards
                    reforming surface mining In accordance with already existing law.  But this
1-9
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                A-605
Section A - Organizations

-------
Robbie Pentecost, Catholic Committee of Appalachia

           CATHOLIC COMMITTEE OF APPALACHIA
                T,a Box 62,
                   *. Hirt-ctw
                        , OSF
            Lme&iiitisyfi-le. Kentucky
             asippHl@flxitbHJs.ijei
                         .   .
                  is Paterx, OP
                  fe, JfeW Vu'ftM
             $!t!tt&tr. ffiex
                                                           (60® 2974792
                                 My 22,2003
                                 Hen ring on Mountain Top Removal:
                                 At tfs 1998 Annual Meetii;ng,.the members of the Catholic Committee of
                                 passed & resolution catting for Ihe ead of mountain top removal and valley fill strip
                                 milling. Attached is a eofsy of that reflation.  '

                                 The Catholic Committee of Appalachia stands committed to this resolution today! The
                                 results of the devastating tootling in West Virginia aiid Eastern Kentucky, slthotigfi
                                 identified as '"Acts of God,** ate directly related to the eirrtant mountain top removal and
                                 valley fill sl rip-mining prf&tiees, Miiny poof con: mi mints haVe been tk-sli oyed wiili' Httte
                                 or no resottrecs to rebuild, Many of these eommsnities* whej-e flooding to this degree hat
                                 not been seen in the fast tOO years, have experienced several Hoods within the fast fow
                                 moRfJis. Lives have been lok, communities ctemaJishe4 Nope r die end of
mountap top femovid afid visjiey ftti strip misingi Ws will eotitinne to moblliae, IB
eollaferaikm with ofiaa- mffltai^dl ^owjss, to esd tWs vlelsRo: tt> our l
                                 " ft is wife gratitude ttsat ! mfomlt this lett^1 a«d .if inched Stol^fcfiB. We a
                                 q^&0ftti«% to stone With you ottr ®x|»i0i3K»s, iis people of feltti, of devastate and
                                          . On bdurif of tbe Cattiollc ComfirrRtseof Af^lachia, S
                                                                                                Resolution on Mountain fop Removal/Valley PHI Strip Mining

                                                                                                   3%e folfowfatg rssabrtiem wospsssetl ttnwilw&ttsfy tyy CotftoKe tftM&oittttK) ofAf&alschfa m&fitwty prssfmt at tite 7
                                                                                                                               Annual Meeting: "Voius at SuitoliaUUtr. "
                                                                                                                                 Whereas, Psaims 24:1 fimti
                                                                                                                                                              us that "Th@ E^rth is th@ Lord's,
                                                                                                                                                                                                  thdreof; and tti3 wortd, and th®y thst dwel!
                                                                                                Whureas, "God's covenant Is with all living mailing* (Gonoaia 9:9) and

                                                                                                vyhaf&afi, "Chrtat csms to md6sm a!f Crgatfon te for (wiping trssk of how to msolatlontsooina
                                                                                                                                         Implemented. Please M the OCA ofSoB Wow who yoir «r» oontaotlnj. Relay this Mftrtnatlon to: OCA, PO Box 82,
                                                                                                                                         Wittensvlte, KY 41274 phone (808) 897-8W2. e-ni8ll:aapr»IQfooWlls.net.
                                 Executive Director'
                                                                                                    1-9
 MTMA/F Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                    A-606
                                                                            Section A • Organizations

-------
Bob Perciasepe, National Audubon Society
      Audubon
                                                                    1150 Connecticut; Ave, NW #500
                                                                    Washington, D.C. 20036
                                                                    Tel: 202-861-2242
                                                                    Fax: 202-861-4290
                                                                    www.audubon.OEg
                                                       January 6,2004
      John Forren
      US.EPAC3B30)
      1650 Arch Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103

      Dear Mr, Porren:

      National Audubon Society submits the following comments on the Draft Programmatic Environmental
      impact Statement (DEIS)'oa Mountain Tap Miaki^Valley FUi (MTM/VF) in the Appalachian region of the
      eastern United States, 'Audubon is concerned about the severe impacts of MTM7VF on a variety of terrestrial
      and aquatic organisms. However, for the purposes of this comment letter our raaia concern is o» impacts to
      Emigratory birds. We find that the DEIS fails to meet the recpiiremenEs of the National Eavironiisentsl Policy
      Act (NEP A) and, therefore, is in&deeja&te. The DEIS is inadeejittte in that it fails to adequately assess the
      impacts, including cumulative impacts of MTM/VF on migratory birds, fails to consider a reasonable range of
      alternatives, and foils to adequately assess measures to mitigate unavoidable impacts to birds.

      Of particular to concern co Audubon is the im|>act of MTWVF on Cerulean W&rbiers, Audubon b one of
      several groups that have petitioned the U. S. Pish & Wildlife Service (FWS) co BSE the species as threatened
      under the Endangered Species Aa (ES A).  As the FWS has acknowledged, the Cerulean has experienced a
      precipitous population decline over the past 36 years. This decline is due to loss of habitat both in the United
      States and South America, In our January 21,2003 continents submitted to the FWS regarding ESA listing
      for the Cerulean, we emphasized chat one of the major sources of current and future habitat loss is surface coal
      mining operations in West Virginia and Tennessee, the core of the species' population abundance arid
      breeding area.  These mining operations destroy the forest habitat inhabited by Ceruleans. Mining in recent
      years has led to an increase in the decline of this species in the Appalachian region, and continued mining
      operations, as proposed in the draft EIS» will only increase the seed for listing the species under the ESA. The
      draft EIS fails to adequately address this important issue.

      The goal of NEP A is to ensure informed decisicm-making regarding proposed actions that may adversely
      affect the environment. To achieve this goal, NEPA requires agencies EO take a "hard look*1 at the
      environments! consequences of the proposed action before it is taken. This means that an EIS mast fully
      disclose environmental impacts; consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including alternatives that
      minimize environmental impacts; ftilly assess cumulative imp&cts of the proposed action; snrf assess measures
      to mitigate unavoidable environmental effects. The draft EIS fitik to meet these requirements.
4-2
8-1-2
4-2
First, the Draft EIS falls to fully disclose she effaces of MTM/VP on migratory birds, includinf Cerulean
Warblers, Cerulean Warblers have suffered a. precipitates §0% decline in papubcbn over the past 36 years.
Because of this dramatic drop in population, Audubon and several other conservation organizations have
petitioned the Pish and Wildlife Sendee (FWS) to list the species as threatened under the ESA.  In response,
the FWS determined that sufficient information was provided 10 undertake a status review as required under
the ESA. That review is still ongoing. The core of the Ceruiean's breeding range is largely within the EIS
study area. Since Cerul&afis require large tracts of intact forest for successful breeding, mOuntaiotap miaijig
'within the study area will have & dramatic negative impact on Ceruleass,  Research completed In 2002 byDrs.
W&akiafid and Wood at West Virginia University provides the best information to date on the effects to'
Cffimkaa Warblers &•<«& the fisrest loss aisd fragmentation that occurs with moimtam top mining,
Inexplicably, this research was not included in the draft EIS, even though it was available at the time the EIS
was prepared and the FWS strasgly urged that k be included. Because the draft EIS fails to ioetude the
Weakknd and Wood research. - the best seemiFse information available - the EIS fiaiU to fully disclose the
effects of MTM/VF on Cerulean Warblers. Similarly, th« dralt OS also fails to fully disclose the cumulative
effects of past and projecosd future mimng on Certileans. In particular, the EIS fails to acknowledge that the
Cerulean is listed on the O,S, Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern* That
list includes all species for wMdh special management actions and habitat conservation actions should be
undertaken by federal agencies in order so avoid omtomed population decline and potential future listing
under the ESA.

Second, t&c EfS fails to consider a "reasonabk usage of alternatives" as repaired by NEPA. The alternatives
considered in the draft EIS are merely different variations oa regulatory streamlining.  The draft JEJS
provides no alternative that includes protecting some important habitat areas frnrn mining or changing the
methods of mining or mitigation m a way to minimize, widi certainty, the environmental consequfi&ces of
MTM/VF. This is IKK only a violation of NEPA, but it spi^ears to also be contrary to die settlement
agreement that was the impetus for this EtS,  The f&tlutft m include alternaows that protect some migratory
bird habitat from destruction is also a violation of Executive Garder 13186 which requires federal agencies to
cooperate with the FWS in order to promote the conservation of migratory birds.  This draft EIS shoald be
withdrawn and a new EIS prepared that includes additional alternatives including a envirojaraentaUy
preferable alternative that analyzes changes to current mining practices that ensure habitat loss and other
adverse effects are minimized.

Finally, the draft EIS fails to adequately assess mitigation messares for die loss of hardwood forest habitat.
The draft EIS suggests that mined areas co«ld be reforested. However, the EIS also concedes that new
methods of forest reelaasMfeis are untested and that given the condldons needed for reforestation, it is not
likely that reckmatkot would be successful. The draft EIS also suggests that some areas might be replaced
with grassland habitat far "rare" eastern grassland species. It is iimppropriate to suggest converting oite
habitat type to another is adequate mtigation. Thus, these saggesti&as will not, to fact* mitigate the
envkonmenta] devastation earned by MTM/VF. Migratory birds, and Cerulean Warblers in particalar, will
suffer population declines because of habitat loss due to mining activities.  Conversion to grassland will be of
no benefit m CeruJeans and, even if reforestttaoa were successful (which is doubtfiil) it wUJ be hundreds if not
thousands of years before suitable habitat for CertJesm is reestablished. Mitigation is reaily not possible, a
point the draft EIS foils to acknowledge. The only option that comes close to mitigation is to identify core
areas Fat Ceruleans aad other migratory birds and ban mining i& those areas.

In sum, the draft EIS fails to adequateJy meet the requirements of HEPA in its assessment of impacts to
migratory birds within the study area, pardcukrly Cerulean Warblers, for which considerable information
esdts.  In addition, the £1$ fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and fails to adequately assess
                                                                                                                                8-1-2
                                                                                                                                4-2
 MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
             A-607
                                                                       Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                                                           Judith Petersen, Kentucky Waterways Alliance
                                                                                                                                                                                                         JAHO
       mitigation measures. Therefore we ask the agencies to withdraw &*s draft EIS &od prepare a new draft tha
       remedies the flaws in this EIS.

       Thank you For considering these comments.
4-2
                                             Bob Perdttepe
                                             Chief Operating Officer and Acting
                                              Senior Vice President for Public Policy
                                             National Audubon Society
aterways fiQw
                                                                                                                                                              270-524-1774
                                   December 31,2003

                                   Mr. John Forrea
                                   US. EPA(3BAJO)
                                   1650 Arch Street
                                   Philadelphia, PA 19103

                                   IE: Mouaateop Mntag/VaBey FiBs in Appatehia, Draft Prc^mnHBC EnvironnjHital Impact Statement

                                   Dear Mr. Forren,

                                   I submit these comments on behalf of the Kentucky Waterways Affiance regarding the
                                   Mountontop MSntaf/Valley Fills to Appilaehia Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
                                   Statement These comments apply to all the agencies who participated is the EIS and ihould be
                                   considered in any deehkw that the US Army Corps of Engineers, US EPA, US Fish & Wildlife
                                   Service, US Department of Interior, Department of Surftce Mining Bid West Virginia DB>
                                   make bawd on the EIS.

                                   The Kentucky Waterways Alliance, Inc. (KWA) is a statewide nonprofit organization dedicated
                                   to protecting and re^oriag Kentucky's waterways and their watersheds by building elective
                                   alliances ffer their stewardship. We have many members who live in eastern Kentucky and care
                                   about the streams in the Appalaehia region. Our inembers fish and eat fish from these streams,
                                   swim, canoe and otherwise enjoy the beauty of these waters and reply upon them for drinking
                                   water and other beneficial uses

                                   General torn meats and oliservitioas

                                   Over 30 studies were funded as a part of this court-settlement investigation into the impacts of
                                   mountaintop mining and associated excess spoil disposal valley fills The studies in the EIS
                                   demonstrated that mountaintop mining and valley fills have already caused extensive ecological
                                   harm to Appalachta, destroying almost seven percent of forests in the region and burying or
                                   damaginf! nearly i,200 miles of headwater strrarr,! Ironically, the studies also indicated that
                                   placing tighter restrictions on the use of valley fills would have a negligible impact on the          1-5
                                   economy. Yet with the proposing of the three alternatives you have chosen to completely ignore
                                   the scientific and economic studies in your own reports and current Clean Water and Surface
                                   Mining Laws to present a so called "status quo option" (that eliminates the smBBt stream buffer
                                   zone rule), and two other options that would make these destructive and unnecessary practices
                                   easier.
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-608
            Section A - Organizations

-------
              All three rf foirimtndationj contained in the BIS effort ere completely irresponsible »nd
              illegal under the Clean Water Act. They will not protect oar steam or our Oxen ecosystems.
              Equally alarming, they will not protect our communities and famUte*. They will act solve any of
              the problems caused by mountaintop removal mining and valley fills. Instead, the governmental
              agencies charged with enforcing the laws hive used the BIS process in develop a series ef rule
              changes that will nsake it easief for coal companies to get permits for mountaintop removal
              mining and valley fills.

              The BIS disregtrds all scientific evidence  and current Clean Water Act (CWA) add Surface
              Mining {SMCRA) Isws in an attempt to justify and even encourage the practices of mountaiatop
              mining and vaSky fills. The report rejects  even considering specific restrictions OB the use of
              valley fills based on size, cumulative impacts, types of streams, or the high value of the aquatic
              resources in the region.

              K.WA does not support any oftlKS iteee alternatives in the report, but believes that the status quo
              (Alternative #1) is the least harmful to the natural resource! and people in Appalachia However,
              even Alternative $1 contains significant changes to the Stream Buffer Zone rule that we believe
              BmslMjeJinisnaSBd X24).

The buffer zone nil* applies only to "intermittent" and "perennial" streams, and not to
"ephemeral"  streams. As those terms are defined fay SMCRA regulation, ephemeral streams are
streams, or portions of streams, that flow 'only in direct response to precipitation in the
immediate watershed."  An "intermittent" stream is » stream, or stream portion, that 'obtains its
flowfromthesurticerunoffandgroundwaterdisckarge." "Perennial" streams are streams, or
stream portions, flat flow continuously during the calendar year.  30 C.F.R.. 705.5.

Protection of intermittent and perennial streams is required by SMCRA and. by the CWA.
Restricting negative stream impacts to ephemeral streams is economically achievable, helps
minimize damage to headwaters and downstream navigable waters and is in the public interest.
OSM should refrain from nilenjaking and enforce the SBZ rate as is legal under both the CWA
and SMRCA. This would twpsire the enforcement of the SBZ rule 
724 miles at streams across tte Central Appalachian region were buried by valley Bits between 1985 tod 2001; 1-10 MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium A-609 Section A - Organizations

-------
              > twice that number &f stream miles are currently approved for destruction in existing
                 permits;
              > an additional 1,200 miles of streams have already been impacted fay valley fills;
              > selenium was found finjy. in those coalfield streams below valley fills (selenium is a
                 metalloid that, according to the EPA, "can be highly toxic to aquatic life even at
                 relatively low concentrations");
              > amphibians and other aquatic life forms including fish in impacted areas and downstream
                 of valley fills are being harmed or Wed, changing the entire native species balance in
                 Appalachia;
              > interior forest songbirds, native to the area decline significantly in mined and even
                 reclaimed mining areas;
              > Streams in impacted watersheds have higher base flows and are subjected to higher
                 runoffrates during larger rainfall events. Both of these &cts contribute to the increased
                 frequency and severity of flooding in Appalachia and the loss of life and property in our
                 communities in recent years due to Mash flooding.
              > without additional restrictions, a total of 2,200 squire miles of Appalachian forests (6.8
                 percent) would be eliminated by 2012 by large-scale mining operations;
              ^  without additional environmental restrictions, tnountaititop removal mining will destroy
                 an additional 600 square miles of land and 1000 miles of streams in the next decade

           Clear and Common Regulatory Definitions
           Under the guise of clear and common regulatory definitions the report again proposes a rale
           change first proposed a year and a half ago which changed the definition of "fill" in order to
           allow the Corps of Engineers to give permits for valley fills under the Clean Water Act.
           (Proposed Role: Federal Register Doe. 99-940 Revisions to the Clean Water Act Regulatory
           Definitions of Till Material" and "Discharge of Fill Material)

           We oppose any effort to grant the Army  Corps of Engineers the authority to issue permits fcr this
           destmetive practice. We oppose any attempt to allow wsterbodies to be filled by a wide array of
           wastes, including hard rock mining waste, industrial waste.

           While unifying the EPA's and Army Corps' definitions of "fill material" makes sense, and the
           elimination of the primary purpose test will resolve some ambiguity in the current regulatory
           scheme, any common regulatory definition must adhere to the Clean Water Act and not permit
           waters to be turned iBtp waste dumps - the very thing the Act was created to prevent, 30  years
           ScteBrce Based Methods ftr Definition and Delineation ofStnain ChanHttristioi
           and Impacts
           The EIS calls for "science based methods for definition and delineation of stream characteristics
           and imptets." This appears to support another recent ralemaking t© ehsn§e tlte definition of the
           "Waters of the US" in order to "define" cntmia types of streams out of existence fcr the purposes
           of regulation.

           EPA received over 137,000 eoaafterts on the recent roiemtking attempt to redefine the "Waters
           of the US" the vast majority of th» eoaitneats from citizens, envtronmBntal *nd conservation
           groups as well as state agencies were against the redefinition that in Kentucky alone would
3-5
reduce Ihe number of stream miles regulated and protected under the CWA tarn ova 89,000 to
approximately 10,080,

Scientists and regulators know what a stream fa. We do not need and wilt dot support a
redefinition that will remove Clean Water Act protections of thirty years &om 40% or more of
this nations' and Kentucky's waterways.

The recent announcement that the EPA and Corps will not move forward with the re-definition
of As "waters of the US" is supported by KWA and most of the other 137,000 comments
submitted during the public comment period.

In the report of tire invitational symposium held to gather expert testimony on the value of
headwater streams included in the study, leading fish experts who hive many years of studying
the headwater streams in Appalachia declared that there fins no stream too small to be of
importance to native fish and other aquatic species. And the report concludes with the statement
that "THE SENTIMENT OF PROBABLY MOST OF THE FEOPLE IN TMS ROOM B THAT
THIS VALLEY FILLING IS A BAD IDEA, AND THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE -- THE IMPACT YOU COULD DOCUMENT, ALTHOUGH IT
MIGHT BE A LOT OF PROBLEM TO DO IT - WOULD MAKE A STRONG CASE
AGAINST DOING IT AT ALL."

The report states that: "The geographic focus of thi» study involve! approximately 12 million
acres, encompassing most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and
scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. The study area contains about 59,000 miles of streams.
Some of the streams flow all year, same flow part of the year, and some flow only briefly after a
rainstorm or snow melt. Most of the streams discussed in this EIS are considered headwater
streams. Headwater streams are generally important ecologically because they contain not only
diverse invertebrate assemblages, but some unique aquatic species. Headwater streams also
provide organic energy that is critical to fish and other aquatic  species throughout an entire river.
Ecologically, the study area is valuable because of its rich plant K& and because it is a suitable
habitat for diwse poputetiora of migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians." There is no
doubt in the professional opinion of any of these experts that even the smallest streams are
indeed streams sad are indeed important to the ecology and bio-diversity of the region.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
(Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences)
This chapter makes it clear that the loss of over 700 miles of streams to this region between 1985
and 2001 and the currently permitted loss of twice that number of stream  miles is permanent.
The irreversible and irretrievable loss of these entire aquatic ecosystem* must be considered.
Similarly the loss of valuable topsoil the removal of trees and destruction of entire forest
ecosystems must be considered in a mountaintop removal operation.

Water Quality Impacts of Mountain Mining/Vallty Fills (MTM/VF)
The EPA Water Chemistry Report found elewted concentrations of sulfate, total and dissolved
solids, conductivity, selenium and several other analytes in stream water at sampling stations
below mined/filled sites [Appendix D; USBPA, 2002b]. Other studies found elevated
concentrations of suKates, total and dissolved solids, conductivity, at well as other analytes in
surftce water downstream ftont MTM/VF sites.
                                      en rtcycltj paper
                                                                                                                           1-13
fvlTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-610
                                                              Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                                                     Bill Price, Sierra Club—Appalachian Region
           Studies conducted as t part of this HS stow th»t atpatfc eommuside*          cc:    R3 Mountaintop@ EPA
                           Subject: Comments on EIS from Sierra Club-
Appalachian Regon
             01/06/2004 03:03
             PM
                               January 5th, 2004
Mr. John Forren
Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
                                Plfflse consida' the following comments on behalf of the Sierra Club
                                reprding the Draft Environment Impact Study (DEIS) released by the
                                E nvlronmental Protection Agency (E PA) on May 29th, 2003.

                                We are opposed to any changes that would weaken the laws and regulations
                                that protect the herit^e, environment, and communities of Central
                                Appalachla from the effects of mountalntop mining aid valley fills.

                                We believe that the data presented In the DEIS confirm that the
                                environmental harm cased by mountalntop removal and valley fill
                                operations
                                Is significant and likely to be Irreversible. For example, the data
                                show:

                                * Approximately 1200 miles of headwater streams "were directly Impacted*
                                                                               1-10
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-611
                                                        Section A - Organizations

-------
           by
           mountalntop removal and valley fills betweai 1992 and 2002. From 1985
           to
           2001, valley fits covered an estimated 724 stream miles.

           * N o scientific basis could be established for arriving at an
           environmentally "acceptable" amount of stream loss and It is "difficult
           If
           not Impossible to reconstruct free flowing streams on or adjacent to
           mined
           sites,"

           * Stream chemistry monitoring efforts showsipilflcant Increases In
           conductivity, hardness, sutfate, and selenium concentrations downstream
           of
           mountaintop removal operations. Selenium Is hijsjily toxic to aquatic
           life at
           relatively low concentrations.

           * There Is "no evidence that native hardwood forests ,.. will
           eventually
           recolonlze large mountalntop mine sites using current reclamation
           methods."

           * Large-scale surface coal mining " will result in the conversion of
           large
           portions of one of the most heavily forested areas of the country, also
           considered one of the most biologcally diverse, to grassland habitat."
           The Sierra Club is opposed to each of the alternatives evaluated in the
           DEIS.
           * Alternative # 1 - STATUS QUO
           Under this alternative, the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for
           reviewing and granting or denying permits for new valley fills in
           streams.
           Under this option, the report recommends that the Office of Surface
           Mining
           do away with the stream buffer zone rule that prohibits mining activity
1-5
within 100 feet of streams. We are adamantly opposed to the elimination
of
the stream buffer rule.

* Alternative#2 - THE ADMINISTRATION'S PREFERRED OPTION
This alternative would create one permit application that coal companies
would submit to the Army Corps of E n^neers and the Office of Surface
Mining
(OSM). The two agencies would have a joint role In determining the size
and
location of valley fills. This alternative would dearly increase the
amount
of damage caused by this Irresponsible mining practice. It would
"clarify"
the stream buffer zone rule by saying that It does not apply to valley
fills. We are opposed to an interpretation of the stream buffer rule
that
would remove valley fills from the rule.

* Alternative # 3 - GIVES THE LEAD ROLE TO THE OSM
This alternative vjould gve the lead role In permitting valley fills to
the
Office of Surface Mining. The Army Corps of Engineers would step In only
if
they determined, after the surface mining apncies had granted a permit,
that a more detailed assessment of the proposed valley fill was needed.
It
also would do away with the buffer zone rule, Again, we are adamantly
opposed to the elimination of the stream buffer rule.
                               It Is significant that the DEIS does not even consider an alternative
                               involving new limits on valley fills.  A preliminary draft, issued in
                               January 2001, analyzed alternatives that would significantly limit the
                               size
                               of mountalntop removal valley fills. The Preliminary Draft evaluated
                               four
                               options, including "no action" (essentially relying on existing law
                               pre-1998
                               to regulate mountalntop removal), a 0 to 75 acre limit (which would
                               allow
1-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-612
                                                      Section A - Organizations

-------
           fills primarily In ephemeral streams) aid a 75 to 250 acre limit (which
           •would alow fills In intermittent streams). The fourth alternative
           examined
           a scenario with no acre cap but with other regulatory changes to reduce
           the
           effects of valley fills on the environment and communities. Without
           additional restrictions, a total of 2,200 square mites of Appalachian
           forests (6.8 parent) will be eliminated by 2012 by large-scale mining
           operations. Without additional environmental restrictions, mountaintop
           removal mining will destroy an additional 600 square mHes of land and
           1000
           miles of streams in the next decade. The citizens of the region deserve
           a
           full evaluation of ways to reduce the unacceptable Impacts of
           mountaintop
           removal mining.

           Coalfield citizens and environmental supporters originally requested the
           EIS
           report in order to Identify ways to better protect our land, water and
           people Indeed, the studies contained within this 5,000-page document
           show
           that the dainagp caused by mountaintop removal mining Is more widespread
           and
           severe than previously known. However the DEIS ipiores the evidence and
           iastead focuses on  Issues of  "government efficiency" and the need to
           "provide a basis for more predictable business and mine planning
           decisions."
           It ignores the real problems facing the region. It igiores the science
           and
           evidence about what mountaintop removal mining is doing to the
           Appalachian
           Regon. It ignores the public's desire for dean water, healthy
           environment
           and safe communities. It is a blueprint for the continued devastation of
           our
           homes and environment. The Sierra Club would only be able to support an
           alternative that minimizes the severe Impacts of mountain top removal
           mining. For these reasons, we oppose all three recommendations of the
           Draft'
           Environmental Impact Study. We urge the E PA to reevaluate a full range
                              of
                              options that will minimize the enormous environmental and economic
                              damage
                              causal by mountaintop removal mining and valley fills and issue a
                              Supplemental EIS.
                              BUI Price
                              Sierra Club
                              Appalachian Regon
                      1-5
1-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-613
Section A - Organizations

-------
Andi Putman, A Lasting World
                                                                               rage i at i
    A tasting World (ALWl
    P.O. BCK 1824
    QyiU yak*, Illinois 60039-1824
    January 2,2004
    fcfir. John Foman
    U.S. B»A S3ES30)
    1860 Arch Sttest
    Philadelphia, PA 19103

    Dear Mr. fonvr.

    We are tha CofbuiKtere of a grassroots arwironmantal ofganteafcm with ov«r 160 members wortdwide. Since oar
    Inception iv» yeas ago, muoh of our hands-on environmental wo* has been dona in the torests and in the
    mountains of the state of Kentucky:  We have also sponsored several Earth Day events/colebraSons in that state.
    We are giatetol to the K**K*fafis fbf *» Commonwealth (W=TC) «3rtti*ca«i*tei» support, fcrihelrlnoate^e
    and expertise, and for meir shared vision io help keap Kentucky and the Earth healBiy and beauti ft.1! for ali of us.

    We have spent a oonsiderabte amount of time studying and reviewing (he Environmental Impact Statement (SS)
    on mounteintop removal and vafiey fiils. We have discussed the issue of mourttaintop removal with noted
    snviranmentstets, wift mountain «sid«rtswt»» homeland is tetog (festrovwi orthrealawl, and wHi members
    of the KFTC steeling committee. We have slso listened to srallov/ argurasnts from C031 company repreisentafives
    who wouW like to have us believe that whs* we have seen witn our mm eyes is not reaBy the truth.

    It is time for us to make kno^vn our posiScn en mot-ntsintop remouai and vartoy fills.

    Mr. Foron, we. the members o( AI.W. ere strongly .opposed to mountainiop removal rninrna and vaBey fib.

    We are opposed to any changes that would weaken the laws and regulations that protect clean water. In
    particular, we oppose the proposal to change the sKeam buffer zone rule that prohibits mining activity within 1 00
    feet of streams.

    We do not support Alternatives 1 , 2 and 3 within the EIS report. As wo undeatEnd them, ASamative 1 wcniM
    meannochangainmecU'TantpemiiMngsy^em, Alternative 2 vvouid have one permit application go to the Army
    Coipt of En^neers and the ORJee of Surface Minirjg, which would have a |alnt rote in deft&mi&iingSje size and
    bcafai of vaflssr flits, and Ateraatiw 3 vnM gwaflie ted note in petmfWng valley fffl* to the OHceofSuf&ce
    Mining, Harm of »MB» opHoMnrili prefect o»r,«(ater or our een»miiass.

    The BS report documents extensiws environmena damage caused by nwunteWep removal «ndvsasy«s
    bot.vcon 1935 and 2001, and yat the current Bush, Administration ignores ttiese findings and continues to ignore
    tia pubfte's demand for dean aat®f, tor a hr^Ktiy enwronment and for safe communities.

    Wesubn* our comments to you fbrconsktesaffen etui revfew. WehopeourleiterwiHtielDmalceaditTsisnce
    in ending mounteintoprenroval mining and valley Siisbefo.^ttie Appalachians and the peaptes'lia live tliorerffl
    longer eSdst
                                   —- Forwarded by David Rider/ R3/ USE PA/ US on 01/08/ 2004 01:40 PM -—
1-9
1-10


1-5
    Resp«cMtt>y submBed,  ,        ,


    Cofoundere
    AUs«lngWWd(ALW)

    cc: KerrtucKltnS fbr the Commonwealth (KFTC)
                                                ALastlngWorid@ ao!
                                                .com            To:
                                                              cc:
                                                01/02/2004 10:23
                                                PM
                                     R3 Mountaintopi1 EPA

                                   Subject: Attention: John Forren
                                   A Lasting World (ALW)
                                   P.O. Box 1824
                                   Crystal Lake. Illinois 600394824
                                   January 2. 2004
Mr. John Forren
U.S.EPA(3ES30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia PA 19103

Dear Mr. Forren:

We are the Cofountters of a grassroots environmental orgjnlzatlon with
over 160 members worldwide.  Since our Inception two years ago, much of
our hands-on environmental work has been done in the forests and in the
mountains of the state of K entucky.  We have also sponsored several
Earth Day events/celebrations In that state.  We Ere gratrful to the
KentucklatB for the Commonwealth (KFTC) for thdr consistent support,
for their knowledge and expertise, and for their shared vision to help
keep K entucky and the E arth healthy and beautiful for all of us.

We have spent a considerable amount of time studying and reviewing the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on mountatntop removal and valley
fills. We have discussed the Issue of mountalntop removal with noted
environmentalists, %lth mountain residents wlicse homeland Is being
destroyed or threatened, and with members of the KFTC steering
committee. We have also listened to shallow arguments from coal company
                         d^f, January 02,2004 America Online: ALastingWotM
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-614
                                                      Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                                         Cindy Rank, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy
              representatives who would like to have is believe that what we have seen
              vrfth our own eyes Is not really the truth.

              It Is time for us to make known our position on mountaintop removal and
              valley fills.

              Mr. Forrert, we, the members of ALW, are strongly opposed to mountaintop
              removal mining and valley fills.

              We are opposed to any changes that would waken the laws and regulations
              that protect clean water. In particular, we oppose the proposal to
              change the stream buffer zone rule that prohibits mining activity within
              100 feet of streams.

              We do not support Alternatives 1,2 and 3 within the EIS report. As we
              understand them, Alternative 1 would mean no change in the current
              permitting system, Alternative 2 would have one permit application go to
              the Army Corps of E nglneers and the Office of Surfxe Mining which
              would twe a joint role In  determining the size and location of valley
              fills, and Alternative 3 would gve the lead role in permitting valley
              fills to the Office of Surface Mining  N one of these options will
              protect our water or our communities.

              The EIS report documents extensive environmental damage caused by
              mountaintop removal and valley fills between 1985 and 2001, and yet  the
              current Bush Administration ignores these finding; and continues to
              ignore the public's demand for dean water, for a healthy environment
              and for safe communities.

              We submit our comments to you for consideration and review. We hope our
              later will help make a difference in ending mountaintop removal mining
              and valley fills before the Appalachians and the people who live there
              no longer exist.

              Respectfully submitted,

              And! Putman,  LindaBartlett, Wai Marcec
              Cofounders
              A Lasting World (ALW)

              oc:  Kentuckiansfor the Commonwealth (KFTC)
1-9
1-10
1-5
                                              west
                                              vfrglnte
                                              highlands
                                              conservancy
                                              1M1UNOWOS6SS • P.OS»»i •
                                                                                                                                                                                'REC'D
Attfu«4,2003

FROM: Cincry Rank
      HC 71, Box 22?
      RockC»ws,WV 26234
           Phone & fax: (304) 924-S882

TO: John Foiwa
   US E?A, Region HI
     FAX: (215) 814-2783
                                    John Porren;

                                    Please consider this $ formal request for an extensiorrof the comment period relating to
                                    the DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVBOWffiNTAi MfACT STATEMENT on
                                    MoaiMxiirtap RemoviJ MhdngrVilley Ms in AppalaeWa.

                                    I vertally matte this request on behtlf of my local commjHJity group FOLK (Friend! of
                                    the Little K«a.wta)« ** pttblie hairing in Charleston, WV on Jafr 24,2003,

                                    Today I weald like to request a 90 4ay wttasion oa behalf of the Mmfag Committee of
                                    the West Vij-glnk Highlands Consemaaey (» committee tint 1 chair). Digesting ft* sntire
                                    HIS doeumau has proven so be an evert more daunting task than 1 had originally hoped it
                                    would be

                                    Thank you tbt whatever consideration you em «8br4 Ms tetpeit. Please notify me by
                                    jnal, tetaphoM or f»x at say home tVi£UU/j   _*»"""'2

                                    £ to>**~>4f*~><&L>*  A^^Jly1
                                           ^r   *
                                    Cindy
                                                                                                                               tf&tterig s
                                                                                                                                                         c m»ftii0ci««nt of
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
             A-615
                                                  Section A - Organizations

-------
Donald Ratliff, Enterprise Mining Company, LLC
                                       MINING COMPANY, I.LC
                             EIS PUBLIC HEARING STATEMENT

                                         July 22,2803
                                       Hazard, Kentucky
                 I would like to thank this Committee for the opportunity to submit
                 written comments concerning the Draft Programmatic Environmental
                 Impact Statement ENTERPRISE MINING COMPANY, LLC
                 represents over 1.5 million tons of coal mined in Eastern Kentucky,.

                 With regard to the proposed EIS, any changes to existing rules need
                 to be considerate of potential ramifications that htade the
                 mining industry's ability to continue to provide
                 the economical energy demanded by the American public.
                 Enterprise has demonstrated Itself as capable to mine coal
                 responsibly while providing lands suitable for a diverse range
                 of activities. Level lands suitable for facilities such as hospitals,
                 schools, shopping centers as well as farm and timber production
                 have been developed through mining in Kentucky.
                 ENTERPRISE MINING COMPANY, LLC Is concerned that any
                 new rules or regulations that may develop from this EIS will
                 drastically Inhibit future development of level lands in Eastern
                 Kentucky through mining.

                 For decades professional planners have declared the number one
                 problem that hinders economical development in (he Central
                 Appalachians to be the lack of level developable land. The mining
                 industry has helped in the past and can help in the future to create level
                 usable land ready for human development wimin our region. It is our
                 fear that any regulation that goes too far in curbing these currently
                 accepted practices of the past 20 + years will be detrimental to the
10-3-5
region in both the short and long run. In Kentucky we have built miles
of water lines into areas that everyone said, why build there? No one
will ever build anything there! They were wrong. Homes and
businesses have sprung up all along those miles of then lonely water
lines, just as development will occur on these man made level areas
created as a result of mining. Don't deprive us of future development
by eliminating the Incentive to develop these lands.

Coal Mining is already one of the most heavily regulated industries in
America.  The regulation of mining does not need to be made more
cumbersome by multiple federal agency bureaucratic regulations. The
more overlapping and fee more attempts by federal agencies to entrench
themselves in job security by seizing dominance over the Office of
Surface Mining and the various state mine regulatory agencies
responsibilities is a travesty upon the American citizens who demand
energy at an economically reasonable price and the working people
who meet this demand. It father dismisses all the empirical
environmental progress made by our efforts to protect the environment
and create usable land in (he last 20 years. In short, a knee jerk
regulatory reaction to the BIS could be one huge step backwards.

Thank you for allowing our comments to be submitted.
ENTERPRISE MINING COMPANY, LLC and its miners are
proud to be part of this process and to be providing economical
energy to millions of Americans.

Respectively,

Donald L. Ratliff
Vice President of External Affairs

Enterprise Mining Company, LLC
117 Madison A venue  Suite 2
Whttesburg, Kentucky 41858
                                                                                                                                                                              10-3-5
                                                                                                                                                                              1-12
 MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-616
                                             Section A - Organizations

-------
Robert Reid, Alabama Audubon Council, et al.
         Via e-mail to: J
                                                            2616 Mountain Brook Pkwy.
                                                            Birmingham. Alabama 35223
                                                            January 5, 'KM

         hnvironmentai Protection Agency. Region 3
         IfiSi) Arch Street
         Philadelphia. Pennsylvania

         Gentlemen:

                     We write to supplement the comments on the Draft FIS for Mountaintop
         Mining/Valley Fill submitted by some 2!) conservation agencies under date of December 30. 2003
         ("tile main comment letter"). We strongly urjc - and submit that it would be in the national interest —
         that the present "preferred alternative*' be withdrawn and reissued for public comment and (i) that an
         alternative containing environmental constraints lite thosa advocated in the main comment letter be
         adopted and (ii) that ftHJmj all hut the smallest ditches and ones with no free-flowing streams be
         strictly prohibited. We urge that asy other alternative would he arbitrary and capricious and in
         violation of law, a position that the Administration should strongly avoid. We urge particularly:

                     (1)    Great nioffvcrsiEy of Moimtaintop »d Ridjelinc foceos -- The treat
         biodiversity of the forests of the Southern Appalachians and Cumberland Plateau has ten strewed in
         the main comment letter. These include sensitive bird species documented by the scientists working
         for Piiruiets-in-Hight, the consortium of government agencies like the Hsh & Wildlife Service and
         U.K. Furest Service and nongovernmental organisations. as well as salamanders. Frogs ittid other
         amphibians (which are important enough even "to make" a recent issue ol' U.S. postage stamps).  The
         birds include neotropical migrant), such as the Wood Thrush, Kentucky Warbler, Ovenbird. Acadian
         flycatcher and others, many of which have lost 5$% of their population over the latst 3ft years.
         Further, this area is the world cetttcr for salamanders, very sensitive species of which theie  are. more
         species here than anyplace else in the world!

                     One of the neotropical migrants is the Cerulean Warble, one of the most beautiful little
         birds on the planet. The adverse impacts on it of this mouniainlop mining is documented by the
         studies reported in the main comment tetter. But, please just note that this mining wiJl adversely
         impact 3XO.WH) acres of its mountaio/rtdge habitat.  Scientific iHtintttftS are that, over ten years, there
         will be a loss of over 1 35.0IX) Mrtis, which could wdl be more than (his speck's can absorb..
         Consequently, it is essential that environmental constraints be included in the alternative that is
         adopted.

                      (2!    Great Biodiversity of Riverine forests - These are one of the most productive.
         yet declining, habitats oa earth. This is true lor birds, mammals, tlsb and amphibians as well as trees
         and other pbntlife. In tact, these are part of what was known, when the country was settled, as the
         Great  liastcrn Deciduous 1'oresi.  It should be unthinkable to destroy the riwrinc part of them by just
         dumping mining overburden on them!  We astasd at a meeting it" the mining companies could not truck
         out the overburden spoil  somewhere else and  were advised that they opined. "That would be too
1-13
5-6-2
expensive." If H a tet> expgt^w tfi avoid destroying riverine forests, then il should *»lwiou&ly be too
expensive to carry out the project!

             (3)    lack af CQSt-Hffcctivcats - Destroying riverine forests is not cost-effective
for many masons. Among them, assimilation of wastes, recharge of grotwdwater, protection of
biodiversity and protection of all types of natural resources (see above}. It would cost government
emities (and private orgimi/ations) mud! more to restore these resources - and over a substantial time
-- than amid be gained from destroying them.  Consequently, if the mining overburden spoil cannot be
uiken elsewhere, the mining project should not be carried out.

             Reference has been made aftove and in the main comment letter to the adverse Impacts
on sensitive species. The Cerulean Warbler, for example, is under consideration for listing under the
Endangered Species ACL it takes government (as well as private emities) much expense and much
time to attempt to recover a species once its numbers have declined so that it is threatened or
endangered. Consequently, it is not cost-effective to conduct any activities that would place them in
that condition.

             Consideration should also be given to destruction of scenic vistas and lost natural
recreational activities from mnuntaintop mining and destroyed water resources. Those represent lost
recreational a'sources and tourist revenues that are costs that should also be taken into consideration.

             (4)    Violation of Administrative Procedures .Act C'APA'V Mxlerat agencies arc
constrained by the APA (51'SC 701 et m-1 notI" a*>P' »nv actions itat»(i) arbitrary, (ii)
capricious, (iii) an abuse of discretion, or (iv) otherwise not in accordance with law, in this ease, the
National Hnvironmental Policy Act ("NKI'A"), The agency cannot under law. morely disregard
environmental factors. That would be a violation of NliPA ind Al'A. Applied to this case, an action
not giving adequate consideration to the factors referred to in (1) through (3) above and in the main
comment letter, particularly since they have been documented by scientific studies or are tacts of
fefteral knowledge, would be unlawful,

             Al'A applies to all forms of government action, environmental as well as otherwise.
Motor Vehicle Mtes. Asto. v.  Slate l^tm Mutual Auto IBS. Co.. 463 U.S. 29 at 43.77 M-:d.2d 442 at
458 (U.S. Supreme Court. 1983) (holding reeision of regulation requiring passive- restraints in
automobiles was arbitrary and capricious); Audalwn Society, of Central  Arkansas v. Pailev. 977 F.2d
428 (8th Cir,  1982) (arbitrary ai»
-------
                                                                                                                                                Viiginia Reynolds, Tennessee Ornithological Society, et al.
        referring to the CEQ Regs, 40 C1:R 1502, that it is arbitrary for an agency to limit its consideration of
        alternatives, the court lie-id that artificially narrowing his alternative options was "antithetical to
        reasoned decisianraaking and cannot he upheld, citing State Farm." Then, in the Arkansas case, it was
        held that, while the agency must take a "hard look" at the facts, it must lake action on what that "hard
        took" showed and not "ignore what it saw." It is instructive that in Canyon Preservation, the Court,
        through now Mr. Justice Kennedy writing for the Ninth Circuit, held in a highway case that a two-lane
        road must be evaluated. That would translate to a different type of mountaintop milting as applied
        here, i.e. one with environmental constraints.

                     It appears that here the lead agency is heing directed to limit its consideration of
        alternatives and would not he taking an action based on the known and established facts, i.e. would he
        ignoring what the required "hard look" shows. That is  a violation of APA as well  as NEPA and it
        would appear should also he a violation on the part of the officials directing that violation. We do not
        believe that is an action the Administration would intend be taken, especially at times like these. And,
        further, in times like those with the present budgetary deficits, it would appear the  government should
        avoid all actions that are not cost-effective.  For that reason, these comments are being sent to the
        OMB.

                     For the above reasons, these comments arc submitted in behalf of the Alabama
        Audtrbon Council, Alabama Environmental Council and Alabama Ornithological Society, which have
        an aggregate of over 10,()00 members in  Alabama and surrounding states. Each of those organizations
        is strongly concerned over protection of all of our natural resources, and, for the same reasons, these
        comments are concurred in by the undersigned as an interested citizen and taxpayer. Your consider-
        ation will be greatly appreciated.

                                                    Sincerely yours,

                                                     1st Robert R. Reid, Jr.

                                                    Robert R. Reid, Jr., for himself and
                                                    the above three organizations

        ec:   Director, Office of Management and Budget
              Commenting organizations
4-2
                                        U-S.H>A<3EA30)
                                        1650 Areh Street
                                        Philadelphia, PA 19103
                                        monntrintop.i3@epa.fov
                                                     —January 5,2004
Subject: Draft Prograoimatic Enviromr.tntal Impact S(atoi:ent on Mountain Top
Mining/Valley MB (MTMWF) in the Appalachian region at «h* eastern United
State.
                                       DMT Mr. Porno,

                                       We write on behalf of the undersigned groups, representing thousands of citizens across
                                       Tennessee and Kentucky who a» concerned about tte harmful impacts that tnountaintop
                                       mining/valley fill lias oa aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat- We feel that the
                                       alternatives presented in the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement are
                                       inadequate to address these impacts trad that pertinent information was not considered in
                                        to require a new draft HS and tte a moratorium oa new mountaintop mining permits be
                                        imposed until a find BIS is adopted with an environmentally acceptable alternative.

                                        The HIS Fails to address MTM/VF impacts SB High Priority Forest Bird Species.
                                        Figures from tte draft HS project that an additional 380,000 acres of forest will be lost
                                        tram file study area in the next 10 yeat. This number is toed on fie numbers of acre* of
                                        forest that were lost between 1992 and £902 from permitted rnomitaintop mining
                                        activities. We fed that this will cause an unacceptable Ion of habitat required by the
                                        entire suit® of mature toieut binfa of Mga conservation comcera. The Cerulean Warbler,
                                        Louisiana Waterthrash, Worm-eating W»Mer, Kentucky Warbter, Wood Thrush,
                                        Yettow-tinoated Vireo, Acadian Flycatcher are all at or nearly at their maximum
                                        breeding density within tte study area (USGS 2003). They are all lifted as priority
                                        qjecjes by Partner* in Bight and all tn also classified a* Birds of Conservation Concern
                                        by H» V. S. Rsh and WBdJife Service (USFWS 2002) within Om Appalachian BW
                                        Conservation Region, which overtops the area considered im the draft HS. We consider
                                        this level of habitat loss, to one of the Most heavily forested awas to the coamtiy to be
                                        unacceptable, and especially so for the Camleai Warbler, the fon»t species of highest
                                        concern in thi» area. Hgrases presented in tt» teft Northeast Partnets-in-Hlght letter
                                        (NEPfF 2003, attached witt. penmssioji) indicate fliflt habitat for roughly 9% of the
                                        world's ceruieaas was lost to permitted mining activities between 1992 and 2)02 and
                                        another 9% is projected to be lost between 20C8 and 2012. We find this level of habitat
                                        loss for Cernteam Warblers and other terrestrial bud species to be anacceptgble and we
                                        are disappointed that the draft HS does not address this extremely important and
                                        significant environmental impact.
                                                                                1-5
                                                                               7-3-2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        8-2-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-618
                                                       Section A - Organizations

-------
               The Cerulean Warbler is tte bW species we are most eoncerned wi«fc because it has
               suffered drastic popalatioa felines over the last several decades and more taan any bW
               speeaes in the sttidy area, their isesttag habitat wjfl be the iiapae&ed by mous^intop
               tcMug/ vaBey fiB »caviaes. Not only do Cerulean WarMers prefer to nest on rMgetops,
               on Mfisic slopes and in cow foreits at fl»e head of valley steam* {Roambwg at at 2000)
               but the core of its breeding range coincides very elosely with the HS stady area (USOS
               2003, Rosenberg et al. 2000). This species has been petitioned for listing under ths
               Ecdangered Spedes Act and j» also oa fl» USFWS* National list of Bird* of
               Conservafion Coaean (USFWS 2002).

               Recent reseweh jadleited. 4at the average detstitf of C«al«n Warblers territories in
               intact forest near mined areas in West VirgMa was 0.46 pairs/hectare (ha) (WeafcJand
               and Wood 2002). tf flns density estimate is aceoraJe for the •ato study area, then habitat
               for over 100,000 Cerulean Warblej* was lost in te last 10 years aad 4at number fa
               pi-ejected to be lost is the next 10. IB addition, this estimate does not include population
               lots from the reduced breeding deasiliM in forest fragmented by mining and to finest
               adjicent to rained atos that Brs. Weaktand and Wood found. This further increases toe
               impact on the breed! ng population. We feel that this represents an unacceptable loss to a
               species whose population is roa^biy half or test ftaa it was in the 1960s. We also feel
               flat the omission of D». WeaMand and Wood's Cerulean Warbler research from this
               draft HS, when we know that it was made available to those involved in its development,
               to be sofficient to trigger a revision of tfie docwBettt

               The DEIS fmls to address Executive Order 1318(i
               Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds,
               January 10,2001, is specifically applicable in Tennessee because the agency issuing
               mining permits is the Office of Surface Mining. This Executive Order instructs federal
               agencies to integrate bird conservation principles and practices into agency activities and
               to avoid or minimize adverse impacts en nu'gratory bird resources when conducting
               agency actions. Federal agencies (we to "identify where unintentional take reasonably
               attributable to ajjeaey actions is having, or is likely to haw, a measurable negative effect
               on migratory bird populations, focusing first on specie* of conceM, priority habitats, and
               key risk factors. With respect to those actions so' identified, the agency shall develop and
               use principles, standards, &&d practices &at will lessen the amount of unintentional take,
               developing any such conservation efforts in cooperation with the Service. The agency
               also shall inventory and monitor bird habitat and populations within the agency's
               capabilities and authorities to the extent feasible to facilitate decisions about the need for,
               and effectiveness of, conservation efforts."

               The bird species most directly impacted by mountmntop mining: Cerulean Warbler,
               Louisiana Watetthnua, Worm-eating Warbler, Kentucky Warbler, Wood Thrush,
               Yellow-throated Vireo, Acadian Flycatcher, a» all listed as Birds of ConservatiQa
               Concern by Ae U. S. Fish and WBdife Service (USFWS 2002) within the Appalachian
               Bird Conservation Region. These are specifically the species that this Executive Order
8-2-5
8-2-1
                                    was Issued to protect Tie list of Birds of Coaservatea Concern was mandated by
                                    Congress radcr ttffi araendmeabi to to Fish and Wildlife CaaseTOttoft Act and denotes
                                    species that w ithout additional cocserv-alion actions an likely to become candidates for
                                    lisfiag under tte adaogewd Species Aet We consider dw draft HS to be incomplete
                                    without addressing Executive Oder 13186 and the impacts of aionaafatop mining
                                         stria! <
                                                     rite.
                                                               ctivemitjgatio
While the draft HS reports on studies that have shown that a post mining change of
habitat can provide habitat tat dedlninf grassland species, we find it inappropriate to
consider replacing forest habitat with grassland habitat "Rare" eastern grassland species
are rare because their habitat is historically rare in tiis region. Recover^'and habitot
restoration efforts for these species should be targeted towards ecosystems and
landscapes where they occurred historically, not on eastern mountaintops that currently
support high quality forest habitats.

The only mitigation offered is the draft HS for the destruction of large ana: of
hardwood forest habitat fey sriaJag operations is a suggestion that the miae sites could be
reforested after oblations cease. While recent research indicates that some .forest species
may be reestablished on reclaimed mine sites (Holl ft al. 2001), we agree with statements
in the draft HS that tiese investigations have ouly reccndy begun and "that it would be
premature to attempt to evaluate the success of these efforts at this time". Furthermore,
the draft HS concedes that "at post-mined sites will likely lack the requirements of slope,
aspect and soil moisture needed for cove-hsudwood Const communities, it is unlikely that
these |mrtiealar eoaiiBSaities can be re-established through reclamation*'. Surface mining
completely removes ti*B topsoU, seed sa«ree sad root stool; of the forest communities on
the site and tie re-contoured pott mining fill material will be substantially different
hydrologically than the original ridge or mountain top. Convincing evidence that a
hardwoodforest.esseutially the same as the one removed d\mng mining, can be
reestablished in a reasonable amount of time, needs to be presented before (Ms method
em be offend as miti gati on for the lost of h ur.dreds of thousands of acres of bi ologically
diverse hardwood forest habitat

DEIS projections may underestimated forest IMS
The draft HS does not take into consideration the ajitidpated increase in future demand
for Appalachian coal in the study area due to die planned construction of flue gits
desulfurizac'on units (scrubbers) at some of the existing coal-fired generating plants
owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA 2002) and otter electric nttlittes in tie
region. This Increase in tainiag activity has already began in Tennessee. The draft ESS
projects that Tennessee wifi issue permits causing die loss of 9,154 acres of forest
between JCXB and 2012 teed on permits issued between 1992 and 2002. However,
between December 2002 and October 2QG3, over 5,000 aen» of surface mining permitt
have already been approved (SiddeB 2003). This potential underestimate of future miming
impacts is substantial and needs to be investigated and incorporated in (be analysis of
cumulative impacts in a revised draft SS.
                                                                                   8-2-1
                                                                                                                       7-3-3
                                                                                                                       7-5-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-619
                                                          Section A - Organizations

-------
              DEIS fails to provide adequate alternatfrcs to avoid environmental impacts
              We feel that the three alternative proscntiKi in fte draft EIS arc inadequate to reduce the
              impacts of mountai ntop mining. The U.S. HA and Wil dlife Service apparently supports
              Uiis view. In an interageney mama (tSFWS 9QIMH), fts FWS w«ms that pabfioioa of
              the draft HS as written, "will further damage the credibility of lie agencies involved." It
              states that die proposed actions offer "only meager environmental benefits" and criticizes
              the draft KIS for not considering "at least one alternative to restrict, or otherwise
              constrain, most valley fib to ephemeral stream reacbes...As we have stated repeatedly, it
              is the service's position that tte three'action'dtemaaves, as correritly written, cannot be
              itttcrpretcd as eniiiring any improved envirormental protection...let alone protection that
              caa be ing on aquatic and terrestria! communities.

              This moratorium should continue until a find HS It adopted with an environmentally
              acceptable alternative.

              We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Draft Environmental Impact
              Statement TMs letter is bt&ig subrMttB4 via emsii, A p^>@r version will follow.

              Respectfully submitted,

              Virginia Reynolds
              President
              T«naessee Offlitholofieil Society
              4341 Waymar Drive
              MempM«,TN 38117
              (SOI) 7674547
1-5
4-2
                                                                                                                                          *, M0
Wsrioto Chapter of National Aaduoon Society
2575 Cwrigan Road
a«toville,TN370«
(581) 362-30®

Hap Chambers
PresMent
Kenwdty Omiihologtcal Society
33 WBdwood Drive
Mamy.KY 42071
(207)293-5828
Conservation
Cumbettasd Chapter - Sierra Chb
580GarderDil«
LoBisvflle,KY 40206
(502)897-0040

Gary Bower
CornervwBoB. Chair
TN Chapter - Sierra dub
                                   AnSoeIi,TN 37013
                                   615-366-4738
                                   References:

                                   Executive Older 13186. Jtanury 10, 2001. Responsibilities of Federal Ajendes to Protect
                                   MgBttoiy Bird*. (AB«*ed)
                                   Hott, K. D., C. E Zipper and J. A. Burger. 2001. tsowety of a^Jve ftmt E
                                   after minlmg. Virpria Coopenttiw iawsten Pnbl. 460-140, [Oaliae vetsioa available at
                                   http://g»wJ«tvtedii/iittt^aiise8/4«>.I«46(M40.1»t««l. A'«W of Ail paper w«» Mot
                                   to Mr. Fotrea, Jaauaiy »»*, wife the comments pnspswl by tte AmerioM BW
                                   C««a»ervaiicy Poioy ComidlJ

                                   Northeast Woridag Owup rfftrta«« to tft&t. Steering Cononittse. April 20(B. Draft
                                   Cemmeirt* for tte HS no Moanlaiatop R«noval Mtaini/Valley RB> toft HS.
                                   (Attached)
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-620
                                                        Section A - Organizations

-------
               Eoseubeti, K, V., S. E Barker, . A copy of
               this report was seat to Mf. Fonen, January W04, wiSiflje comments prepared by a»
               Americas Bird Conservancy Policy CotmeiL]

               SMdeli D. XXB. Recent Tennessee Permits. Supervisor, Technical Group, Office of
               Surface Mining, Kawwille, TN email eemnBHiieatiaa I 1/04/03 [A copy of tMs memo
               was sent to M& Fonen, January 2004, wia tte tMBnflcnts prepared by lie American Bird
               Conservancy PoEcy Coaacil.]

               Tennessee Valley Authority. 2002. Brades Mountain surface tttiBs; Campbell and Scott
               Counties, Tennessee. Teamssee Valley Authority, Knoxvilte. [A copy of UBS paper was
               seat to Mr. Forren, January 2004, with te comments prepared by the American Bird
               Conservancy Policy Council.]

               U.S. Fhh WiUlifo Service. 2002, Birfs rf otB^wiflai concern 2002. DivMoa of
               Migrator)' Bird Management, Arlington. Virginia. 99pp. [Online version available at
               . A copy ef this paper wa» «mt to
               Mr. Forren, January' 2ffM, with Its comments prepared by die American Bird
               Coaservaaey Polcy Council.]

               VS. HA Wildlife Service. 9/20/82. Qmtaxts on Draft MTMAT HS of Ch^fter IV
               (Alternatives). [A copy of itts jn«no was «ent to Mr. Forren, January 2004, wtth the
               oominents prepared by to American Bird Conservancy Policy Council.]

               USQS. 2003. Tfe» Ncalh Ameriran BreediBg Bird Samy Results and Aoaljnia, 1966 -
               2002. . Relative afeundanja mapi. [See
               Figure 1 in comments sent to Mr. Forren, January 2004, fay the American Bird
               Ctmsenaacy Policy Council]

               We»U»d, C A. and P. B. Wood. 2002. Cerulean Warbter (Dentoioa caulea)
                         EMCMhw Order 131W

                                       Presidential D«3cuinenB
                                                                                              j« o s;
               relation to momtfaiiitop njining/vaBey fifls. Fmal Project Report sttteritted to USGS
               Biological Resources Division, Species-At-Risk Program. [Available online at
               http://ww» Jareatrv.caf.i03».edB/pggodft>tA copy of this paper wa seat to Mr. Foma.
               JaBjary 2004, with the eammaOt ptepmA by the American Bird Coaservaney Policy
               Council.]
                         Blccuti-vcOrdjr 13186 -Responsibilities of Fecfera] Agencies To Protect Migrator}' Birds

                                        latway 10, 2001

                         By be authority vetted in me as President by the Constitution aid the taws of (he United States
                         of America, and in furtheraiice of rtc purposes of the niigi7.!orv- bird conventions, the Migratory
                         Bbd T«ay Act (MS V AC 'M9-71 1), B» Wd and Golden Itgte Roleciioa Acb (16 U.S.C.
                         668-668d), te Hsh and Wildlife Coordiration Act (16 U.S.C 661-«6c), the Endangered Species
                         Act of 1973 (1« U£,C. 133 WS44), ft* Na*»nl Bjviroauwttal Wiey Act of 1969 (42 V£.C.
                         432 1-4M7), and other perfiittnt statutes. It is hereby ordered as follows:
                                1. 1%34ley. Minatory Wrds are of greMecelo^fialaadeco®OErie valaetotMs
                         to ouscrcxxmrries. They ccoi tribute to biological diversity and bring trcmendons enjoyment to
                         millions of Americans who study, watch, teed, or hunt these (Ms throughout the United States
                         andofiiercoiffitties. The United Sfiasss has lecogaized file erMealis^Qrtaiieeaf this shai%d
                         resource by ratifying intematioaal, bilateral conventions for tlic conservation of migratory birds.
                         Such conventions irx;l ude the Convention foe te Protection of Migratory Birds with Great Britain
                         on behaif of Canada 1916, the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Binds and Game
                         Mammals-Mexico 1936, the Convention for the Protection of Birds and Their Environment-Japm
                         1972, and te Cont«J(ioB for the CawemBon of Migratory Biidj and Ihrir &iviror«ent-Union
                         of Soviet Socialist Republics 1978.

                         These migratory bird conventions impose svibstantivc obligations on the Umted States for tl-.e
                         ccmscrvati™ of rmgratory birds and their ha bi rats, and through the Mgratory Bird Treaty Act (Act),
                         the United Slates has implemented these migratory bird conventions with jespcct to the United
                         SUtca. This Executive Orrier du-ecte Execiitive departmcDts and agencies to take certain actions
                         to further implement tlic Act. Sec. Z Definitions. For purposes of this Order.

                         (a) Take" meanauskc as cfefined in 50 C.F.R. 10.12, and includes both vintcntio«il* and
                         "unintentional" take.

                         (b) "Intentional take"  meara tske that is tire purpose of the activity in question.

                         (c) "Ooiateitional tutee* meam take that Hssute fiom, tot is not the purpose of, the acBvity in
                         question.
                                                                                                                                       (e) "Mgntory bird resources" means rai^sfflwy MuSa and flietaMtaU upon wttehtey depend.

                                                                                                                                       (0 "Migratory bird convention" netw, collectively, the bilateral conventions (with Great
                                                                                                                                       BittaWCiBada, Meideo, ftpan, and 8»da) for the conservafctt of Btgnaory bird ttsoarces.

                                                                                                                                       (g) "Federal agency" means an Bxecutive department or agency, but does not include
                                                                                                                                       imfependmt cstablislirnents as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104

                                                                                                                                       (h) *AaiOM" ttasam a pe^arfl, aefivity, project, official {olicy (swh as a rfe or regutetton), or
                                                                                                                                       { otmal |*m dtoctly carried oat by a Rderal a^ney. ^* federal agency will further 
-------
             the term "acttem" metr^ with respect 10 its own auttsoiite and what programs shoaM be tacltidisd
             id the ag&ney-specific Memoranda of GaderstaiKliHg leqttodby fjjjjt C&Ser* Aetkwe delegated $&
             or ;«sumed by nonfcderal entities, or carried out by nonfcifera! eiiti lies with Federal assistance,
             are not subject to this Order, Such actions, however, continue to be subject (o the Migratory Bird
             Treaty Act

             (I) "Species of concern" refers to those species listed In (he petto*: report "Migratory Nongame
             Birdi of Management Coneera to the United Slates,* priority ml pmtory UK! spedes as
             documented by established ptons (such as Bird Conservation Regions in te North American BW
             Conservation Intttatlve or Rrtwrs in Flight pbysiepapjfe areas), «rf *a* «peci« listed in 50
             CKR. 17,11.

             Sec. 3. Federal Agency ItopowibiiMes. (a) Each Rrferal agoncy taMng aea'oBS ttat have, at are
             litolytolaw, amewuaMene^avetaeaoniiilsataiy HrtpqMla&»ii««»xed todwcflap
             md usplement, within 2 yeata, a IV^momt^ltim cf Ui^jerstaii^ng (MOU) vrith &e Hsh and Wildlife
             Sen-ice (Service) tri;it shall promote the conscrv-ari on of migratory bird popu!atiOT,s.

             tocols may be incorporated into enisling actions; however, the MOD
             shall reec^HJEe fiiat (he agetcy may not be at)!e so iaipl^^st some d«M^t8 of fiie JtC*0 ostfl
             sucji fii&d as to ag^idoy has stJcewsfiiily iaduded Ibe^ is tsac^i agency's foma! Claiming
             processes (such « revision of agency land management plans, lioid we compari bili ty gui delines,
             iniegrated re^oiirce ni!U!agcu>er.t plans, and fishery nanagcmcBt plans), includitig public
             pirticiparion and NEPA analysis, at appropriate. 'Iliis Order and the MOUs to be developed by
             the agendcs are intended to teiinplemcnted when ucv; actions CT renewal of contracts, permits,
             detegfttbds, ex ofeer thiid party a^^mei^s ate i^gated m well as during fte tai datkia of iiew, cs-
             revisiom t
             (d) Bach MOO ahaii teiude m ekvaticm i^oce^ toi^sdve atiy dispute between tfae si
             agencies regafduig a paitiei^ar ptaodce or activity.

             (e) Pursuant to its MOU, each agency shall, to the extent [XOTlitted by law and subject to the
             avaiiaHii^ cC appropiations and within Administration budgetary iinil^, and in harmony wi&
             agency misdoas:

             (1) support thsa-,nser\'atiO!i intent of the migratory bint convcnuons by intsgrcting bird
             conservati^ priirci|ies, measw)^, and practices into agency activities am! by avoiding or
             minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when
             cooductisg agency actions;

             (2) restore and enhance Hie habitat of migratory birds, as practicable;

             (3) prevent or abate the rxillution or detrimental alteration of the Euviroiirnent for tlister.cfit of
             migratory birds, as practicable;

             (4) design migratory bird habitat and [wpularton conservation principles, measures, and practices,
             into agemy plans and piaimiitg processes (natural resource, isod raaMpment, a&d
             environmental quality planning, inchding, but not limited to, forest and rragejnd planning,
                       coastal management planning, watershed planning, etc.) as practicable, and coordinate with
                       other agencies and ncnfederal partners in planning efforts;

                       (5) within establi shed authorities aad in conjunction with trie sdoptioD, amendment, or revision of
                       agency management plans and guidance, ensure that agency plai:s and actions promote
                       programs and recommendations of comprehensive migratory bird planning efforts such as
                       Partsea-ia-Hi^it, O.S. Nattorf ShotebW Baa, Ncrth Anwrtcaa Watrafowl !*uafe«r»(it Haa,
                       Nonh .American Colonial Watcrbird Plan, and otier planning efforts, as wcil as guidance from
                       o*er ioarces, toetadiag the ftood «nd Agrioitmri Orgsntaifflfs teteraatioral Hart of Actiott for
                       Rediicing Incidental Catch of Scabirds in Longline Hsheries;

                       (61 ensure frat enviroarnental analyses of ftderal actions required by the NEPA or other
                       esfcMished enviroaiwital review processes evaluate te effects rf aetfaas and agency plans on
                       migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern;

                       (7) provide tK)tic« to the Scrvio: in advance of conducung ait action tlta is intetidcd to take
                       migratcry bitds, or anmially report to the Service on Uie number of individuals of each species of
                       migratory birds inteatiortaily eal^i during tf» conduct of any agency action, indtidiHgbutriOt
                                          rfmrkiiig, scientific colieoting, taidd^rmy, a
                       $) urirdniize the IrieistioiraJ take of species of concern byt0)4etiaeati^ standards asd
                       procedures for such take; and 01) developing procedures for the review and evaluation of take
                       actions. With respect to intentional take, tilt MOU shall be consistent with the appropriitte
                       sections of 3D CKR. pat* 10, 21, and 22;
                       (9) idettttfy wfaere wfis&entfKsmi tice reasonably atHbtittUe to ageocy actkms is having, or is
                       likely to have, a measurable K=«an\-e effect on migratory bird populations, foctising first on
                       species of concern, priority baMtats, aini Icey riskfaetcrs. Wittt respect to those actions so
                       idontifted, tte agency shall develop arid use principies, standards, and practices that will lessen
                       te amount of unintentional take, developing any such conservation efforts in cooperation with
                       me Service. 'lTie.se principles, standards, and practices shall be regularly evaluated and revised
                       to ensure that they aie effective in lessening the detrimental effect of agiMicy actions on
                       migratory bird populations. The agency also stall inventory and monitor bird habitat and
                       populations wilhi n tlK agency's capaljilities and authori ties to the extent feasible to faciUtate
                       decisions about the seed for, and effectiveness of, conservation efforts;

                       (10) within te scope of its siatutorily-dedgmted authorities, control the import, export, and
                       establishment in the wild of live exoUc animals and plants toil may be harinf t.1 to niigratory bird
                       (11) promote research and information exchange related to meconsen'aiion of migratory-bird
                       rcscHirces. including raordinatcdinventort-ingaiid monitoring a;idtl« collection and nrse rf agency aclioro or supr»rted through Federal financial assistance, reasonable efforts
                       shall l« made to sliarc such infonnationwitti the Service, the Biologicju Resources Division of the
                       U.S. Cieological Survey, tod otter appropriate repositories of such data (e.g. the Cornell
                       Laboratory of Ornithology);

                       (12) pmjvide training snd information to appropriate empioyecs on methods and means of
                       avoiding OT mininlizing the take of migratory birds arid consetving and restoring migratory-bird
                       habitat;
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-622
Section A - Organizations

-------
               (13) promote minatory bird WBMrwfiort ia iatenjsfiona! aofivBe« and witti ofcr cotattte mil
               iaternatteDil putaoi, in coasata&a with tie Department of Sate, m appropriate or relevant to
               (14) recogaze and promote econoffiie and reeresfonal values of birds, • appropriate; and

               05 develop partnerships with noa-fedtral enfitie» to furfcer Kid ooMewaaoa.

               (fj , Volwitlislaiuiing the rtquirc.n!er.ltofinaU7,e an MOU within 2 yea! s.tach agency is
               enojuraged to immedialsly begin iraplfiizndfig the conservaOonmeasores set forlli above in
               subparjgrapte (1) through (15) of this section, as appreciate and piacticabie.

               (g) Each ngraey ihaB advise the publfc of At availability of its MOU (bough a twice pat&tei to
               fa Federal Register.

               Sec-4. Council for tlic Conservation cf Migratory Birds, (a) The Secreary of Interior steil
               establish an tatsrageaey CoaatSI f« 4e Coawratoa of Mlp»»My Hnh (OaaeJl) towerseeie
               implcmtntationof this Oder. The Council's duties shall include the following: (1) sharing Ihc
               latest reioirrce iufonmtioii to assist in the conservation and management of migratory birds; (2)
               developing m ansuM nepc»t cC ac£omplis&f&ei*& snd i%comme^ck6dns f«laled to giis Oi^; 0}
               fostering pvUfr^rahirB to further the ^1; of this Order, and (4) sclectuig an annual recipier,! of a
               rvesidetfflal Mi gratoyBirilMsralStew-ardsriip Award for cotitribtirions to tJie protection of
               mlgfitory blRis.

               (b) The Council shall include representation, at the bureau divcctoi/adiaioistoitor level, from the.
               Depdtm««t> of the Interior, Stiie, COBBBM«, Agierfwe, Tansponaticn, Bwgy, Drf««, and
               the Eavifoomeatal Pitc^ecicn
               Sec, 5. Applican\m and JudidiJ Review, (a) Tliis Order and tie MOU to be developed by the
               ageacieg (!b not reclaim it>-tri the. study area suggest a
                        siM^ve asd ^ens^eot impact witMit file 0S stmly area o® the entire smte of priority ffistttre
                        foreit birds (e.g,, CerrteM Wirisler, Lfflisiwa WatsrflmiA, Worm-eslteg Warbler, Ka»(*y
                        W^te, Wood Thrush, Yetlow-lteoted Vteo, AcadiM Hycafcte) diie to the esfimtted fowl
                        loss of approrjmateiy 7611,000 aaes from issued and ftirure permits during the 20-year peri >3d of
                        1992 to 2012. Total cumulative forest loss from all mining activities, including permitted
                        «tivWespriOTtol9°i,ise!tiMited*llJ*offtewailfofe«<»vetiafi»ElS«iidy«ea. We
                        consider this level of habitat loss to constitute a significant negati ve impact for the entire mature
                        forest suite of birds, and especially for the Cerulean Warbler, the forest species of highest
                        concern in this area. The cumulative  impacts from issued and proposed future mounlaintop
                        mine/ valley fill permits during this period appear likely to eliminate breeding habitat for 10%-
                        20% (oar estimate is 17%) of tie global pophaon of CenJleM W«rtJer>. TM« level of habitat
                        loss is unacceptable for a species that hss experienced steep population decli nes over the last 30
                        yaaiffld is feting o&wm^w threats. Rafteraote, researck wiJhla fl» HS study area shows
                        that densities of Cerulean Warblers are reduced ia isolated forest pslches left by mining and near
                        rnine edges, indicating an eveii greater impact beyond the direct habita! loss from mining
                        activities.  AccoitfagtoOTMfdosMenMQajflai^iiSidtBdbi*
                        prioritywithintheeSstedy area, and the creation of artificial habitats that may be suitable for
                        shrub nesting spedcs does not justify removing and fragmenting extensive mature forest areas
                        and reftatag &«« wi* poor quality, eafly-mewaiaiBil tobitats.  W» wc«aage every effort to
                        im'mrmze the removal and fragtneulation of existing matiire forest habitat in the EIS sttidy area.
                                                                                                                                             Siacerdy,

                                                                                                                                             Steering Committee
                                                                                                                                             Northeast WorHag Qroap of Putters in Flight
                      To submit questions and comments about CEQ NEPAaet,
                         please use the NKPAnet Feedbcck System.
MTM/VF Draft PEIS  Public Comment Compendium
A-623
Section A - Organizations

-------
                                      Nortnaiit Partners to Flight comments for moMtaiBtop mtotaf BIS 2
                                                                                                                                                           Northeast Partners in Flight comments for mounbiiutop mining SS 3
               Inytacts qf Mining Ajft^te an Mams Fewst Bifdi. The mouatatatop reajwal
               fiBtag pescto»s addressed by fte HIS oeear Bteooghoat what can be considered the-core of the
               breeding range for many of fte MF Mgh priority bbds of 'eastern ostere deciduous famta,
               including Cerulean Warbler, LoaWaaa Watatbrash, Wotm-eattof Wmblar, Wood Thrash,
               Yellow-throated Vireo, and Acadian Flycatcher. A«o«ding to Breeding Bird Survey (BBS)
               date, «H of the ipeciw jast mentioned ootatf ator near (Mr peak tbuadtncei wi&in 8» EIS
               study area, whkh largely overtop wftt the NoMhwn Cumberland Plateau physfogwphie wet as
               delineated by HF, Noa^toas oiter sjwsi« of Ms habitat sait« also occur in high relative
               abundances within this am, including Kentucky Wabler, Eastern Wood-ftwee, OveabM, tad
               Scarlet Taaager. The muring sad valley fil tetivifeg addressed by the HS directly iffect several
               of the primary habitats used by these species — nature deciduous fora* on Appalachian ridge
               tops (used by Cerulean WarMer, Ydtew-flaeated Wirbler, Eastern Woad-Pewee, Scarlet
               Tanager, Ovenbird, Wood Thrush), and mate* nijjsed-meeophyflc fwest along headwater
               stre«is ("coves" - used by C«ntean WarMas, LoiiJsltia Watertjrush, Worm-eaflag Warbter,
               Kentodcy Warbler, Acadian Hycatetor, Wood Thresh). RtetlsiiB»ty fignn> from the HS oa
               cumulative impact; of minia » acdvitics in the (tody area suggest a massive and permanent
               impact 02 the ttKtiire forest suite of birds within  the study aie dae to the estimated forest loss of
               apjooxtmately 760^00 MMI ftem teBod and fttore pwaite duriig tte M-ysir peiod rf 1992 to
               3012. Aa addiaoadi 648,000 forested awes agjeatx to have bean lost from petmted mining
               activities prior to 1992.

               The total cumulative forest loss from mining activities equates to an 11.5% reduction im total
               forest cover in th« study area.  Removing >10% of the forest cover from a jepeo is likely to have
               negative impacts on mature forest birds, even is well-forested landscapes. As overall forest
               cover drop! in a region, negative impacts to forest breeding birds from fragmentation and edge
               effects Witt become more severe. Work by O'Conaell ct al. 0000) across (he Mid-Aflantic
               Highlands region, which includes a large part of the HS study ana, suggests that m landscapes
               f all below a threshold of about S2% forest cover* the ecological i&tegiity of the forest community
               becomes increasingly compromised. Removing almost 12% of the forest ftam the MS study
               area through mining activities alone win bring the % forest cover of this entire area down close
               to this threshold aad certainly will cause some ltndscap&-level areas withifi fills larger area to fall
               wdi below this threshold. We consider the level of breeding habitat Joss resoltitig froM
               !>ermitted and proposed ottaiai activities to represent a stgttificaM negative impact for die suite
               of mature deciduous forest birds in the HS study area, particularly for those species for which
               this area represents the core of their breeding range.

               Specific Impacts lo Camkat Wm-bleri. Becanse the Catitean WatMer is tte mature forest
               species of hifhest co&cem according to HF assessments and because it has beea petitioned for
               listing under the Endangered Species Act, we provide a more detailed analysis on the impacts
               that mining activities are likely to have on this species.

               Population status and Irendi. The general stilus and population mods of Cerulean Warbler in
               mostpartsof its range are fairly well documented.  These have been previously summarized in
               the USFWS Status Assessment (Hamel 20003, as wdl a final report to USFWS of the Cerufaaa
               WwMer Atlas ftoj«* {Rs»»b«rg et at., 2000). We Wiew that populafloii treads as reported by
               the BBS are snfficieafly reliable for Cerulean Warbler at ange-wide and regional scales. These
                     tteads sksw a roughly 4^%-per-year decfise rtage-wlde slacel^6, wife steep declines in nearly
                     every region indiKfing in tie core rf the species' range, which overlaps almost eafeely wtt the
                     EIS study area.

                     A* part of the development of a HF North American Landbitd Conservation Han, estimates of
                     of tetfaf conservation objectives, Using this tnrtad of eSrapohttag BBS relative abundances,
                     the current total population estimate (using data from the decade of the 190s) for Cerulean
                     Warhtans is aboat SSO.OOO bbds, or tangly 283,000 fin.  Based on the BBS data, an estinjited
                     70% of the totai breeding population occurs in the Ohio Hills and Cumberland Plateau
                     physiographic anas from southern Ohio and Pennsylvania, through West Virginia to Tennessee,
                     Vast areas of suitable habitat in this regiot rappott targe.populations of Cerulean Warblers,
                     especially at privately owned forested*. We should mote that aithough 280,000 pairs seem like
                     a sizable population, it is among the smallest poptiiatjons of any passerine bird in North
                     America, which mostly number in the millioBS.

                     Ttoats.to pfyfajtioas. We consider the naajor threats to Cerulean Warbkis to fall within few
                     main categories: (1) direct loss of breeding habitat from mining activities; (2) loss of breeding
                     and migration stop-over habitat due to development; 0} loss of suitable breeding habitat from
                     sil vicultnral practices; and (4) habitat loss on wintering grounds in Sooth America. We consider
                     the practise of Bsoimterintop removal fnMii|/vai!fiy£iffing to be the greatest iHBnediate threat
                     within flie core of the Ceiulean Warbler's breeding range.

                     Applying similar nte&ods to those used in calculating total population sizes for tbe HF North
                     American LaadMrd Conservation Plan, BBS survey data indicate that the average breeding
                     density of Cerulean Warblers across the Northern Cumberland Plateau physiographic area during
                     the 1990s was 0.065 pairs/acre. Most of the HS study area occurs in this physiographic area.
                     This estimate does not include a tae-ef-day correction used in calculating the tool population
                     size, and therefore might be aa underestimate. However, this deasity is similar io breeding
                     densities estimated from territory mapping plots surveyed in southern West Virginia, although
                     locally higher densities were obsowd ta some locations. Using this BBS-derived estimate of
                     breeding densities and applying it to die estimated forest loss of approximately 760,000 acres
                     from issued and future mining permits between 1992 and 2012, habitat for approximately 49,400
                     pairs (17% of fib estimated total Cerulean Warbler population) would be eliminated through
                     minim activities daring this period. This is a very roagji estimate of the swabe* of birds likely
                     to be impacted and is based on the assumption that the entire area within permit boundaries
                     would be disturbed. Nonetheless, we are confident hi stating that breeding habitat for as much as
                     10%-20% of the known Cerulean WarMer popntatJoa is likely to be directly eliminated by
                     proposed and petmitted n»tataintop mittetfvalley fills daittg the 20-year period of 1992-2012.
                     These numbers reflect direct loss of breeding habitat and do not reflect reductions in habitat
                     suitability around mine sites. Research within the HS study area has shown that densities of
                     Cerulean Warblers are reduced in forest patches remaining from mining activities and in forest
                     near mine edges. We consider the level of breeding habitat loss due to mining activities in the
                     EIS study area to represent a significant negative impact for this species of high continental
                                                                                                                                     impacts such as development and loss of wintering ground habitat.
MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
A-624
Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                                                          Richard Seeley, Olendale-LaCrescenta Advocates
                                   Northeast Partners IE Might comments for
           Relative Conservation Value tf Reclaimed Mtes vs. Undisturbed Fore* Habitat. We do net
           consider removal of extensive areas of mature forest and replacement wi&t the poor quality,
           etriy-suecessional habitats resulting torn current reclamation practices to be an appropriate
           action for bird conservation in the EIS study area. Hist, this habitat alteration is occurring in
           core breeding areas for many high priority birds of the mature eastern deciduous forest suite.
           Removing almost 12% of the forest cover from flris met is likely to negatively impact all of
           these species. la particular, this area is critical for the long-term persistence of the Cerulean
           Warbler and tie estimated forest loss from mining activities will represent a significant negitive
           impact for this species of high continental coaeram. Second, current reclamation practices result
           iit large acreages of grassland habitat, but the grassland suite of birds is & relatively low HF
           conservation priority k Hie HS study area. The vast majority of grassland bird species
           benefiting from the current mining activities are rather low to conservation priority, and tM» area
           is not a core breeding area for grassland birds. Third, cnrrent methods of reclamation following
           moanlmjntop removal miring/valley fill activities result la poor quality, early-saccessiotal
           habitats of grasses and shrubs that are likely to remain in these early-saccessional conditions for
           very long periods of tune dae to the soil disruption and compaction during the mining and
           reclamation process. Estimates of the length of time it will lake tree species to colonize and re-
           forest these areas are fa the many hundreds of years (e,g., 300-1000 years). The minimal value
           that habitats reclaimed under current methods might have for early- successions! bird species
           does not justify repteetag mature forests wiA extremely longJasting, poor-quality, eady-
           successioaal habitats. Maintaining extensive tracts of mature deciduous forests to support the
           high diversity of mature forest birds, many of which are high conservation concern species, is
           one of the highest HF conservation priorities within the EIS study area. We encourage every
           effort to minimize tlic removal and Augmentation of existing nature forest habitat within die HS
           study area.
                                                   D  BEC 31 MB
                                                            (S1I}2A(3BA30)
                               1650 Arch Street
                                DearMr.Ponw:

                                It is to be hoped fiia! you will s« to it to the present E!R relative to
                                                                                                                                             Yoti can begin by sesldag to irapres upon your boss, Mr. teh and others ia his comer,
                                                                                                                                             the need to emptesba Lie ase of renewable ei>.=rgj'S4iurces and cHmica'x the use of coal
                                                                                                                                             ccmpIetely.ThereisMjrawnwhaKotvei, inthisdiyacdagc, foriistobiimcodwiscn
                                                                                                                                             er, etc, are availskkwailiig otiiy oo c.-nphssis, proper fimdiEg and, in the case of hydro-
                                                                                                                                                        as vvrU as keeping our mo'jiitaictops green, ecologically baiancecL and
                                                                                                                                             RicbariSeekv
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-625
Section A - Organizations

-------
Francis Slider, West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club
                                                         Seth Shteir, San Fernando Valley Audubon Society
                  U,S.EPA(3EA»}
                  WSOAahSt
                  Dem-Mr. Fai«
                                                                                                                              Forren/R3/DSE
                                                       by John  Porraa/RS/^JSEPA/us cii 12/26/03 08:55 AM -----

                                                             SSfeteireaoi.cGffl
                                                                                               John
                                                                                                                                                    12/24/03 08:53 PM

                                                                                                                              On Hountaintop  Removal-Setfe
                                                                                     To :

                                                                                     oc :
                                                                                     Subject i  Public Comment

                                                                                      Shteir, SPVAS
                  foknwi eoBBMJs fcf Hit m» ftaa 166$ aeaiaea of our dhtpter, Hrase e»a«ta- ite»
                  conirnartsaspaitoftiieofHcialrscordontiieDraaEnv-irocrnOTtal
                               3 are destroying the envncffijieat and ciillme of llie soudaii coalfields :n my
                  h»aest»te of WeaWrpfe. Your DEIS state that MIR tas *tai!jrtaffed724m8esof
                  stteass a t|e «tiMfc ofWV, KY, aid VA Itae k»tegf!«% 4v» stteaais me uqwtaat BI
                  the prsvenlion of flooding in this mouiilMwus are^ These streams clEimci water aid allow
                  acccsi rain and sco'.WEflt to be-abax'bsd by the acjuifa-. MIR also destroys hundreds of
                  thousands of acres of the Hiostbiologkally diverse forest in the world. 11ies*!bfestspre,-a]t
                  whose qua% of life is graded by Ntnt This deu to urge you to withdraw the current SIS for
mountaiHtop removal  and  to  issue a new draft that includes alternatives
to this mining practice  that will ministiKe impact to critical habitat
for wildlife.

The current SIS is incomplete in several aspects,  First, it fails to
assee-s the impacts on  migratory birds such as the Cerulean Warbler,
Second, it does not  address the fact that 1200 miles o£ streams and
hundreds of square miles of forested mountains have been virtually
flattened by this extremely destructive mining practice.     Finally,
it
does not include  any safeguards for local communities that depend on
the
region's natural  resources.

I am proud to be.  an  environmentalist who recognises the importance of
the local economies  affected toy land tRanagesnent de-eisions.  However,
mountain top removal  practices are nonsensical and are completely
dictated by securing the cheapest extraction price Eor industry,  1 am
convinced that there are ways industry can thrive while protecting
America's natural heritage. I urge you to take measures to curtail
this
practice while respecting local economies, protecting wildlife and
        iss .
                                       Sincarely ,

                                       S^th D, Shteir
                                       Vice President
                                       San  Fernando Valley ftudubon Society
                                       14355 Huston St., §225
                                       Sherman Oaks, C& 91423
                                       818-395-6429
                                                                                                                                                                                                          8-2-2
                                                                                                                                                                                                          1-9
MTM/VF Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
               A-626
                                                     Section A - Organizations

-------
John Snider, West Virginia Coal Association
               Comments Regarding The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
                                          Statement
                                         July 24,2004

                                        John R. Snider
                       Vice President, External Affairs, Eastern Operations
                                        Arch Coal, Inc.

                                      On Behalf Of The
                                West Virginia Coal Association

              Good evening, my name is John R. Snider. For the past two years I have

              been employed as Vice President of External Affairs, Eastern Operations,

              Arch Coal, Prior to that I had worked for four years to the West Virginia

              Development Office, with last two serving as Executive Director,  I have

              over 25 years experience in the field of economic development in West

              Virginia as well as experience in the Northern and Cental Appalachian coal

              fields. During my time with the Development Office, I assisted with

              developing the roles for the West Virginia Coal Field Development Office as

              well ts assisting in the development of funding for several post mine land

              use developments.  I ttn a Certified Economic Developer, Today, I am

              speaking on behalf of the West Virginia Coal Association.
                      I would like to discuss several issues relating to the socio-economic portion

                      of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

                      The Gannett Fleming's document "Final Case Studies Report on

                      Demographic Changes Related to Mountaintop Mining Operations" offers

                      some interesting conclusions which relate to many economies which may be

                      found in transition. West Virginia, as a whole, like many other areas .of the

                      country has been progressing thru a transitional period in that types of

                      employment are shifting from heavy manufacturing and mining to a service

                      based economy. Similar conclusions that Gannett Fleming makes, could be

                      reached in many areas of the United States over the past twenty years when

                      Census Tracts or small communities are considered individually. Long gone

                      are the days that most miners work in the same town or census tract as the

                      mine they are employed. Stop and think, do I live in the same census tract

                      that I work or even the same town. In addition, the improvement of

                      transportation systems in southern West Virginia allows miners to live

                      wherever they want and travel to the mine. This study only includes the

                      economic impacts in the adjacent area, whereas today's modern mine has a

                      much greater affect geographically Aan in the past.
                     10-1-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-627
Section A - Organizations

-------
              Several other issues also must be looked at in different light when you view



              what was happening during the time frame outlined by the study.




                  1. The population of West Virginia is declining.  It is no surprise that the



                    six communities arc also declining.




                 2. The tJnited States population has been for several years changing



                    from an industrial based economy to a service oriented economy.



                    During the time of this work, we saw many of our high paying



                    industrial jobs go off shore. We have seen and continue to see a coal



                    production shift from Central Appalachia to the Powder River Basin



                    in Wyoming. As we discuss this issue today, we are seeing more of



                    our market share being provided outside of the United States.



                 3. As our country changes from industrial to service, we are seeing many




                    of our fine employees  being left behind,  West Virginia has



                    traditionally been a heavy industry state which included at its heart the




                    production of glass, steel, chemicals, timbering and mining.  West




                    Virginia has been impacted negatively more than other areas which




                    have a more diversified economy. Many of onr industries and mines



                    have closed.



                 4. The average age of a West Virginian has increased over the past




                    several years much quicker than the rest of the country.  West
10-1-5
   Virginia average population is currently the oldest in the country.  In




   addition, state wide we are losing school age population. Very few



   areas in West Virginia are gaining population and the 14 county area



   is no different.



Overall, Gannett Fleming did a fair job describing what was transpiring



in the six small communities. If they wonld have looked at West



Virginia, as a whole, or even some other areas of the United States which



are in transition, they would have found the same trends. In fact, this



study could have been transferable to many areas in transition during the



same period. But in today's society you can not draw a valid economic



or social conclusion on such a small area as 100 home community or a



census tract. Global conditions have an affect on all economics and must



be taken into account.



One of the ways to change many of the problems discussed hi Gannett




Fleming's study would be to develop usable sites for development and



growth of the area. We must have rules that allow us to develop post




mine land use sites to provide diversification ia soothers West Virginia



to help create stability and growth.



We believe (hat a modified Alternative III offers that capability.




Thank you for taking time to listen to my presentation.
                                                                                                      10-1-2
                                                                                                       1-13
                                                                                                       1-4
MTM/VF Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
          A-628
                                              Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                       John Spate, Virginia Society of Ornithology and August Bird Club
                  John R. Snider
                  Arch Coal, Inc.
                  10 Kenton Drive
                  Charleston, West Virginia 25311
                       "0p-3hr MD, John"
                       feugusta$«        To-.      R3 Mountaintop€SPA
                                           d.com>                  cc:
                        Subject:  Plsa&e  stop this habitat destruction.
                                           12/22/2003  11:54
                                           AM
                                                                                                                        December 30, 2 0 0 J

                                                                                                                        J.ohn Forren
                                                                                                                        U.S. SPA (3EA30J,  1650 Arch Street
                                                                                                                        Philadelphia, PA 19103
                                                                                                                        mountaintop.rj^spa,gt$v
                                                                                                                        Dear Mr, Porren,

                                                                                                                        5*e  writs on behalf  of the undersigned groups,  representing raillions of
                                                                                                                        Americans,  concerning the Draft Progrsftuaatie Environmental Impact
                                                                                                                        Statement
                                                                                                                        on  Mountain Top Mining/Valley Fill  (MTM/VF) in the Appalachian region
                                                                                                                        of
                                                                                                                        the
                                                                                                                        eastern United states, He are extremely troubled over the harmful
                                                                                                                        impacts
                                                                                                                        that mountain top/valley fill raining has had and could con ti miss to hava
                                                                                                                        on  a
                                                                                                                        wide array ai aquatic and terrestrial organisms.  In addition to the
                                                                                                                        direct
                                                                                                                        effects of habitat  loss and degradation at mine sitss and areas
                                                                                                                        immediately
                                                                                                                        adjacent, the drastic alteration of large l&ndfonae over such an
                                                                                                                        extensive
                                                                                                                        region could very well have ne9ative and long-lasting effects on
                                                                                                                        ecosystem
                                                                                                                        process.es at considerable distances from the areas wore directly
                                                                                                                        disturbed.
                                                                                                                        these concerns are  not adequately addressed in the draft BIS.  However,
                                                                                                                        despite our serious concerns ragjardirKj the potential for disrupting
                                                                                                                        ecological processes an4 biodiversity in general,  these comttents are
                                                                                                                        specifically directed to issu&a regarding migratory birds. The impacts
                                                                                                                        to
                                                                                                                        forest-associated bird species Of conservation concern also are not
                                                                                                                        adequately or properly addressed in this draft £18,

                                                                                                                        I,  The DSIS Ignores the High Priority Assigned through Congress by
                                                                                                                        wildlife
                                                                                                                        Agencies to the Conservation af Mature Forest Bird Species,

                                                                                                                        The figures from the draft EIS on cumulative impacts of mining activity
                                                                                               7-3-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-629
Section A - Organizations

-------
               the  study  ares  sayqest. a massive and pezmamrst impact on the ^tit*.
               mute  cf
               Partners  in  Flight priority mature forest birds within the BIS study
               sr*sA
               'e.g.,  Csrylean warbler, Louisiana waterthrush, Worm eating Warbler,
               to A tu sky  torhipr,  Wood Hi-rush, Yellow-t hioat-s-d Vtieo, Acadian
               Fl>car»h-et )
               duo  to a  px- j^cLed loss ct ov^r 380,Of>Q dCi^6?  (149,52? hectaies)  "*f
               hiQh-iuality f,~*«st to Mining m the n^xt- f «*n yeat s  1'hiF is in
               rtrtrtii-inn
               *_,>i
               that sane  amount havmq been lost in the previous ten years  All  of
               I bes-e
               bird s£QCiss are also classified as Birds of conservation COftcern by
               t-he
               tt.
               S  Fish and  SSiidliff* SPSvi/'-fi*  (fISFWS ?M25 within the Appalachian  Bird
               Co-use ration Region, which overlaps the area t-oneideivd m tb*» dratt
               Btfi
               Tins list  m mancHt^d by C^n-jress under 1988 acsendmeni-s to the Fish and
               Wsldlift  C- rtssrvat ion Act and 'jpnotea species thaf without a-ddl t ir-nal
               'jon$**-rvaf ion "ictions arp likely tj become candidat"ea for listincj  under
               the
               HrKlanqeiecf Species Act  We ""unsid^t this le-vel of hctfti^at lo^s tn
               constitute
               a sigm ti -^nt n^qat ivt; impact frr f hosp high psicrity instore fniȣ"
               birds,
               an i especially ffti fhe Cerulean Warbler, the frx^st aperies of high^^t
               '".om^tri in 5*1318 area,  He ate struck by the failuiw of th^ 3iatt  SIS t-o
               ?ddr«^s this t°xi rera^ly impofarit =tnd aiq.nt f ic^nt environra^nidl  imp^r-f
                     s"e don't have reliable
                                                      of the densities  of  most  of
               thi fe*5
               priority specj.es in the reqicr, we do hjve  tft«sm  fcr  Cerulean ^a
               This
               is thf foxes'" -bre-pdin^ bird apeJies ^e aie  most  roacerned  with
               it
study
sitfea
Endangered Sp
ni
o£
                        c£ !••f  ft, €4  r^ns  .if Cerulean W^iblerr p-^t
ha at
his study Sifcess within the draft BIS si «dy  area  in  partexn T^nit'i'-gs?»6
If
his
density estimate is more representative  of  tne density over the study
                                                                                                                                 cerul&ans wctuld have been
                                                                                                                                                                     in  the last
                                                                                                                  and
                                                                                                                  the
                                                                                                                  Sdise numbPt wc-uld b*s impacted  in the next   Either estintfet-** represents
                                                                                                                  an
                                                                                                                  unacceptable liss,

                                                                                                                  Partners in Flight  (PIP* , a science- based  initiative dedicated to the
                                                                                                                  conservation - f 2 f mining  the  diaft  SIS piojects in the next d^i-ade eoefe Ln
fruition. In add it i-on, we  lear that in a region wftere Cerulean warblers
presently "jcur  m Much  high  densities,  th^ bt-eedirKj habitat o^uld
alre^iiiy
fee saturated •and  the indsvjdual'S displ-aced by min«3 woiildn't't b-3 ablt;
fo
find now areas o£ hiirh-misecj
                                                                                                                                                                           will  be reduced as a rasult
                                                                                                                                                                           t@s  of Cerulean warbler
                                                                                                                  thp ability  of  the  population to r^
                                                                                                                  It is  acsportaiit  to  not*5  that  these
                                                                                                                  populat i
-------
              twxmtain and ridge tops. Cerulean Warblers pre£@r ricfe^tops- within
              large
              blocks oi mature forest (WsaklancI and Wood 2002}  In addition,  Drs,
              Weak!and
              and Wood  UOQ2} found significantly reduced densities of breeding
              Cerulean
              Warblers in forest fragmented by mining and in forsst adjacent to mine
              e4g®s. We find it -disturbing and unacceptable that Dr. Weaklsnd and Dy,
              Wood's research was not included in the draft. EIS document  when we  know
              that
              it was raade available to those who were involved in its development.

              Ill,  The DEIS Pails to Address Technology Changes that will Alter
              Projections of Future Forest LOBS

              We believe that the -draft EIS projection that an additional 3.4% of
              forest
              will be lost between 2002 and 2012 nay significantly underestimate  the
              impact of mining on Hardwood forests. Mot only do these figures fail to
              include an estimate of the cumulative loss of cove forests  froffl valley
              fill
              operations, they also do not take into consideration th« anticipated
              increase in future demand for Appalachian coal due to the planned
              construction of flue gas dssulfurization units (scrubbers)  at existing
              ccal-fired generating plants in the study area ETV& 20S2).  Par example,
              the
              draft EIS projects that Tennessee will issue permits causing the loss
              of
              9,154 acres of forest in 2003 through 2012, whan over 5,000 acres of
              Surface
              mining permits have already b«en approved between December  2002 and
              October
              2003  JSiddell 2003),

              IV.  The DEIS Fails to Identify and Analyse Effective Mitigation
              Measures to
              Reduce Bird Losses

              The only tnit.igar.ion offered in the draft SIS for the destruction of
              large
              areas of biologically diverse hardwood forest habitat by mining
              operations
              is a suggestion that the denuded areas could be reforested  after
              operations
              cease. While recent research indicates that soiwe forest, communities may
              be
              reestablished on reclaimed mine sites (Holl et al. 2001), the draft EIS
              concedes that initiatives to improve th<£ establishtn&nt of forests en
              reclaimed mine sites have only recently begun and "that it  would be
              premature to attempt to evaluate the success of th,es& efforts at this
              t i SB6 " -
              In addition, the draft BIS states that "SB post-mined sites will likely
              lack
              the rgguirsH&ents of slope, aspect and soil moisture needed  for
              cove-hardwood
              forest communities, it is unlikely that these particular communities
              can
8-2-5
7-5-3
7-3-3
re-established through reclamation".  It will take tnany decades before
thes-e
experimental forests  mature  sufficiently to assess whether they will
prcAf i tie
suitable breeding habitat  for  Cerulean Marblers or any other interior
forest-breeding birds of  concern.  Even if  reforestation was -determined
to be
the preferred mitigation  for Cerulean Karbler habitat loss, tfee
development
of reforestation BMPS {ftction  15)  v*ould bs voluntary and a state or
federal
legislative change {Action 143  could  take  years. The suggestion that
reforestation is a panacea to  mitigate the negative effects of mining
col
interior for&st habit&t within th& foreseeable future is therefore
wrong
and
misleading. Furthermore,  «  find  it extreisjsly inappropriate that the
draft
EIS suggests that a mining company could be offered an economic
incentive,
through the sale of carbon credits, for planting trees to replace the
forest
that thsy themselves  destroyed during mining activities,

We also find it inappropriate  to  consider  replacinq forest habitat with
grassland habitat for "rare" eastern  grassland species even though
these
species havs dselimgd dramatically as a group in nscent decades. Their
recovery and habitat  restoration  efforts should be targeted towar<3a
ecosystems and landscapes  where they  occurred historically, net on
eastern
roountalntops, wlhere grassland  habitat was  rare, and currently supports
high
quality forest habitats.
V.  The PSIS Fails to Identify and Analyze  Reasonable Alternatives to
Avoid
Bird Losses

We find the draft BIS1  failure t& provide an  alternative proposal that
would
provide better regulation of  mountain  top mining  to protect the
environment
unacceptable and inappropriate,   we believe that  taken  together, th^se
two
major flaws are fatal and require the  re-issuance of the draft SIS.
These
fatal flaws r&san the draft EIS fails to comply  with NEPA.  The draft
BIS
needs to be cursd by an EIS that  appropriately  addresses bo-th the
concerns
over priority bird species mentioned herein snd that offers a solid
environmentally sound alternative,
                                                                                                                7-3-3
                                                                                                                4-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-631
                                                     Section A - Organizations

-------
              The U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service's September 2002 (0SWS 9/20/02)
              memo
              clearly supports our conclusion that the draft EIS is fatally flawed.
              The
              FWS warned  in the memo that publication of the draEt BIS- as written,
              "will
              further damage the credibility of the agencies involviacl.'*  That
              inter-agency
              memo cites  the proposed actions offering ftonly IBBager environmental
              benefits" and criticizes the draft E18 because it did not consider any
              options that would actually limit the area mined and the streams buried
              by
              valley fills, "Thers is no diCferefice bstw&eri [the alternatives]," the
              Pish
              aud wildlife officials said. "The reader is left wontJering whac -genuine
              actions, if any, the agencies are actually proposing." The draft EIS
              erroneously only offers alternatives that would streamline the
              permitting
              process for approval of new mount-aintop-rewoval permits. The
              alternatives,
              including the preferred alternative, offer ao ettvamran&ntal protections
              and
              the lack of any such environmentally sound options destroys the NEPA
              BIS
              process.

              The PKS memo argued for "at least one alternative to restrict, or
              otherwise
              constrain,  most valley fills to ephemeral streaffi reaches,..As ws have
              stated
              repeatedly, it is the service's position that the three 'action'
              alternatives, as currently written, cannot be interpreted as ensuring
              airy
              improved environmental prote-ctiors  ... let alone protection that can foe
              quantified  or even estirsated its a-dvaftce,"

              VI.  Because the BUS IB Fatally Defective, It Should Be Revised aad
              Reissued for Public Comment and Permit Issuance Should Cease.

              Sfe do not find that the three "action" alternatives offered would
              improve
              environmental protection in any measurable way.  We propose that a
              moratorium
              be placed on new tnoufttctintop mining permits until a. new draft SIS is
              written
              to provide  for the avoidance of key Cerulean Warbler habitat and
              significant
              environmental protection for the Louisiana MatertbruSh, KOrm-eatisig
              Warbler,
              Kentucky Harbler, siood Thrush, Yellow-throated Vireo, Acadian
              flycatcher
              and
              other PIP priority species and PWS Birds of Conservation Concern. This
              moratorium  should continue until a Cinal EIS is adopted with an
              environmentally acceptable alternative.

              We balieva  that NEPA requires such a moratorium as the environmental
4-2
                                   impact, s
                                   are so great and th*s ffrderal  §0varnw»nt has  failed to
                                   as
                                   required,  even after 5 ysars  hava  passed  since litigation. wa& initially
                                   filed on this iasu€. Settlement  of the  litigation was to result  in an
                                   EIS
                                   and. better measures to protect  the environment, 'rue draft EIS clearly
                                   indicates that this is not  occurring.   Also,  the Clean Water Act
                                   dictates
                                   individual permits should be  required for such major actions and thu$,
                                   the
                                   current use of nationwide permits  is illegal,

                                   5te cottclu4e that mining is  a  short -t&rtR benefit to local economies and
                                   once
                                   the coal is extracted, the  industry will  leave the region. However, it
                                   the
                                   sc«nic vistas and natural heritage of the area are preserved, an
                                   economy
                                   fc'uoyfed by recreation and tourism would  provide added value for
                                   generations
                                   to corns .

                                   We appreciate the opportunity to comment  on  this Draft Environmental
                                   x&pact
                                   Statement.
Respectfully Sw
John Spatir ,  M . D .
Vice President, Virginia  Society  of Ornithology
Vice President, Augusta Bird  Club
Waynegboro ,  VA

.References :

Hollt R.  0,, c. E.  tipper and J.  &. Burger. 2001. Recovery of native
plant
communities  after mining.  Virginia Cooperative Extension Publ . 46G-140*
[Online version available at
)

Eich f. D, &t a.1.  2004  in press.  PIP  {forth American LancSfeird
Cons e r va t i on
Plan. To  toe  published by  Cornell  lab  of Ornithology, Ithaca, &¥,
[Online
draft available at.
]

Rosenberg, K. v.,  s.  1, Barker, and R, w. Ro-hrtsaugh. 23GO. Ati atlas of
Cerulean  Warbler populations;  Final report to the U.S. Pish and
Wildlife
Service-  December 2000,  [Online version available at
*
-------
objectives ter priority  landblrd specuss, t-g. xx»xx in Prcc&ftding of
the
3rd
International Partners  in  Flight Confer fence, C. J,  Ralph and T.  D. Rich
Rditms. *JSOA Forest  Service Gen. Tesch, Rep, PFW-GTR-xxx,  Albany, CA,

Eiddell  D.  2003 Recant  Tennessee Permits. Su^rvisor, Technical Group,
Office of S-urfaoe Mining,  Knarville, TK.

Tennessee Vgiley Authority. 20G2. Braden Mcuricain surface min-e;
Campbell
and
Scott Counties, Tennessee. Tenne&see Valley Auttority, Knoxville

U.S. Fish Mil<31i£e Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern  2002.
Division of  Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia.  99pp.
[iDnlsne
version available at
«hEtp://ffiigratorybirds .fws.gov/raports/bcc2002.pdf
                                                                                                                            Figure 1.  Cerulean Warbler  {Oendroica cerulea)  Sowmer Distr3.bxitj.un Map.
                                                                                                                            The Horth American Breeding Bir-d Survey Results and Analysis, H-elative
                                                                                                                            Abundance Map 1966 -  2002. USGS 2003.
                                                                                                                            Tbese maps indicate  the number of birds sejsn cm BBS routes,  grouped
                                                                                                                            into
                                                                                                                            convertisnt cste^orias  of  relative abundance. Tiie maps predict  th#
                                                                                                                            average
                                                                                                                            number of birds of the species that could be seen in about  2.5 hours of
                                                                                                                            birdwatciiing along roadsides  (by very goal birders) .  l*hey ate  bas«;d on
                                                                                                                            mean
                                                                                                                            counts OTI BBS rautsis over the interi'al 1982 - 199S.
              O.fi. Pish Wildlife S^rvies.  §/20/02. Comments on Draft  MTM/VF HIS cf
              Chapter
              IV  ^Alternatives) .

              USt3S .  2003. the Worth American  Brs&t3ing Bird Survey Results and
              A«alys3 s,
                                    www.mftr-|>wrc, us-gs .gov/bbs/bfoe .htisl»- c&rulean
              Oakland, C. A.  and P.  B.  Sood.  2002. Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica
              cerulea)
              iflicTo-habitar, and landscape -level  habitat Characteristics in southern
              Heat
              Virginia in relation to mountain&op siinlng/vallsy fills, Final Project
              Report submitted to VBQS Biological Reisources? Division, Species- At -Risk
              Program. { Available online at  httpi/^ww. forestry. caf .wvu.'
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                       A-633
Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                                   Stephen Stewart, Seven Hills Birdwatchers
                                                             soi  tna *i»«ve
                                                             *t toluo
                                                             51 to 50
                                                             4 t*t  10
                                                             7
                      \f
                    Dear Mr. Forren,

                    We write on behalf of the undersigned groups, representing millions
                    of
                    Americans, concerning the Draft Programmatic Environmental impact
                    Statement on Mountain Top Mining/Valley Fill (MTM/VF) in the
                    Appalachian
                    region of the eastern United States. We are extremely troubled over
                    the
                    harmful impacts that mountaintep/valley fill mining has had and could
                    continue to have on a wide array of aquatic and terrestrial organisms.
                    In addition to the direct effects of habitat loss and deoradatton at
                    mine sites and areas immediately adjacent, the drastic alteration of
                    large landforms over such an extensive region could very well have
                    negative and long-lasting effects on ecosystem processes at
                    considerable
                    distances from the areas more directly disturbed. These concerns are
                    not
                    adequately addressed in the draft EIS. However, despite our serious
                    concerns regarding the potential for disrupting ecological processes
                    and
                    biodiversity in general, these comments are specifically directed to
                    issues regarding migratory birds. The impacts to forest-associated
                    bird
                    species of conservation concern also are  not adequately or properly
                    addressed in this draft EIS.

                    I.  The DEIS Ignores the High Priority Assigned through Congress by
                    Wildlife Agencies to the Conservation of Mature Forest Bird Species.

                    The figures from the draft EIS on cumulative impacts of mining
                    activity
                    in the study area suggest a massive and permanent impact on the
                    entire
                    suite of Partners in Flight priority mature forest birds within the EIS
                    study area (e.g., Cerulean Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Worm-
                    eating
                    Warbler, Kentucky Warbler, Wood Thrush, Yellow-throated Vireo,
                    Acadian
                    Flycatcher) due to a projected loss of over 380,000 acres (148,822
                                                                                                                                                                            7-3-2
                                                                                                                                                                            8-1-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-634
Section A - Organizations

-------
             hectares) of high-quality forest to mining in the next ten years. This
             is in addition to that same amount having been tost in the previous
             ten
             years. Ail of these bird species are also classified as Birds of
             Conservation Concern by the U. S.  Fish and Wildlife Service
             (USFWS 2002)
             within the Appalachian Bird Conservation Region, which overlaps the
             area
             considered in the draft EIS. This list is mandated by Congress under
             1988 amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and
             denotes
             species that without additional conservation actions are likely to
             become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. We
             consider this level of habitat loss to constitute a significant negative
             impact for these high priority mature forest birds, and especially for
             the Cerulean Warbler, the forest species of highest concern in this
             area.  We are struck by the failure of the draft EIS to address this
             extremely important and significant environmental impact.

             While we don't have reliable estimates of the densities of most of
             these
             priority species in the region, we do have them tor Cerulean
             Warblers.
             This is the forest-breeding bird species we are most concerned with
             because it has suffered drastic population declines over the last
             several decades and the core of its breeding range coincides very
             closely with the EIS study area (Figure 1). This species has been
             petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act and is also
             on
             the USFWS'  National List of Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS
             2002).

             II.  The DEIS Ignores Available Scientific Data Showing Higher Bird
             Densities and Higher Potential Losses from Mining Impacts.

             Recent research by Drs. Weakland and Wood (2002) at West Virginia
             University found the average density of Cerulean Warblers territories
             in
             intact forest near mined areas in West Virginia was 0.46 pairs/hectare
             (ha). Assuming each territory  provides habitat for a  pair of birds, this
8-1-2
equates to 0.62 individuals/ha. With the projected loss of over
149,822
ha to future mining in the next ten years, this will result in  a loss
of 137,836 Cerulean Warblers in the next decade. Dr.  Charles
Nicholson
(TVA 2002) reported a somewhat higher average density of 0.64
pairs of
Cerulean Warblers per ha at his study sites within the draft EIS study
area in eastern Tennessee. If his density estimate is more
representative of the density over the study area, then even more
ceruleans would have been impacted in the last decade and the
same
number would be impacted in the rtext. Either estimate represents an
unacceptable loss.

Partners in Flight (P1F), a science-based initiative dedicated to the
conservation of landbirds in the western hemisphere, estimates the
global population of Cerulean Warblers, based on relative abundance
estimates derived from 1990s Breeding Bird Survey data,  to be
roughly
560,000 individuals with 80% of the population breeding in the
Appalachian region which encompasses the study area (Rich et al.
2004).
Applying similar methods, BBS survey data indicate that the average
breeding density of Cerulean Warblers across the Northern
Cumberland
Plateau physiographic area during the 1990s was 0.065 pairs/acre
(Rich
et al. 2004. Appendix B, Rosenberg and Blancher in press). These
numbers
indicate that roughly 9% of the world's ceruleans were lost as a result
of mining permitted during the  1992 to 2002 period and another 9%
will
be lost between 2003 and 2012 should the level of mining the draft
EIS
projects in the next decade come to fruition. In addition, we fear that
in a region where Cerulean Warblers presently occur in such high
densities, the breeding habitat could already be saturated and the
individuals displaced by mines wouldn't be able to find new areas of
high-quality breeding habitat to colonize. If this is the case, the
8-1-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
          A-635
                                              Section A - Organizations

-------
            reproductive potential of those pairs also wiR toe compromised and
            the
            ability of the population to recover will be reduced as a result,
            it is important to note that these estimates of Cerulean Warbler
            population loss substantially underestimate the actual impact of
            mountaintop mining on this species. By definition, mountaintop
            mining
            removes forest habitat on mountain and ridge tops, Cerutean
            Warblers
            prefer ridgetops within large blocks of mature forest (Weakland and
            Wood
            2002} In addition, Drs. Weakland and Wood (2002) found significantly
            reduced densities of breeding Cerulean Warblers In forest
            fragmented by
            mining and in forest adjacent to mine edges. We find it disturbing and
            unacceptable that Dr. Weakland and Dr. Wood's research was not
            included
            in the draft EIS document when we know that it was made available
            to
            those who were involved in its development.

            III. The DEIS Faiis to Address Technology Changes that will Alter
            Projections of Future Forest Loss

            We believe that the draft EfS projection that an additional 3.4% of
            forest will be lost between 2002 and 2012 may significantly
            underestimate the impact of mining on hardwood forests. Mot only do
            these figures fail to include an estimate of the cumulative loss of cove
            forests from valley ffiJ operations, they also do not take into
            consideration the anticipated increase in future demand for
            Appalachian
            coal due to the planned construction of flue gas desulfurtzatton units
            (scrubbers) at existing coal-fired generating plants in the study area
            (TVA 2002). For example, the draft EIS projects that Tennessee will
            issue permits causing the loss of 9,154 acres of forest in 2003
            through
            2012, when over 5,000 acres of surface mining permits have already
            been
            approved between December 2002 and October 2003 (Siddell 2003).
8-1-2
7-5-3
!V. The DEIS Fails to Identify and Analyze Effective Mitigation
Measures to Reduce Bird Losses

The only mitigation offered in the draft EJS for the destruction of
large areas of biologieaily diverse hardwood forest habitat by mining
operations is a suggestion that the denuded areas could be
reforested
after operations cease. While recent research indicates that some
forest
communities may be reestablished on reclaimed mine sites (Hoi) et
al.
2001), the draft EIS concedes that initiatives to improve the
establishment of forests on reclaimed mine sites have only recently
begun and "that it would be premature to attempt to evaluate the
success
of these efforts at this time*. In addition, the draft EiS states that
"as post-mined sites will likely lack the requirements of slope, aspect
and soil moisture needed for cove-hardwood forest communities, it is
unlikely that these particular communities can be re-established
through
reclamation", ttwffl take many decades before these experimental
forests mature sufficiently to assess whether they wi provide suitable
breeding habitat for Cerulean Warblers or any other interior
forest-breeding birds of concern. Evert if reforestation was
determined
to be the preferred mitigation for Cerulean Warbler habitat loss, the
development of reforestation BMPs (Action 13) would be voluntary
and a
state or federal legislative- change (Action 14) could take years. The
suggestion that reforestation is a panacea to mitigate the negative
effects of mining on interior forest habitat within the foreseeable
future is therefore wrong and misleading. Furthermore, we find it
extremely inappropriate that tie draft HS suggests that a mining
company could be offered an economic incentive, through the sale of
carbon credits, for planting trees to replace the forest that they
themselves destroyed during mining activities.

We also find It inappropriate to consider replacing forest habitat with
grassland habitat for "rare" eastern grassland species even though
these
                                                                                                 7-3-3
MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
          A-636
                                               Section A * Organizations

-------
            species have declined dramatically as a group in recent decades,
            Their
            recovery and habitat restoration efforts should be targeted towards
            ecosystems and landscapes where they occurred historically, not on
            eastern rnountaintops, where grassland habitat was rare, and
            currently
            supports high quality forest habitats.
             V.  The DEIS Fails to Identify and Analyze Reasonable Alternatives to
             Avoid Bird Losses

             We find the draft EIS' failure to provide an alternative proposal that
             would provide better regulation of mountain top mining to protect the
             environment unacceptable and inappropriate, We believe that taken
             together, these two major flaws are fatal and require the re-issuance
             of
             the draft EIS.  These fatal flaws mean the draft EIS fails to comply
             with NEPA.  The draft EIS needs to be cured by an EIS that
             appropriately
             addresses both the concerns over priority bird species mentioned
             herein
             and that offers a solid  environmentally sound alternative.

             The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's September 2002 (USFWS
             9/20/02) memo
             clearly supports our conclusion that the draft EIS is fatally flawed.
             The FWS warned in the memo that publication of the draft EIS as
             written,
             "will further damage the credibility of the agencies involved." That
             inter-agency memo cites the proposed actions offering "only meager
             environmental benefits" and criticizes the draft EIS because it did not
             consider any options that would  actually limit the area mined and the
             streams buried by valley fills. "There is no difference between [the
             alternatives]," the Fish and Wildlife officials said. "The reader is
             left wondering what genuine actions, if any, the agencies are actually
             proposing," The draft EIS erroneously only offers alternatives that
             would streamline the permitting process for approval of new
             mountaintop-removal permits. The alternatives, including the
             preferred
4-2
alternative, offer no environmental protections and the lack of any
such
environmentally sound options destroys the NEPA EIS process.

The FWS memo argued for "at least one alternative to restrict, or
otherwise constrain, most valley fills to ephemeral stream
reaches...As
we have stated repeatedly, it is the service's position that the three
'action' alternatives, as currently written, cannot be interpreted as
ensuring any improved environmental protection ... let alone
protection
that can be quantified or even estimated in advance."

VI. Because the DEIS Is Fatally Defective, It Should Be Revised and
Reissued for Public Comment and Permit Issuance Should Cease.

We do not find that the three "action* alternatives offered would
improve environmental protection in any measurable way. We
propose that
a moratorium be placed on new mountaintop mining permits until a
new
draft EIS is written to provide for the avoidance of key  Cerulean
Warbler habitat and significant environmental protection for the
Louisiana Waterthrush, Worm-eating Warbler, Kentucky Warbler,
Wood
Thrush, Yellow-throated Vireo, Acadian Flycatcher and other PIF
priority
species and FWS Birds of Conservation Concern. This moratorium
should
continue until a final EIS is adopted with an environmentally
acceptable
alternative.

We believe that NEPA requires such a moratorium as  the
environmental
impacts are so great and the federal government has failed to
complete
an EIS as  required, even after 5 years have passed since litigation
was
initially filed on this issue. Settlement of the litigation was to
                                                                                                 4-2
MTIWVF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
          A-637
                                               Section A - Organizations

-------
            result in an EIS and better measures to protect the environment. The
            draft EIS clearly indicates that this is not occurring. Also, the Clean
            Water Act dictates individual permits should be required for such
            major
            actions and thus, the current use of nationwide permits is illegal.

            We conclude that mining is a short-term benefit to local economies
            and
            once the coal is extracted, the industry will leave the region.
            However,
            if the scenic vistas and natural heritage of the area are preserved, an
            economy buoyed by recreation and tourism would provide added
            value for
            generations to come.

            We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Draft
            Environmental
            Impact Statement.

            Respectfully Submitted,

            Stephen P. Stewart
            Seven Hills Birdwatchers
            Rome, Georgia

            References:

            Holl, K. D., C. E. Zipper and J. A. Burger. 2001. Recovery of native
            plant communities after mining. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publ.
            460-140. (Online version available at <
            http://www.ext, vt.edu/pubs/mines/460-140/460-140.html>]

            Rich T. D. et al. 2004 in press. PIF North American Landbird
            Conservation Plan. To be published by Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
            Ithaca, NY. [OnHne draft available at
            http://www.birds.cornell.edu/pifCapeMay/PIF_Final_Draft.pdf]

            Rosenberg, K. V,, S. E, Barker, and R. W. Rohrbaugh. 2000. An atlas
            of
4-2
11-7-2
Cerulean Warbler populations: Final report to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Service. December 2000. [Online version available at <
http://bi rds.cornell.edu/cewa p/cwapresults.htm>]

Rosenberg, K. V. and P. J. Blancher. In press. Setting numerical
population objectives for priority landbird species, Pg. xx-xx in
Proceeding of the 3rd International Partners in Flight Conference. C.
J.
Ralph and T. D. Rich Editors. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep.
PFW-GTR-xxx, Albany, CA.

Siddell. D. 2003 Recent Tennessee Permits. Supervisor, Technical
Group,
Office of Surface Mining, Knoxville, TN.

Tennessee Valley Authority. 2002. Braden Mountain surface mine;
Campbell
and Scott Counties, Tennessee. Tennessee Valley Authority,
Knoxville.

U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002.
Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99pp.
(Online version available at <
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reDorts/bcc2002.pdf>]

U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. 9/20/02. Comments on Draft MTMA/F EIS
of
Chapter IV (Alternatives).

USGS. 2003. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and
Analysis, 1966 - 2002. .
Cerulean Warbter relative abundance map [Available online at
/www.mbr-pwrc.usgs,gov/bbs/htm86/map617/ra6580.html>

Weakland,  C. A. and P. B. Wood. 2002. Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica
cerulea) microhabitat and landscape-level habitat Characteristics in
southern West Virginia in relation to mountaintop mining/valley fills.
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
          A-638
                                              Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                           Vivian Stockman, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
             Final Project Report submitted to USGS Biological Resources
             Division,
             Species-At-Rtsk Program. [Available online at
             http://www.forestry.caf.wvu.edu/pWood/>]
                                                                                                                                                                              AU6 0 4 a
                                                                                                                       Ohio Valley Environmental Coglftton
                             f>.OBo*B7B
                             Hontingfon, WV 25773-6753
                             I*. S34-5T2-O246
 Fax304-S25~lS?84.
                                                                                                                Augu* 4, 2003

                                                                                                                Mr. John Forrea,
                                                                                                                U.S. EPA(3ES30)
                                                                                                                IflO An* Street,
                                                                                                                Fix: 1 215 814 2783
                                                                                                                Dear Mr. Farren:

                                                                                                                Oh behdf of the Ohio Valley Eavjnaamtal Coalition, I write to request a 90-day ratauAxt so
                                                                                                                the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impacts Statement on mountamtop
                                                                                                                     l coal miiiitig,
                                                                                                               Siace the coswnent period began* 0 VEC has beea attempting to eolleet ooiam^jts from
                                                                                                               coalfidd resid;:its, %vhj]e also studying tilt massive OBIS doc'jjjienl. Simply stated, we need
                                                                                                               more time. We cannot possibly complete oar tas& by Awpa^ 29th, the ewreftt oomin^it period
                                                                                                               deadline

                                                                                                               Thanks you Ibr your attention to tfiis request.

                                                                                                               Sincerely,

                                                                                                               —Vivian
                                                                                                                                                                                   3-5
                                                                                                               Vivian
                                                                                                               OVEC project coordinator
MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
A-639
Section A - Organizations

-------
                          Obfo Valley Environmental Coalition
                          P,O Sax 6753
                          Hutrttegton, WV 2S77S-47S3
                          Ph.3O4-S22-O24<5
          January 5, 2004

          John Forrea
          U.S.EPA(3EA30)
          1650 Are* Street
                          19103
'D JAN t S;
          Dear Mr. Forren:
          Attached please find MotBrtaMtop Removal/Valley Hll eoal mining DEIS eowsiarts torn fte Ohio
          Valley Environmental Coalition, sfcnitted in addition to comments from OVBC's Counsel, The
          comments are in the form of the attached Word document ItSxOeA, "The Social and Cultural Bffiscts of
          Mountaffltop Remowsl/ VaHey Fill Coal Mining."

          The other attachn-.ent is one of the ackienduins.vvhich are iislfid on the second {53ge of the atiached
          Word document

          Tomorrow, I will send via fle US Postal Service, flwse same documents OB a CD. Accompanying
          those will be i» original documents mentioned in the comments. Also, on (he CD will be the
          addendurns that 1 did not include on this &»3BaM as tfasy were very large, byte-wise.

          I will actually send two copies of the CO. Yon see, my document is 6 ] pages long and 1 thought it
          would he best sent on a CD, especially given the photo aridep.dums. On Dec. 2Sth or so I called your
          phone line to check with you that a CD would beck. Yciirvoic« mail was on, so Halted with a
          receptionist who directed  me to someone else in your otfice working on the EIS. He didn't answer ths
          phone, so I left a message asking him toe-mail me with an answer regarding a CO submission of
          comments- In an e-mail he assured me that a CD would be fine to send, and he asted that I send a
          copy for both you and him. Unfcmirately, I madvertently deleted mat e-mail and I cannot remember
          his name  Anyway, the extra CD is for him, and I rnist you'll know to whom lam reterring.

          1 apologize if my submitting the same coiriments bom via e-mail and US  mail makes things harder for
          you, as I imagine you are quite inundated with comments. But since both means of transmission rely
          on computers (e-mail and copying the files correctly to the CD), I just want to back up one submission
          format with another.

          Good luck with the stack  of comments!

          Sincerely,
           Vivka Stockman, OVEC orpaiar
                                Hello my name is Msria Ktzer.  This is my children, Jessie and Ctaystal Gunnoe,,

                          We are from Bobwhite in Boone County. We are agsinst Mountatntop removal. We are
                          a family that lives in the constant shadow of mountaintop removal, valley fills and slurry
                          ponds. The mining around us has destroyed our quality of life. The blasting from the
                          mines is a constant reminder of why our lives have changed so much.  My children are
                          not allowed to play ia the water that runs thru our property because the ponds ran straight
                          into it. The aquatk life in this stream is all but gone. Catching bait or fishing is a waste
                          of time now there isn anything there to catch, unless it would be some incurable disease.
                          Who can say that this \vill not endanger my children health? You, the panel of people
                          who say that what the mine companies are doing is okay.  I sorry but this has not yet
                          been a trustworthy source.
                                i have lived on this same property &>' 35 years of my life. In the same town with
                          the same people, that all saying Ihe same thing  ountaintop removal is going to run us out
                          of our homes and off our land like it has so many before us and I  beginning to wonder,
                          are they right?
                          Wa were flooded in 2001-3 times. With each rainstorm the creek and river fills up more
                          whii rocks and debris, in 2002 we were flooded once again. The creek now runs much
                          deeper and faster thai it ever has.  Then on June ! 6* of 2003 wa were flooded horribly.
                          The storm was what the mine company called a  one in a hundred year storm.  I heard it
                          was an act of God, which is like saying that the burlklo flood was an act of God. I
                          remember whra I was a child it rained until 1 was running in water to my knees in this
                          same yard that is now gone. Why didn these catastrophic floods didn happen then?
                          Why are they happening now? MTRiswhy. I  not sure what all the scientific tests teil
                          you. but Common sense tells me that if yoa pour water onto a rock it going to roll eff, if
                          you pour into soil it will absorb.
                                The flood or* June \6^ has rumed our life. The rains came and the hallow corning
                          thru our property rose so fast that we didn have a chance to react. We were trapped in
                          every direction.  The river running by me wss still clear and the hallow washing into this
                          river was ragtag.  I was being flooded by a stream that 3 years.ago 1 could step over.
                          With in 3 hours after it started rairung we had lost almost everything.  The water eomirig
                          by me was sent in on mudslides that filled the creek and move the water closer to our
                          house. The mudslide tore thru my barn thru my orchard of fruit trees. Where there was
                          one of our dogs tied.  The water and rand carae so fast that we couldn get our dog out.
                          The next morning his collar was lying in the water new path. As the water and road
                          continued down it filled a 5 foot culvert that had just recently been put back in from the
                          storms of 2001. From 1981 until 2001 it was 3 toot culvert. It was part of our access.
                          The water washed aroand the 5ft culvert and took out my septic system, my bridge and
                          all of my drive way and most of ray yard.  My yard now drops into a 15 foot crater. It
                          not safe for my children to play in their own yard. The entire path that this creek took
                          thru our property has been destroyed. There is still more mudslides waiting on me-  The
                          quality of our well water has compromised to say the least. Up until the 16* we had good
                          water but nova it terrible..
                                                                                                                                   17-1-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-640
                                                                                                            Section A - Organizations

-------
         Thank god that the water and mud stopped 20 feet short of our house. Our house as of
         right now is okay. OUR HOME IS BISTRO YED! The life flat we have always known
         is now non-existent. Hikes thru our owti land is now unsafe.  We are of Cherokee
         nationality and we have always been taught to live off the land. This heritage will no
         longer tie passed down because it is being destroyed with each blast. Everyone that has a
         hand in allowing this mining practice to continue is allowing WV and its heritage to fade
         away. For what, the almighty dollar. We have to live here when you are gone.
              As a femiiy we use to love to sit on my front porch and watch a storm come and
         go. Now it terrifies us to see a storm come.  When the rains  start everyone gets scared of
         whas going to happen next?  if it raining no one ia our house sleeps.  My daughter at 9
         years old is omstantly worried with the mining going on around us. She seen a sticker
         that said Coal keeps fee lights on she replied by saying yeah  but the trees keep our air
         clean.  She knows what affect MTR and vaitey fill and ponds are having on us. Yet the
         college educated scientist is still looking for the reasons we are all getting flooded so
         horribly, so often. Hopefully this will open up your eyes and make you sea that the
         community impact of MTR is simply devastation. The rights of people in Baghdad it
         seems are more important than the rights of the U.S. Citizens.  I know our rights to  life
         liberty and the pursuit of happiness are pretty much gone. Thanks to MTR and its
         practices. If you can sleep with yourselves,  I guess we have  no choice but to stay up with
         the storms.
10-4-2
17-2-2
                                July 21,2003
                                To the EPA and Anny Corp of Engineers—my comments on the Environmental
My name is Patsy Carter and I live on the Tug Fork River. AS I watch the beautiful
gpeeri river, it makes me feel so peaceful and relaxed, then all at once the river tutus
black from a Massey Coal Sludge spill. I am not against coal mining, but we need
to deep mine coal and mine responsibly. There is no need to destroy these
mountains and streams and our children's future to mine coal.

I fear for ray life and my femily's life when it rains. I Slunk of ways to run for the
hills for my fifb, from the floods caused by strip mining. I plan to keep my femiiy
pictures closes to me so that I can save them.

The str^ miring is taking everything from m and o»r children. They will have no
fcture and will never be tble to Ive as true Motmtataeets as we have and that is part
of our children's heritage.

Under this blackened horrible life we are faced to live with because of
irresponsible nHrang—ttis has made our state "Almost Hell*'—instead of— "Almost
Heaven". The people in Logan and Mtogo counjy needs to wake up.

Stop Moutttafctop Removal and stop valley fill mining—stop filling  in the
headwaters of our streams.

Patsy Carter
                                                                                                                 17-2-2
                                                                                                                                                                                                      10-4-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
               A-641
                                                          Section A - Organizations

-------
                          "TV/*    /rV/   j'V.
                                  -^"p  f> V7-
"To.
J. Jr  -J h
             I      Of>f 3   t
              f^,) <-{ d J ri a
        -77
                                      4 .'
                                       l*>

                                       a^
                                      * f
                                           O
                                                         y
                                               16-1-2
                                                                                          ,  p
                                                                                                  c/
                                                                                   .
                                                                                     '
                                                                                         rit)
                                                                   : f7// u>'i
                                                                                                       *    )#i^
                                                                                                         l"7   C
                                                                                                                                       16-1-2
                 15-1-2
                                                                                                                tf)4.-r-tr-
                                                                                                                                       16-1-2
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                    A-642
Secf/on /A - Organizations

-------
                                        £> &•
                    will
                             -a A
                      ; ft**
us*rT£fl.
                                 ffifzfft
                                                           16-1-2
                                                                                                                                 16-1-2
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                     A-643
Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                           Mountain Top  Removal is Massive Ruination not only
                                                                                                      to the beautiful Appalachian Mountains of  eat Virginia,
                                                                                                      but also to every  creature whose exlstance  depends on Shea e
                                                                                                      trjo'.mt&ins for thair survival, from t^e streams covers'?
                                                                                                      by Volley Pills to the -yellayg b®low,  *to®rs Citizens dwell.
                                                                                                           It l&avffis barren landa, valleys filled vitb debris
                                                                                                      and pollutsiS streams and airways from Book  Dust and
                                                                                                      Goal Dust.  It destroys Land, Citizens possessions «nd their
                                                                                                      health, it leases  Slurry lanpoundments  of  Toxic disposal
                                                                                                      seeping into aur water tabl®.
                                                                                                           '•fcat one* started e.s «m aggst to the State of Wsst
                                                                                                      Virginia has bsoora« a liability and the State of West
                                                                                                      Virginia twc payers ere payina for their  damages.
                                                                                  1-9
MTM/VF Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
A-644
Section A - Organizations

-------
                 Hassat*d,s of Motttsfcaiti Top  Hemo^


             Barren mountains

             ffiadatigfflred Species

             Snd#.ng®r©d 1Ve©&

             Flooding

             Toxic  Valley Fills

             Air Pollution

             CQnt&t&inaijed ¥ater

             Bess true t ion to Citizens Property

             Blasting DEttiagos

             Health H&eftrA«

                      Highways
              TTnsafe Run-off Poticis

              Slurry Wjster Spills

              Dfrtted-uo Rivers
1-9
   My sears froa womitaintop reaoval  strip »ining have been more
psychological than physical.

   All my life/ I have been free to roam  the mountains and valleys
near ny home.  How, I would be  considered a lawbreaker and a
trespasser if I wars to go bacK to those  places.  The first thing
a coal company does when it takes a lease in to build a gate, hire
security guards (whom they dress as ccmafcy deputies to further
intimidate the public), and install caneras to liait access.  T
consider this to be an infringement of my civil rights*

   Sometimes & blast frost m nearby siountaintop surface Mine will
rattle the windows aad doors in ay house, even to the point of
hearing the sheetrocK tear from the nails in the ceiling, and if
the blasting gets closer the ^fhole house  may slip off the props
holding it up and slid* onto the railroad tracKa down below.

   And maybe a large boulder froja the cliffs up above the house
will be dislodged by the blasting and destroy tha house.

   I have Public Service District water,  but I also have a deep
well which I hope viil not be harsiad  by the blasting.

   The dust front tha big trucks and from  the traffic going fco th®
»in@8 is awful and tha company  knows  its  a»ful, but I alBost
hava to beg the coapany to pat  down water to settle the dust.
                                                                                                                                              are slowly breaking
                                                                                                                                               only outlet to the
   The large supply trucks going to the ainea
down the trass bridge which is the community'
main highway.

   My yard is full of squirrels, rabbits,  and  bears  that  have
been chased out of the mountains by the blasting  of  th® strip miners
and by the logging which is a precursor fco aountaintop removal
stripping.  The little mniaals coning out  of the  mountains  are
nothing more than sfcin and bones because their food  source  has b®«n
removed.  I love to feed these little animals, bat I would  like
to sea the coal companies and logging coapanies pay  part  of the
feed bill.

   1 -would say that aonntaintop reeoval strip  mining has  had a
severe impact on «y life and the life of ay etsfmnanity.

                              Sincerely yours,

                              Kiehard A. Bradford
                              Edtrtght, W.Va.
                                                                                                 10-2-2
                                                                                                 16-1-2
                                                                                                 15-2-2
MTM/VF Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
              A-645
                                                   Section A - Organizations

-------
        July 23,2003

        To EIS hearing agencies:

        I want to voice ray opinion AGAINST Mouniafatop Removal Valley Fill tniniag,
        This mining is NOT producing jobs, just the opposite, it is destroying jobs.

        The town of Whitesviile is dying with etch new surface mine. The surrounding
        communities are disappearing from the effects of Mountaintop Removal, the
        blasting and the flooding. The animals are running from the hills from lack of
        habitat and are conung d<5wn into our homes and yards.

        The blasting is destroying people's homes and then we have floods caused by this
        type of mining. Our children will "NOT have a place to live aad our mountain
        culture and heritage is being destroyed with each mountain.

        We «e the poorest people and we live in the coal rich counties. Why?

        The coal companies DO NOT put anything back of economic development There
        is NOT one development site on the 90,000 acres destroyed in the Coal River
        Valley. The coal field schools are being closed and as a matter of fact—2 schools
        was closed this year and both witMn 1 mile of many Mtssey Energy mates. Coal is
        NOT giving anything back.

        President Bush should come to these hollows and talk to the people that live with
        the effects of this raining. The recommendations in this study is pure
        HOGWASH!!!!!!!!!

        Lisa Henderson
        P.O. 3
        Rock Creek, WV 25174
1-9
10-2-2
July 21, 2003


My name is Jack Brown, Jr. and I live  at  104  Finley Cirels in
Walhonda tfilliage which is in the Clear Creek Hollow.   I am
a Ufa tis» resident of the gr»at State of Wast Virginia.  I
was born in 1935 at Edwight, WA and my dad waa a retired coal
miner.  I watched him die of black  lung 6 years ago.

Whan I was a small boy living in the coal camp at Edwight, Whlte-
sville and the surrounding areas there was thousands of coal
miners working in th© min^s, not like  today only a very few
work in the mines.

I have seen the streams run black with aoal dust.  But not th®
whole tops of mountains levmled.  Th®  sludge  dams they have
built and the water they have pouleted coal,-trucks ruining the
highways for only a few real jobs?  B«lieve m I am not-against
jobs.

When they poulted in the old day's  at  l*ast 10's of 1000's of
coal Miners had good paying jobs.   Then tfts l^t down happened
the Biinas shut down and the coal maket dried  uj>, people left
the atat® to find work.

But her© w@ go again big coal companies h&v©  found a cheaper
way to get the coal.  Not like ay dad  got it, but by removing
1,000's of mountain top acres filling  in  the  little hollow str-
eaias.  I us«t to catch spring liaards  £or £i®h bait.  W© don't
find the wild things in the mountains  like that any more.

Big coal hava bought and paid for poultions they o«m and don't
give me much of a say so in the matter.   They promise me better
but big coal uses thair money to change the laws to suit them.

1 watched the flood waters wash My  brothers hous© killing his
animale and leaving him ho»i«l©»s.   I saw  what happ«r»d to Boger
Hollar and Sycamore Hollow when the sludge ponds broke,  I wat-
ched my friends and nieghbors cry wondering what to do next.

Sow what did big coal do?  Hot our  fault  an act of-God it wasn't
our faalt the 6am busted and you cry babi«s lost everything
you had.

in finishing this little letter I'a going to  stay hare in ay
little hone and I'm going to fight  with  tha big coal for a dacsnt
place to live without a polluted enviornment  like w® have now
and not one law maker to go to bat  for me.

I guess I'll be fighting for a long tine  or at least until some-
ons does something to stop this land raping,  pouliting the water
like big coal is doing.  Oh yss before I  close the Governor
of our State will only be a one-tera governor so if you can
stop the raping of ray beautiful mountains and can stand up to
big coal.  Please give me you naas  I want to  stand bettipd you
and support you for gotfarnor.    _   Thank
                                                                                                   1-9
MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
          A-646
                                                Section A - Organizations

-------
                   Citizens Comments
                       Concerning
                Coal Waste Impoundments
                  .x
                       Citizens Comments
                          Concerning
                    Coal Waste Impoundments

                                                                      NAME:

                                                                      DATE:
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-647
Section A - Organizations

-------
                   Citizens Comments
                       Concerning
                Coal Waste Impoundments
                      lisS
                                              f
                   J
         NAME:
         DATE: 7- /
                                 ZkJ In*.

                                     CJ /, >
                                             Q-fUL,
_1^ Qj^JL
                                            NAME:
                                            DATE
                                                       Citizens Comments
                                                          Concerning
                                                    Coal Waste Impoundments
                                                                                 .fd
                                                                                        MIA.
                                                      LI'JL,
                                                                                   .A,
                                                                                   .
                                                                                   A
                                                                                                      , 4
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                             A-648
Section A - Organizations

-------
                    Citizens Comments
                        Concerning
                 Coal Waste Impoundments
                         Citizens Comments
                             Concerning
                      Coal Waste Impoundments
                        \MXLi
         NAME:
                                     k.
                            i, ALOIO,   L^jtJtt. F
                                            /y/.
                                                                        DATE:
                                              w   &
                                  4&l0>es&£ . AjUMU&LS £**£***JLj ^SL*tj»^> J
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-649
Section A • Organizations

-------
                    Citizens Comments
                        Concerning
                 Coal Waste Impoundments
                                                                       Citizens Comments
                                                                           Concerning
                                                                    Coal Waste Impoundments
        /a j-v
                   .be.
-ZSm
         DATE:
                           us
                                   /r  y»i-
LfifiLjO
                                                                u^ flueft (L fimi Jliur
                                                                                        , /3tuk
                                                                          NAME:
                                                            DATE:  7.-J-.
                                                                                                     ..Xtot &
                                                                                                        .
                                                                                                          IiUtf,
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                               A-650
                                                          Section A - Organizations

-------
                       Citizens Comments
                          Concerning
                    Coal Waste Impoundments
                                ^-^f
                iJL jiujp    fs .IAJ A*

                Sjtjmn&erj  JW
             DATE: 7-/-
                             <&lr,4
                                 s>~
                                    -
                                7   T
                                    f 5
                                      '
                         Citizens Comments
                             Concerning
                      Coal Waste Impoundments
                                                                                   -
                                                                                   jMS0....£A-.f1lA*j*JlO {JjUfTttt j}ltJjt4Jl I J
                                                                                   ]^
                                                                                                             $tiL
                                                   f.t.fnj £t)frt/t*Jl_-

                                                                                  o
                                                                                      /7;
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-651
Section A - Organizations

-------
                    Citizens Comments
                       Concerning
                Coal Waste Impoundments
                                                                         Citizens Comments
                                                                            Concerning
                                                                      Coal Waste Impoundments
DATE:
                                .
                      a
                      ^-±krt  )^,
                     .a "fjfj   If* fiJb
                                                ,    '  o
                                                                      4W. (r
                                                                       n^f^ '
                                                                                 4 flli
                                                                       DATE: O7-Q2.-OS
                                                                                             Ufar^ij
                                                                                                .t-.U
-------
                   Citizens Comments
                      Concerning
                Coal Waste Impoundments
                        Citizens Comments
                           Concerning
                    Coal Waste Impoundments
NAME:

DA

                                       -$L.<£&u
                                              &
                                                                    ...PR
             NAME:

             DATE:
                                                                               +hn4-  rv^  nn^.   1^4-
                          fhfnH
                               Wvte
                                                                                                  u
                                                                                                       )H
                                                                                                    nyy;  t
                                 -to
                                                                                                       in
                                                                                            T.\f.
                                                                                                  -.-X
                                                                                                          4-him
                                                                                                           '
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-653
                                                                                       Section A - Organizations

-------
                                            Comments of the
                                Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (OVEC)
                                             PO Box 6753
                                       Huntington, WV 25773-6753

                                                on the

                            Draft Programmotfc Environmental Impact Statement on
                        Mounltintop Removal Mining/Valley Fill Activities in Appaltrftia
                The Sin-ial ami Cultural F.ffcols of Mmmliiinlnii Removal/ Valley Fill foal Mining

              Submitted in supplemtnt to comments prqmndfvr 0 VEC by Jamis Heater tui Joseph
                    Larett, counsel for tlte West Virginia WfAtarfs Conservancy and OVEC
                                 Blasting...

                                 Coal dust...

                                 Coal trucks...

                                 Comments from individuals...

                                 Disenchantment with the political process...

                                 Externalized costs...

                                 Hooding...

                                 Falling property values,..

                                 Lost culture / way of life...

                                 Sludge impoundments / blaekwtter gpilli...

                                 Stress/Fear/Health...

                                 Conclusion.^
    ...03

    ...05

    ...32

    ...34

    ...37

    ...47

    ...48

    ...51

    ...53

    ...53

    ...55

    ...61

    ...61
               Compiled by Vivian Stockman, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, from information
              collected from coalfield reskients, field observations, news reports and weosites. Coal River
             Mountain Watch and Dclbarton Environmental Commtinity Awareness Foitndatioa assisted in
                                        collecting this information.
                                                                                                                                        Original copies of comments from individuals

                                                                                                                                        Photos of blasting damage

                                                                                                                                        I jst of blasting complaints

                                                                                                                                        Prelimifltiry Performance Review --OEB

                                                                                                                                        Phosos of MTR—"Minimgl" Impact?
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-654
Section A - Organizations

-------
             Introduction
             The Ohio Valley Hnvimitmemal Coalition (OVKC) Is a grassroots environmental group based in
             Huntingttm, W. Va. OVEC's members oppose mountain removal / valley till coal mining.  We
             have about i 500 members, mostly from West Virginia, many from regions when; MTR is
             practiced.

             These Draft Environmental Impact Statement (0EIS) comments are submitted as a
             supplement to the continents prepared for OVEC by .lames Hecker and Joseph Lovett,
             counsel fur the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and OVEC. Please refer to those
             comment for specific arguments  detailing how the DEIS violates the 1998 Bragg Settlement
             Agreement by failing  to include Action Alternatives to minimize environmental impacts. That
             document enumerates many other outrageous failures to adhere to law within the DEIS.

             The DEIS on mountaintop removal / valley fill coal mining (MTR) fails miserably to study,
             measure, quantify, report and make recommendations on the social and cultural effects of
             mountaintop removal  coal mining. Some of those effects are detailed herein, hut this is by no
             means an exhaustive accounting of the full spectrum of MTR's social and cultural impacts.  The
             agencies in charge of creating a valid scientific BIS OS MTR mast make every effort to
             exhaustively study and quantify the social and ctiltural 'impacts of mouMaimop removal. At the
             very minimum, the social and current cultural effects of MTR removal listed herein must be
             taken into account in the EJS. The BIS recommendations must accurately reflect these effects
             and must include recommendations for actions that will relieve and eliminate the negative social
             and cultural impacts of mountaintop removal / valley fill coal mining.

             If you take a drive in regions where coal companies practice MTR, some of the social and
             cultural effects of this form of mining are readily apparent.  Follow a public road in Kanawha
             County, W. Va., heading toward the community of Republic. You'll find a  gate across the public
             road. Community gone, access denied, MTR underway. Head toward Mud in Lincoln County.
             Only one home remaining, and that's in Arch Coal's cross hairs. The homes that were up
             Connelly Branch are gone, the home sites and the branch itself buried under millions of tons of
             former mountains. In Lxigan County, all that is left of Detrae are the broken foundations of
             homes. Where there is MTR, you'll  find this scenario repeated. THE HIS must make an effort to
             list the communities lost forever to MTR and document or quantify what the losses mean for
             Appalachian culture.

             Harly in 2004,  the Falling Mountain music  label will release the musical CD, "Moving
             Mountains: Appalachian Voices Rise Up." Artie, W, Va.. resident Joe Bamett has a track on this
             CD, in which he speaks about MTR. His words give a good summary of the various MTR-
             related social and cultural impacts suffered by people and communities that have the misfortune
             of being near MTR operations:

                   My name is Joe Bamett. I  live in Artie WV. I live up in the head of a little hollow that
                   has been affected by MTR in a very adverse way. The coal company came in initially and
                   said that they were going to do a little strip mining and said that it wouldn't do any harm
                   to our community. So they got their permits and they came in and they started  to cut
                   timber and ran off all the wildlife, and then they started their valley  fill, polluted our
                   streams, killed off our fish. Basically they came in and they raped our community.
10-2-2
Then, am t result of that we got a Hood that waited a lot of people's properties out And
they came in to repair the damage from the flood and they cut our water supply oft Arid
everything that we have got them to do we have had to force them with & lawyer to do. It
makes us feel lite we are second class citizens.

They also effectively turned neighbor against neighbor, family against family. It's
really...riot only did they rape the mountains and the hollows but they are splitting up the
communities too.

I've worked in the mines since 1974, but it was all underground mining. And this valley
fill mining that comes m. ..they first come In and they just cut down every tree in sight.
that's called clear cutting. They just completely clean the mountainside off. And then
they start dynamiting and shaking your homes up. Then once they start blasting, the rock
they just start pushing it over into whatever valley is nearby. They till in stream beds and
they run off game,

Us country people like to elg up rmnps In the spring and we like to ginseng En the
fait They wipe out ho I'M of these. We dMr hunt atid fish. That's no longer available
to us. They have suceessfuWy destroyed our way of life and our communities, is what
they've really dene.

We have people in the community who are in their mid-eighties, and in all their lives they
have never seen floods in the hollow like this. !a 199? the first flood came and it cost two
people their Hves in our community, a woman arid a little boy. And in 200 j we had three
floods. Each flood does its fair share of damage. The companies not only get away with
this, the state will approve permits for them, and the Mggest insult to our community and
our way of life is then the company goes public and calls it ait act of God. And thai
infuriates me, because Clod did not set those mountains and valleys there to be destroyed.

A lot of times when the coal companies  go before judges they can get judges to look at H
from an industry point of view and call it big business, and call it progress. And a lot of
judges rale for it and the common man does not always have much say in it.

As far as the tome gee$-"*mv Nome is 12 years did—what the blast damage did not
mess up.. .the flooding affected my tend, and I probably couldn't sell my home itow.
I probably wouldn't get anything for It now, We live!« fear. The whole hollow is in
a state of anxiety now every time it stornts. We've learned thai they've been perrailled
to start another strip mine on the other side of the hollow, so now we are going to have it
behind us and in front of us.

Thy way we gauge it is that if the pond (sediment pond below a valley fill) starts to
overrun into some spillways we know that it is only a matter of time that the little streams
will be full in the hollow. So different ones of us go up and just check it regularly, even
in the middle of the  night some of us chock it.

We've lost two: 34-yesr-old woman, and a 15-year-old boy, stepping into their yard,
The little ditch in front of their yard that normally carried off a IttUe bit of road water had
washed out to the extent thai they did not realize that the ditch had wasted out. We did
                                                                                                                      10-2-2
MTIWVF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
          A-655
                                                      Section A - Organizations

-------
                   not find them until the next day-right In from of her home, (lid Note: Wood waters
                   gushing off a valley nil killed these two people.)

                   I always like to say that every law that has been written on safely was signed with
                   someone's blood, "cause its always been through accidents that there's &ny improvements
                   in our laws. Apparently the lawmakers in the «tatc arc swayed by lobbyists and special
                   interest groups. They come in and make big political contributions to candidates. Its
                   corruption at its highest level, that's whal you'd have to call It. The common man, the
                   working man, is not able to get out and go to the statehousc to all these meetings and try
                   to lobby, because we  are out tryttig to provide tor our families. And these special interest
                   groups come in and throw a little money around and they pretty well gel whatever they
                   want and it angers us—the working class. We elect people into office who make us all
                   kinds of promises.

                   i would like to see enforcement of the existing laws, and as we learn of new problems for
                   the law. to develop new taws and ealoree them. It' they continue to wash away and flood
                   everywhere there's not going to be any people living in any of these hollows. West
                   Virginia is going to become one giant strip mine.

                   Any time  you come in and you destroy a stream and the fish in that stream and the
                   animals in the mountains you're affecting God's creation. And I don't like to see
                   anything come in and do (hat. And not only in it affecting the animals, it's affecting
                   God's people.

                   If a common guy like myself goes out there and throws anything iit the creek. DEP will
                   fine me severely for it Bui a big corporation can come in and bury miles of streams and
                   they arc committed to doing, that. And it bothers me thai the same law that holds me
                   won't hold the coal companies.

             A* MTR at&autis  the basics that sustain life— waier,  land ami ewn the air (AW hlanimg, coal
             dnat)t an it assaults the ha$ic.\ thai sastftin the Appalachian culture.  The  EIS rfctMtttwtultititms
             must accurateiy reflect th?w effects aftd Must ittcittdt rtfcftwrnentlations for actions thai will
             relieve and eliminate the negative social and cultural impacts of mauntaintop removal / vajfoy
             fill coal twining.
             In section U. A.6 of the DI«IS, the federal government asserts:

                    "J'he regulatory review and study oonctesiom confirmed that existing regulatory controls provide
                    adequate protections from eoal-trriiilag reteed blasting impacts OB public safety and structures
                    i»clBding wells.

                    Hndings further indicate UK existing regulatory programs are intended to ensure public safety
                    and prevent dama§c raitw than eliminate nuisances ftom eoaf mine blasting activities.

                    Some bitting within legal limits may still constitute a nuisaitce to people lit tlie genera! area. As
                    with all nuisances, the affutled persons may have tegal recourse regarding bitting nuisances
                    through civil action.
10-2-2
                                                   , blaming is not considered a 'significant issue' asid m> actions are considered In this
Perhaps blasting is "not considered a significant issue" to someone living outside the areas where
mountaintop removal is occurring. But, to residents who live- in the near MTR operations.
Wasting is a highly sif nifieant issue. Most would fsrohably consider the above quoted statements
from the D)74S to be absurd and insulting. Residents look to regulatory agencies to take actions
that will protect their lives, their quality of life, their health, their homes and their water supply.
Coal companies should obey the law and the government should do its job in enforcing coal
mining laws; residents should not be forced to take on the expense and burden of hiring attorneys
lo protect themselves and their property from the Wasting associated with MTR.

Nok thai in the above paragraphs the DlilS carefully talks about "blasting within legal limits."
Of course, many citizens believe that much blasting occurs outside legal limits. Even for MTR-
blasts that arc within legal limits, many citben complaints to the West Virginia Department of
I'lnvironmental Protection (WVDHP) and the corresponding Kentucky agency would suggest that
these blasts affect lives and property at levels thai far exceed the "nuisance" level. Please refer to
the attached document listing recent MTR~nflaied hhtsting rom/>ls/nw made ttt the WVDEP,
Remember, the blasts that coal companies sel off for their MTR operations can be anywhere
from ten lo 1 00 times the force of the blast that cracked open the Oklahoma City Federal
Building, killing 16H people. People living as far away as 12 miles from MTR sites have called
in complaints about MTR-relatcd blasting to WV DBP. Many coalfield residents keep very
detailed logs of the blasts that shake their homes. Citizens have  reported to environmental groups
that they feel like their complaints about blasting to officials are not taken seriously. Some
believe the DK1> maintains a "chronic ccstnplainers" list and tends to discount their calls. We
suggest thai the RIS include several samples of these citi/en logs. We also suggest that the
DEP's entire database on Wasting complaints from citizens be included in the BIS.

In etrly 21)0.1 author tennis Burke e-mailed: "Approximately ZSfX) tons of high explosives are
used against the mountains of West Virginia and Kentucky each work day. Every four days,
therefore, more explosives are used against Appatehia's hills than were used by the US military
in the entire Afghanistan bombing campaign, livery day in Appalachia. the blasting is (he
equivalent of U>X) Oklahoma City bombings."  No wonder coalfield residents arc saying they
feel like they are being terrori/ed. !

Citizens who experience these blasts obviously know that existing regulatory controls DO NOT
provide adequate protections from coal-mining-related blasting  for public safety and structures.
including water wells. Nor do the existing regulator)' programs prevent damages from MTR-
blasting:

   •   For example, near Van in Bne County, W. Va. one family's house insurance will not
       be renewed because MTR-relsted blasting destroyed the foundation of the family's home
       to the point the home has been condemned. Set tttr picture of this cmmbltd foundation
       in the  "PAnfos of Surface Mating Btastittg Effects" attachment.  Note that WVOHI"
       inspectors refused to admit lhat MTR-blasttng caused  the damage. The family knows the
       truth.  The HIS should list all people who can no longer obtain insurance from their
       homes due to Masting damages or potential Wasting damages,
                                                                                                                          16-3-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
          A-656
                                                              Section A - Organizations

-------
                 *  Numerous residents have publicly stated thai they have either lost their well-water or Nad
                    their well waier become impotable after MTR-related blasting bcggn shaking their homes,
                    "Insignificant*"* Hardly! The K!S should document these losses and include an analysis of
                    the k place on file hiltside iihove his
                                           home f«w about iwx) years and thought of it as only a minor nuisance that caused dishes aitd
                                           pictures to rattle,

                                           Tve lived \h&& my whole iifc and never saw any fly rock," Pinsoa said,

                                           Bui when \\& mltifsedtotn shopping, Pinson ibsnd his home in ruins. Stunned* ^ sifted Jhrougih
                                           ihe rabble for a few articles of dotftiog afid left for the motel.

                                           l^rriek Scott, an ofHeer with the Johns Creek Volunteer l-'ire Departmeiu, which first responded
                                           to the accident, said Pinsofl was iucky he wasn't home  when ihe boulder came crashing down.
                                           "He definitely aiuld have been kf lied," Scott said.

                                           State inspectors, wfjo were trying to both secure tiK area and conduct an investigation, said they
                                           were not sure wtie« the residents would be able to return home.
16-3-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-657
                                                          Section A - Organizations

-------
                     "It's still a dangerous situation," said JetYTaylor, a supervises- with the Kentucky I>paitn«sit frtr
                     Surface Mintag Ketlamaiioa a«d Enforcement "Nohod> can go back «ns il the area's been
                     C'arl Campbell * commissioner of Uie state Department for Surface Mining. said the incident luib
                     convinced Sum 10 give several ingpccNirs the fulltime responsibility rae!ices at strip-tnitse SINS

                     Aller a fcpatc oi fl\ totk incidents in the lint bait of last year Campbell ordered the- department *»
                     ncarlv 15) inspectors to lake ackittionat timing on dangerous bUvtmg methods, but no inspectors
                     had Hasting issues as their sole respond hi tit\

                     "I feel like no matter what I do lliere wif! be some, hut we have to do ail we can to redu« them,"
                     Campbell said.  .

              The Associated Press reported on the same event:

                     Jerry Ptason, who lived in tise mobile home, was stopping when the boulder crashed through «he
                     bedroom -area of the mobile hosje.

                     His neighbor, Melissa i .opn, said she heard a Wast th&t was louder than usual* "Just a few
                     seconds after that was the big crash," she said "Aad I looked oat rny window and saw thai, 1 was
                     just amazed. 1 was shocked."

                     IjOgan said the incident IMS shaken everyone tivteg oear line mine site.

                     "I'm just really scared about my kids," she said, "We're ail lite time outside pSuyhig, and I'm afraid
                     it could happen here, wipe my house out."

              On April 15, 2003, in an article headlined "Miner who resigned settles suit" which appeared ia
              the Lexington Herald Leader. Roger Alford of the Associated Press reported;

                     An Eastern Kentucky coal miner who resigned mihar than detonate blasts that could have
                     bombarded homes with rocks will receive $ J42,500 from his former employer,

                     Oat Marshall, who is being heralded as a hero by sottve coalfield residents, claimed In a Sawsait
                     that he refused to hucide under pressure to violate state blasting requirements,

                     The Jaeksoti man had said he feared selling off the blasts might haw Injured people or damaged
                     property in the Leteher County community of Deane, He couJdnl be r«^Ijcd fe comment
                     yesterday,

                     Marshall, a btestnitg SMpervisttr, resigned in August 2tM)i  and filed a iftwswlt i« November 20fH
                     against lil Dorado Gieniica! Co, and Comol of Kentucky^ claiming that by presswrinf him to
                     violate state irequi&meuts tljc companies had essentially fOKed Win from his job. El iX)rado was
                     a blasting coatractar ft>r Consol.

                     flic lawsuit was scheduled for trial Uxlay In U.S. District Court in  Pikeville.

                     "My client walked away from a gd-|^yi% job based Q« the fact that they ted asked him to do
                     something illegal," said Prestomburg lawyer NedPltteradarf.
                                                  fff ackiwulcdged yesterday that the a'lt
                                           tlie aniiHjfit of the setiteraent.
                                                                                                                                                                                                   oni had been readied. He also acknowledged
16-3-2
                                           Neither Bruce Crydcr, a l,extngton attorney rq^rcsentingConsot, nor Rsmdail Scoit May, a
                                           Ha/,ard attorney repressoting Bl Dorado, could he reached for comment yesterday.

                                           C^*fa Anderson, of" I etcher County, said Marshall siiouki be pm^scd.

                                           "It's a good tiring, what he did," said Anderstwi, who says her home has been damaged by blasting
                                           in the MeRohcn^ area. "I wish someone would stand up for UK in MeRoberts,"
While the DEIS stales that
". . .existing regulatory controls provide adequate protection from coal-miffing related Wasting
impacts on public safety and structures" and "the existing regulatory programs an,* intended to
ensure public .safety and prevent damage rather than eliminate nuisances from coal itHde blasting
activities.*." ihc public, as evidenced above, strongly disagrees. The West Virginia Legislative
Auditor apparently also disagrees. /V«wy srt the attached Wesf Virginia Legislative Auditor's
docunwnt from Dec 2002:  "Preliminary P&rforfntmce Rfvim, The Office wf E'tptosives and
Blasting, The Office of Explosives ami Bt Is Not Mvft'mg Ali Ketfuircd Mandate. " Just
because regulations are tit place doesn't mean they ate being followed

l-'rom page 5 oi' the Auditor's document:

       The Office of Expiodvw and Bltwtinfi (OliB) was created hy Senate Bill 6H1 during the t999
       session of the 73*1 West Vlfgfnia legislature In this report, tfie iegisiaiive AtidrhT reviewed arvtfn
       marjdates ttiat are oailined for Ute OMB i« Chapter 22. Ariicle 3a of the Code. Of tije seven
       mandates reviewed, tlie ix^tsiative Auditor Concludes that the OliB has mei and continues to
       meet three, 1) impleinefltation of the pfe-hlast survey pmLev,  2) education, tnsirting, examination
       atid eeilitkatioiJ of hlasf^-; and 3) proposal of SegisSati ve rule-s However, Hiere are Tour mandaies
       which are mil tuving met to the extent to which OKI) was creased,

       ! .      RcnulaMtm of Hinting on Surface Mine Operations - OBB is charge with regulating
       blasting on at! surface mine operations. However, the majority of tasks regulating hlastii^
       t^temtiom are current iy being performed by fhe Divisum ol Minhig and Retlansation, not the
       OF,B

       2.      Setting of Qu^lfleatiom f«r 1 ndi vidunis Perfwrmisg I»re-Btast Surveys - lite O! "B
       has set (he quaHficatiotis fof ii^vlduah conducting pre-hlaKt surveys in its iegtslative rules
       However, the primary requirement of these rules is that individual 
-------
                    t indeed. Please consider this article by &ea Ward, Jr. in the Aug 3,2003 edition of the
            Sunduy da/£ lie-Mail:

                   Mining study: Blasts not 'significant1
                   Federal regulators have determined, ifl their fitew study on mountainiop removal, that
                   mine blasting is not a "significant issue" in freed of additional restrictions.

                   The federal Office oi' Surface Mining and other agencies .say citizen complaints about
                   blasHng probably will continue.

                   As strip mines have gotten higher, the agencies said, so have the explosive Masts used on
                   them. Ai the same time, federal blasting limits have not been updated for 20 yenrs.

                   But, the agencies said, complaints of property damage by blasting seldom are justified.

                   Coalfield residents, the agencies .said, should hire private lawyers und go to court if they
                   feel blasting near ihesr homes is a nuisance.

                   "No additional actions to control hkudng are warranted a! this time," concludes the
                   5^HK)-page draft report issued in late May. "As with all nuisances, the  iifTeeted persons
                   have legal recourse regarding hiasiiog nuisances through civil action."

                   TfteOSM U.S. fjnvironmental !*n>tecu'on Agertcy, Corps of Engineers m$ the Hsh and
                   Wildlife Service spent 4 1/2 yean working an the report.

                   In December 1998, the agencies agreed in & court stHttaftcni to conduct a comprehensive
                   study of mouittainton removal. Their goal, they said at the time, was to consider new
                   rules to "minimi/a the potential for adverse
                   individual and cumulative impacts of minifig operations,"

                   Instead, the Bush administration has proposed a plan to streamline mine permittut|i. The
                   plan includes no concrete new  limits on mountainiop removal.

                   As part of their study, federal officials abandoned consideration of additional blasting
                   restrictions. They dropped the issue whdfi they narrowed the list of "significatw issues"
                   that deserved detailed examinati^m.

                   in mountaintop removal, coa! operators use explosives io biast off entire hilltops and
                   uncover valuaWe, low-sulfur coal reserves, leftover rock and dirt is dumped into nearby
                   valleys, burying strearns-

                   Over Uie past five years, complaints about riotse, dtist a^d property Jamage from Wasting
                   have been A consistent concern of cUixens at public meetings about mouniaimop removal.

                   In the first national expose* «n mountaintop removal. Penny Lneb of U.S. News a^id
                   World Report focused on the dangers of nsine blasting.
16-3-2
"Bksts aw made with the same mixture of ammoaium nitrale and fertilizer *md fuel oil
used in the tank (hat killed tfi$ people ill Oklahoma City two }>eare ago. hut the miniaf
explosions are 10 lu 100 itaes stronger," I^eh wrote in August 1997,

Tn November 1998, a task force appointed by Gov. G3dl Urtdcrwood called for better
policing of mim' Wasting.

A few months tear, during the 1999 session, the Legislature created a new Office of
Explosives and Blasting within the Depaftment of Environmental Protection.

In their new report, federal officials praise West Virginia lor its "leadership role hi
passing laws wd rejulaihtfls rtiat highlight the importance of mining companies being
good corporate neighbors and addressing citizens' blasting concerns.*'

But in a study released in December 2002, West Virginia's 1 .egislativc Auditor found that
the Mil* Wasting office wasn't doing its job.

For example, trae audit report said, the ofitce had not yet taken over policing of mine-
related Massing froffl the DRP's Division of Mining and Reclamation. The office had not
yet trained anyone to per form pre-blast surveys or set up fin m-liouse database to track
Wasting complaints.

More importantly, the office reported a backlog of complaints thai had not been
inspected tot atone resolved. At the time of the audit 39 of 202 eumpMflts filed with the
blasting office had not yet twen assigned to an inspector. Fifty-four of the 2(52 claims
were resolved. But of lie 148 open claims, only five had been sent to a claims
administrator for resolution, the audit found. More than one-third of the open claims were
more than a year old. the audit said.

"Citizens with open claims could be living In iiamrdous conditions due to 
-------
                   The new report dies an OSM study of 1300 Masting complaints nationwide. The study
                   found thai ''no instances of blast-induced vibration damage were found attribtitable to the
                   mining operation by the regulatory authority."

                   Federal rules already outline a variety of restrictions on blasting, the new study says.

                   Mine workers directly responsible for explosives must be trained and tested. Coal
                   operators most  place Wasting-schedule announcements in local newspapers. Residents
                   within a half-mile must be mailed a schedule. Mining operators offer pre-blast surveys to
                   residents within a half-mile  of the permit area.

                   "Once blasting is Initiated, U must be conducted in a manner to prevent personal
                   Injury, damage to public or private property beyond the permit boundary, and
                   adverse impacts to nearby underground urines or surface and groundwater
                   availability outside the permit area," the study says.

                   The report says these rules "have not changed substantially" since 1983 — before
                   the huge growth in mountaintop*reiiioval mining.

                   "The agencies recognise that, in spite of enforcement of the existing regulations and
                   implementation of the recent program improvements, blasting concerns/complaints will
                   continue," the study concludes.

                   "Regulations provide a limited ability to control nuisance impacts," the study says. 'The
                   regulations were designed to minimize damage potential and only indirectly address
                   nuisance; however,  citizens retain the right to take civil action against a mining operation
                   for nuisance-related concerns.

                   "There have been court cases in the coalfields where mining activities have been ordered
                   to adjust operational procedures (i.e., above-and- beyond existing regulatory program
                   controls) to reduce public nuisances."

             It is flat-out wrong, insulting and disgusting for the DEIS to dismiss blasting impacts as
             insignificant. We repeat:  Coalfield residents should not have to, as a matter of government
             policy, sue to protect  their homes and their health from MTR-related blasting. That's an
             arrogant, outrageous suggestion! Whoever inserted that preposterous  idea into the DEIS is
             no public servant, but a blatant coal industry apologist. That person ought to he fired from
             public office and go back  to openly working for the coal  industry.  We also reiterate that
             coalfield residents have repeatedly expressed concern that regulatory agencies frequently
             fail to attribute to MTR-retated-blasting damages that citizens clearly fee! are related to
             MTR-blastlng.

             To go deeper into the MTR-related blasting issue, please consider the following  information,
             lifted from Penny Ixwb's website. www.wvcogtirieid.cQro (emphasis added):

                   BLASTING: WHAT'S CAUSING ALL THESE PROBLEMS?
16-3-2
16-3-5
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act was passed to stop coal mines from
"damaging the properly of cki7.erts.,.(and)creatmg ha/ards dangerous to life and
property by degrading the quality of life in local communities."

"It is the purpose of this Act to ... (b) assure that the rights of surface landowners and
other persons with a legal interest in the land...are fully protected" and "(m) where ever
necessary, exercise the full reach of Federal constitutional powers to insure the protection
of the public interest through effective control of surface coa! mining operations."

INTRODUCTION

When I picked up my  yearly list of complaints from DEP in March 2000.1 discovered
just as many blasting complaints as in previous years, and at mines I had never heard of.
So I decided to find out if there is any difference between the blasts that people complain
about and those that they don't.

I collected data on 1,134 blasts at nine mines of various sixes. Of these. 3f>9 had caused
problems—such as vibration or noise or dust—for nearby residents. In about three-
quarters of the problem blasts, they did differ in some significant way from the blasts that
did not cause problems. The differences varied by mine, and not all applied to any one
mine. The specifics are discussed under the sections on each mine. But general
characteristics include: air blasts over 115 dB, larger shallow binder shots, low-frequency
shots, large amounts of explosive per deity, blasts that exceed the scaled-distance
formula, cast blasting, two or more shois at the same time, and larger shots closer to
homes.

Experts say that other  factors can cause blasts to be troublesome as well including the
way explosives are placed in holes, brand of explosive, and misfiring*. These could not
be determined from the information available.

This analysis is based  on a database of the information on the Masting logs. Blasting logs
contain two pages of information on each blast, including: time, location, number of
holes, amount of explosive per hole, Wast design and length of delays between holes.
Sometimes them will also be information on ground vibratkm, air blast levels and
frequency from seismograph readings. Some mines are required to seismograph all blasts,
while others have been seismographcd by DEP after complaints from residents.

I determined which blasts caused problems in two ways, Some resulted in complaints to
DEP.  Others were noted on lists kept by people living near the mines. In every
community except one. I got a list kept by at least one resident.

The regulations say the director can give the public access to the blasting logs.  Hut they
don't  require cnpies, so Libby Lindsay (a retired miner and summer intern at the West
Virginia Organizing Project) and I had to take laptops to the mines. When we tad  to sil
on boxes and USB ptib as tables in the guard shack at Whits Flume (the first mine), we
thought we were in for a rough summer. Fortunately, accommodations improved, but
varied greatly. Paynter Branch required us to go to a lawyer's office in Charleston and
                                                                                                                        16-3-5
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         14
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-660
                                                       Section A - Organizations

-------
                   assigned a young secretary to watch. Pen Coal had a supervisor hand us each Misting log.
                   one by one, and asked lor a copy of the daui.

                   For all mines but one, we used the time period of the beginning of 1999 through Spring
                   20SMK The other mine had ceased blasting for part of 1999 so we a!so looked at older
                   records. We entered every Wast that generated a complain! to DliP. We tried to enter at
                   least two fall months of blasts during the months when there were the most problems.
                   That way we could compare blasts that were problems to others that were placet! nearby
                   at the same time of year. Ideally, we would have tried to gather another 500 blasts, but
                   our time was limited with each mine. We have gone hack to as many mines as passible
                   and checked the data.

                   t have spoken with seven Wasting experts, read both the OSM and DfiP blastinf manuals,
                   reviewed studies and court testimony and have discussed my findings with PEP and
                   officials at the mines. 1 asked all the mines for a response. Paynter Branch, Btfidmill and
                   Mingo lag-as did not respond. Pen Coal officials and  I are still trying to set a date for an
                   interview.

                   This  study is about both nuisance problems and  damage. The law gives citi/ens the right
                   to enjoyment of their property. Yet. in every community where there is blasting, there are
                   certain shots that cause houses lo shudder, items on walls and shelves to shake. The blasts
                   can be very loud or cause a lot of dust. At most mines, these types of blasts only occur
                   about a tir/en days out of the month. The olhurs don'! hother people,

                   In fact the Secretary of the Interior stated in the Federal Register, when OSM
                   issued Its blasting regulations in 1983, that citizens' health and safety should be
                   protected as to "create the least discomfort."  "OSM believes that prevention of
                   excessive noise, especially In populated and residential areas, is within the ambit of
                   'health and safety or welfare."'

                   The coal company officials, and to some  extent DHP officials, sometimes dismiss the
                   people who claim problems as "chronic complainers." Sure these people exist. But 1 am
                   confident (hat the people from whom 1 got complaints had legitimate problems and did
                   not exaggerate.

                   My purpose was not to determine exactly what made those blasts problematic. There is
                   not enough information on the logs for such precise findings, nor do I have the expertise.
                   What 1 wjinted to find out is whether there is enough s-uggestion of difference to warrant
                   further study.

                   The mines usually abide by the regulatory limits of I inch/second ground movement and
                   133 dB air blast. Vibration is supposed !o be minimi/ed by separating the explosions of
                   each delay by at least 8 ms. Mines usually use a 'Valed-disiance formula." This limits
                   the amount of explosive per delay period. For example, the  limit for a biasi 2.600 feel
                   from the closest protected structure is 2,234 pounds per delay period. The closer a mine
                   gets !o a house, the less explosive per delay is allowed. The formula does not have to he
                   followed if a seismograph is at Ihe closest house.
16-3-5
When a citi/en files a complaint, Ate DEP inspector, in nearly every case, will write
that blasting was within the regulation and go away, leaving angry citizens. They
feel as If they are In (he Twilight Zone. How can the inspector ray blasting Is being
done properly when their house shakes? Some inspectors have even pinpointed
types of blasts that cause problems under these limits, especially air blasts above 11S
dB (the« are explained In the analysis of each mine below). Vet DEP and OSM
refuse to IfMjk beyond these standards.

The regulations arc based on research done 15-20 years ago by the Bureau of Mines.
None was done in West Virginia, and research was with stnallcr blasts and partly on a
new house built specifically lo test blasting. Two recent bodies of research have been
developed that refute the accepted limits. (1 can supply copies to anyone who wishes).

.Sam Kiger. Dean of Engineering at the University of Missouri, was the expert for the
Bim blasting case, which wis tried in court in Boone County in March  1999. Kiger is an
international expert in protecting federal buildings from blasting damage. After
examining 6,001) Wasting logs, he  testified that there is about a 95 percent chance of
damage  at a vibration limit of .5 inches/second, if you count each of the holes shot (5<) on
average) as a separate vibration. In the Bim case, he also testified that low-frequency
waves $2 Hz-! I H/) generated by  some blasts can be more damaging. The frequencies
can match that of a house and amplify the shaking.

Freda Harris, who had a blasting case with a mine in Indiana, gathered many
documents during file case and subsequent FOIAs of OSM. She wrote a manual for
Citizens Coal Council. One of her most Intriguing findings was that Btere can be
"hot spots" In a community where the geography can make blasts worse. She
emphasizes ti»at dantage and vibrations can feel worse if a house's natural
frequency is approximately  between 4 Hz and 12 Hz. The above-ground part of the
house often vibrates more than the ground outside and the foundation. Vet, the
DEP/OSM standard is based on ground vibration.

Most of the blasting studies of the Bureau of Mines were done by the David Siskind. The
FOlAs provided much correspondence between Siskind and other experts, some of i!
quite critical. A top official of Vibra-Tech, a leader in designing blasting technology,
said: "Any criteria...which ignores the frequency of a structure and the frequency
content of the ground motion Is overly simplistic...Your criteria, as proposed, will
neither  protect the Interest of the citizen and the homeowner, nor will it protect the
blaster from alleged damage claims."

After the Bureau of Mines was shut  down by Congress, Siskind became a private
consultant. He testified for the coal company that lost the Bim case. The majority of the
blasting  cases have overturned his studies, and thereby the limits used by PHP and OSM.
As he wrote an OSM official on June 17,1997: "The battles 1 am now seeing are nw (1.5
in/sec versus 1 .(1 in/sec. Complainants are trying to dismiss all the science as M&sed,
wrong or nonapplieable. r-ar the most part, they are succeeding in ways that pay off."
                         16-3-5
MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
            A-661
Section A - Organizations

-------
                    interi*$t3ftg|y, the 0EI* "Surface Mine Btnslin^ Singly Giiidt" acknowledges thirf the
                    response of the human body is greater at Sower fretptiteies: "This explains why
                    people file complaints even when the blasting is conducted at safe (no damage) levels."

                    The guide recommends seven ways io possibly reduce ground vibration, including: use
                    less explosive pet delay, increase the length of delay, detonate the blast away from
                    houses, increase the scaled distance formula. Interestingly, many of the problem blasts
                    violated one of those seven recommendations.
                    The study guide also notes that blasting complaints wil! he likely when air blasts exceed
                    115 dH. Ii hts nine recommendations on how to reduce air blasts, including using enough
                    cover over the explosives in the holes, avoid cloudy days and temperature inversions and
                    avoid open sides in the direction of homes. Again these were often disregarded during
                    problem blasts.

                    DBF regulations; give the  Director the power to order mines to reduce blasts to prevent
                    harm. The regulation currently reads: "The director may prohibit blasting on specific
                    areas where it is deemed necessary for the protection of public or private property, or the
                    general welfare and safety of the public."

                    DEI* has tried to strengthen the language in revised regs now before the Legislature: 'The
                    director may prohibit blasting or prescribe alternative distance, vibration and air Mast
                    limits on specific  areas, on a case by case basis, where research shows it is necessary, for
                    the protection of public or private property, or the general welfare and safety of the
                    public."

                    At DRP's public hearing in August (2000), the industry submitted criticisms, and Mike
                    Mace, director of the new Office of Explosives and Blasting, thinks it might not pass the
                    legislature. Even if it passes, the question is will it ever be used.

                    Darcy White, assistant chief of the Office of Explosives and Blasting, agrees that blasts
                    can  be refined and reduced a bit. -She has found that the feque&cy problem can be eased
                    by lengthening the delay periods between blasts. This would eliminate a lot of the
                    problems. But she sees it  as a continual negotiation between inspectors and the mines.
                    Never, she thinks, will 0EP have the authority to order the changes that are needed.
                    The sad thing is that these aren't nmjo: changes. Nor would the)1 result in much
                    slowing of production.

                    The response of homes can be measured before Wasting. Response Spectra Analysis is a
                    mathematical procedure that takes into account the structure's natural forces and the
                    amplitudes and frequencies transmitted by a  blast, This requires firing test blasts first
                    Vihra-Tech'.s West Virginia office offers this service, which they  sometimes use when
                    blasting will be near a hospital or computer operations. One hole is fired for a week, and
                    vibrations measured. Mines don't use it, the Vibra-ieeh official said, "tf the speed limit is
                    55mph, would you drive 50 mph." he said, explaining that mines only do the legal
                    minim urns.

                    OSM actually considered requiring Response Spectra Analysis, but rejected H in 19H3 as
                    too expensive.
16-3-5
The other weakness of the DliP system ix that inspectors don't know the scope of the
blasting problems. Only a small percentage of the problematic blasts get reported to OKI*.
Some people don't know who to call or even that DEI* exists. Others give up after
being told repeatedly thai the blast "was ift compliance." Within two hours, 1 can find
the person(s) in a community keeping lists of the blasts. But thea* is no DKC policy
requiring inspectors to regularly canvass a community for problems with % mine.

From this study, ft appears that blasting could be moderated enough to reduce problem
blasts by at least 50 percent. With the recent appropriation of additional siate and federal
money for DEP, the blasting office wi!! hire about a do/en blasting inspectors. 11"
inspectors had a complete record of ail the problem blasts at every mine, they could
require modifications in the blasting until the problems abate.

Clinton Bvans. engineer for an explosives firm in southwestern Virginia, is regarded as
one of the leading experts on blasting in the Kentucky, West Virginia and southwestern
Virginia area. He has been a blaster since 1976, and his firm supplies powder to Tri-
Coimty and advises the mine occasionally. It is also doing the blasting for the Route 10
widening in Man. The firm does blasting at surface mines, though none currently in West
Virginia.

He offered many insights on why certain kinds of blasts can cause problems and kinds of
improvements that can be made. He agreed thai there are things that cart be done to make
blasting less bothersome, I will explain what he said about some of the most common -
problems,

Hinder shots, which have short holes (generally less than Hi-feet deep), frequently result
in loud air biasts. which cause complaints. Mines use these when they  have to shoot a
narrow layer of overburden to reach coal. The top coal layer is usually fairly deep (50-
100 feet hclow the top of the mountain). Then there can be a few coal seams close
together with just a little cover. The holes are so short that there is no room for adequate
cover to absorb the sound. The best way to cope is to use gravel lo cover the explosive
instead of the drill cuttings normally used. His firm uses gravel for  binder shots on
construction jobs. But it would be practically impossible for coal companies to absorb
that cost, he said. Barry Doss, the chief engineer for West Virginia operations for
Addington, said that mines tend to use binder shots with too many holes because they are
so easy to drill. The data shows thai smaller binder shots generally dort'l cause problems.

Kvans said thai they concentrate much more on the effects of the low frequencies than on
per particle velocity. The pet-particle reading almost never goes higher than 3 inches,
well below the  regulatory Umii of 1 inch per second. However, jusi as  Sam Kiger and
Freda Harris determined, the low frequencies are bothersome. "We try to change lo a
higher frequency so don't gel as high a jolt,** he explained. DHP recognises that
lengthening the delays can raise the frequency. However. Hvans also tries decreasing the
burden a foot at a time, and then possibly the spacing as well.

Air blasts that exceed 115 dB frequently cause complaints. He said the best time to shoot
when there is a potential for air blast is from noon until 2 p.m. because temperature
                                                                                                                            16-3-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-662
                                                        Section A  - Organizations

-------
                   inversions and clouds are least likely. However, a lot of mines tike to shoot at shift
                   changes arotMtd 4 p.m. Another way 10 reduce air blasts is to slow down the delays down
                   the rows. The data shows at least half the mines use yms delays down the rows. He said
                   those short delays can actually end up, depending on the design of the blast, being less
                   than the regulatory limit of Bms between delays. Some mines use these very quick row
                   shots to cast the overburden. This saves a lot of time and reduces the cost of moving the
                   overburden. The explosion just losses the material away from the coal.

                   There needs to be better training of both blasters and inspectors, he said. "One of the
                   biggest problems in the industry," he said, "Is that we have a lot of explosive companies
                   with well-trained people, but more intensive training of the blasters at the sites needs to
                   be done." There will be times with difficult blasts, he said, that blasters will need advice
                   from explosives companies. However, their resources are stretched thin, as well. Larger
                   mines will generally get more attention just because they do more blasting.

                   He recommends that at least some of the new blasting inspectors at DBF have worked as
                   blasters. He also advises aggressive public outreach, which is what his company does
                   when they start blasting in a new area.

                   Aitaivsis of nine mines

                   COWHN Kvergreen (Addington)

                   "It Feels like an earthquake," Bowman said. Sometimes, the Waste haw shaken the
                   deer heads off the wall, cracked the windows and made the house shift so doors
                   won't close properly. The water has drained out of the two ponds behind his house,
                   and he can't keep enough in the ponds for his pet fish.

                   Dust from the blasting filled the long mile)1 three times this summer: once in June,
                   once in July and again on August 2, One day it was so bad that Bowman couldn't
                   see to drive down the road.

                   Roger Holltndsworth agrees that the blasting is bad, Hollandsworth has lived in his tidy
                   home for 34 years. The yard  is filled with flowers. Rose of Sharon and other flowering
                   trees and shrubs. His mother lives just up the road, a bit closer to the mine.

                   Like the Bowmans. his mother keeps a careful record of the Masts. After a couple years
                   of problems, the mine now calls her and » few other nearby residents when a blast is
                   about to go off. But that doesn't stop the blasts from being annoying. She only writes
                   down the had blasts, with notations like: "Very bad-loud-shook house."

                   'They are hurting us down here," Hoilandswortb said. During the summer, someone put
                   up a sign: "Blasting next six  miles. "It will blow you off the highway."

                   For the most part, the residents have dealt mainly with the mine  management, in one case
                   early in 2(Xj(), an Improperly designed Wast blew the windows out at the Falls' garage,
                   which is usually the closest protected structure. Mr. Palls said that some of the holes of
16-3-5
one Wast had not gone off. Then when a new blast was set off nearby, the unfired holes
went off as well. This was not reported to DEP, however.

When the DEP inspector is called, he does a thorough inspection. Most of the time, he
accompanies his findings with a one-page explanation of Masting. Each time, he writes:
"Air blasts often feel like ground vibrations and are simitar to the sonic booms generated
by jets breaking the sound barrier. Air Masts over 1 ISdB are known to be irritating to
persons in the area and olten result in citizen complaints." Most of the blase it this mine
fof which there are decibel readings do exceed  115 dB. In fact. Evergreen got a violation
in April X, 1999 when it blasted  139 dB, well over the 133 dB limit

(Note: I spoke with Roger Hollandsworth in early March 20(31. He said the blasting is
much, much better now. There are still some loud blasts, but there haven't been the fumes
or the shaking of the past tew years. He said inspector Keith Evans is at the mine two or
three days a week. He has them adjust the Masts and shoot earlier in the day. Roger and
Keith visit regularly so that Keith knows how the  blasts are impacting the community.
They seem to have developed a plan that could  be a model for other communities.)

Of the I i 1 blasts analyzed, 47 generated problems for residents.  A few were complaints
filed with DBF, while the rest were noted by Mrs. Hollandsworth or the Bowmms.

Most of the complaint? stemmed from two factors: Blasts that exceeded the sealed-
distance formula or came close to it. And the larger, shallow binder shots.

This mine most frequently exceeded the permissible limits for explosives per delay. As
the inspector noted, regulations allow this since the mine placed a seismograph at the
nearest protected structure, usually the Falls or the Hughes houses, Mr. Falls said that he
was protected from the blasts by the mountain,  unlike his neighbors. The mine never
told him, he said, that it could have larger than allowed blasts because the
seismograph was at his house,

AH nine blasts that exceeded the limit caused complaints. Six triggered a seismograph,
with air blasts measuring between 124 dB and 131 dB,

Of the 12 blasts that were more than 50 percent of the permitted amount per delay, eight
generated complaints.

The other factor that appeared to cause a lot of complaints were the larger binder shots.
Because these have holes that usually aren't more than 10 feet deep, they don't shoot a
lot of explosive. But the shortness of the holes often makes them generate more vibration
and larger air blasts. It is difficult to design an efficient blast with $uch shallow holes.
The adverse impacts could be  reduced with holes  of smaller diameter. But 1 have not seen
any mines that use 6-inch diameter holes. Usually the holes are either 17/8 or 9 inches.
The mines say it would be too expensive to buy smaller drills.

A blasting supervisor for Evergreen said that the mine shoots a lot of binder shots
because the coal lies close to the surface in numerous areas. Of the 35 shots less than 10
16-3-5
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          20
MTM/VF Draft PE1S  Public Comment Compendium
            A-663
                                                       Section A - Organizations

-------
                   feet deep. 1 2 generated complaints. Half of those were over 9,000 pounds. Of the other
                   23 hinder shots that did not cause problems, oflly two were more th&n 9,000 pounds,

                   This mine and MirtgoLogan and Princess Beverly were ihe three that shot two or more
                   times nearly at the same minute. There were 1 9 shots within minutes of each other.
                   Twelve of those combined shots caused complaints. The ones that did not were less than
                   IO»(KK) pounds or a small fraction of the permitted amount per delay.

                   The few other troublesome blasts that were not explained by these factors had notations
                   on them about unusual design or problems with the blast.

                   1 spoke with Barry Doss, chief engineer for Addington's West Virginia mines. He said
                   that the major reason for the high air blasts is that this area has a lot of cloudy days.
                   When clouds are lorn1, the sound waves will bounce hack to the ground at wider angles.
                   which is why air blasts can sometimes be heard two miles away. He doesn't know what
                   can be done about the clouds. But he said air blasts can be lowered by reducing the
                   amount of explosives per hole and by increasing stemming (cover over the explosives in
                   the hole).

                   Evergreen uses a dragline, which is why its blasts sometimes exceed scaled-distance
                   limits and why it uses larger holes than the other mines. The dragline has to have a lot of
                   rock to keep working steadily, he said.

                   I asked htm about the shots that generated a lot of dust and smoke. If the smoke was
                   yellow and stnelled, the holes may have been wet, he explained, If a bl&st has to sit
                   overnight before being detonated water can get into the holes. The best way to avoid
                   problems is to load the holes and detonate them immediately.

                   Both Evergreen arid Princess Beverly tend to shoot two or more blasts at the same time
                   because it is more economical. This way they only have to clear the area once, and
                   generally they do the simultaneous blasts at the afternoon shift change.

                   The men who design and shoot the blasts don't get to go to seminars, he said. So they
                   rely on the expertise of the explosives company when they have problems. "There are
                   always minor adjustments can be made because blasting more of an art than science," he
                   CYCLGNK Paynier Branch Mining

                   "My husband works for the mines, but they can't tear up my house," Barbara Jeffries of
                   Cyclone, interview August 2000,

                   Uke Tri-County in Dingess, this is a small mine with small blasts. Yet it was frequently
                   within 1 ,500 feet of the community arid caused a lot of problems. The mine stretched for
                   about a mile, its perimeter following Route 10 through Cyclone, never more than 2,000
                   feet away up on the mountain.
                                                                                              21
16-3-5
The complaints about Masting began to come into DUI1 towards the end of 1997 By 1999
though, people were tired of complaining, since the problems didn't seem to be
easing. Still they filed a do/en between March 1999 and
February 20(50.

"Blasting on 6-24*99 at 4:15 p.m. was extremely loud and shook her house so hard that it
scared her visiting grandson who was inside of the house al the lime of the blast." wrote
the DBF inspector about a complaint from Barbara Jeffries. Her neighbor, David
Robertson, complained on March 23, 1999:  "Blasting from Paynter Branch Mining has
been shaking the complainant's residence and on 3-22-99 al approximately 4 p.m, a blast
occurred that 'shook* the dwelling hard and caused itetrus to fall off of shelves in the den
of the dwelling."

Dust from the mines was a problem, partly because the fairly large community was so
close to the mine. Though the mine is not visible from the road, its location on the edge
of the mountain  was similar to the Dal-Tex mine in Blair. This allowed the dust to float
out over the houses.

The blast on Aug. 25, 1999 was particularly dusty and generated two complaints.  David
Robertson took photos that clearly showed the dust. The DKP inspector wrote: "Paynter
Branch Mining Inc. has agreed  to wash Mr. Robertson's house as he requested after
mining has progressed away from Hie location of the house." The mine agreed to
wash otter houses as well. Yet more than  a year later, no (MUM* have  been washed.

Unfortunately, the one person who was keeping a log of the blasts threw it out because
the mining was ending and she saw no tise for her records. This is the one mine, where
the complaints are based solely on complaints filed with DKP.

However, this mine was one of two that regularly seismographed the blasts. It did seem
that the machine was close to one group of homes and not to another. The blasts were
loud enough to trigger the seismograph 30 of the 35 times that the closest structures were
houses 57.88 or 9! (all near the Jeffries and Roberts). It did not trigger when  the Wast
was closest to house 152.

Interestingly, ail hot five of the 35 air blasts  recorded were over 115dB. Several DKP
inspectors have said they found complaints start coming in when air blasts are over 115
dB.

The DBP inspector was quite thorough. After one of the fir$t complaints in late 1997. he
wrote a letter with his findings. This lime, he found that the mine was using the wrong
closest structure. The log said tt was 1,800- feet away when it was actually  only 1.400
feet. This reduced the allowable amount of explosive per delay from 1,070 pound!! per
delay to 648 pounds per delay. Then the blaster timed the shot incorrectly, causing 1,200
pounds to detonate instead of the 648 pounds.

WHAT THE DATA SHOWS
We reviewed  103 Masts, of which nine generated complaints to DEP. Without a more
complete list of problem blasts. It is somewhat difficult to determine what is different

                                                                            22
16-3-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-664
                                                       Section A - Organizations

-------
                   about the Masts thai did cause problems. However, the presence of seismograph data is
                   helpful-

                   Location of the blast appeared to be one factor. The complaints only came when the
                   blasts were in just seven of the 80 grids where blastin| took place. The blasting togs
                   require mines to include the grid numbers. Grids look like a graph paper and UK letters
                   and numbers generally start in the top corner at the left, just like in a spreadsheet. So the
                   grid will read J-19 or NN-46. Ail the grids where bothersome blasts occurred were
                   towards  the center of the mine: J~! 9 through 00*41.

                   As noted above, the air blasts were particularly high here. The highest (132dB) occurred
                   on the day that Barbara Jeffries said the house shook so much it sewed her grandson.

                   Interestingly, the majority of Masts that caused complaints were detonated in the
                   direction of the nearest protected structure, even  though OEP recommends detonating
                   away from homes in order to reduce vibration.

                   The data on the frequencies of the blasts is also enlightening. The Bureau of Mines has
                   found that frequencies between 4 and 11 Hz can  magnify the
                   shaking  feelings if the house is responsive to the frequency of the blast. Most
                   of the frequencies from these Masts were between 7 Hz and 11 Hx.

                   DINOESS Tri-Connty Coal

                   Perhaps  the smallest of the nine, this mine stretches along Hie ridges of the mountains, that
                   hug the northeast side of County Route 3 through Dingess. Two local men bought this
                   permit from l*en Coal a couple of years ago and are operating a contour mine without any
                   valley fills.

                   Blasting problems have  been associated with the large, mountaintop removal jobs where
                   blasts can be 50,000 pounds to 250,000 pounds and even as much as 1 million pounds.
                   Tri-C'ouniy refutes that theory and shows the complexities of blasting. The largest Wast
                   we recorded was 43,942 pounds, with nearly half less than  10,000 pounds.

                   Stanley  Marcum, a disabled miner in his 50s. lives where he was born, in a two-story
                   house on the banks of the West fork of Twelvcpole Creek. Steel blui. the house has
                   been carefully restored.  Birds gather at the feeders near rhe creek bank, and Marcum built
                   a garage a few years ago His wife has a beauty parlor in the rear of the house and is
                   borne most of the day.

                   When Pen Coal was blasting about half a mile down the  road three years ago. Marcum
                   did complain to OliP a few times even though his home wasn't among the closeil. Last
                   year and this past winter, his house was frequently just about the closest to Tri-County.
                   Blasting was occurring on the Hdges lying to the northeast, across the creek and road
                   from his house. Only now, he was reluctant to complain because he had gone to school
                   with one of the owners.
16-3-5
Still, his wife kept careful track of (he blasts, noting down the ones thai were the most
bothersome. Marciirri believes the cracks in the foundation have grown worse because of
the Masting. He showed me how the bottom wall of his living room hows outward into
the room. Whether these irregularities were caused by blasting will be up to an engineer.
What is clear, though, is that the blasting is annoying and sometimes scary. The house
just shakes and shakes, according to Marcum and his son.

The Matcura family has been working in the mines for decades. Stanley worked as a deep
miner at Marrowbone for mote than 20 years. In the early 1990s,
Marrowbone ousted the UMWA, hut Marcum stayed on. He had the misfortune to be in a
mine fall, breaking his back iff several places. Though he is fortunate to be able to walk,
he can't go back to work. The mine paid the medical bills for his accident, but he is now
like many disabled miners in their 50s and early 60s:  without medical coverage until he
reaches retirement age. Mareum's son drove a coal truck at Pen Coal, hut recently
switched to driving for Marrowbone.

A ntw permit for Marrowbone's mountairttop mine is approaching Marcum's house from
the southwest. The pond for the valley fill wilt he about 3
-------
                   It would seem that Waiting at this mine would have benefited from closer attention from
                   DBP. Numerous blasts were listed on the log as 1,0(K) feel from the closest protected
                   structure. However, the name of the owner was never given as it is at most other mines. It
                   Is quite possible that some of the Masts were actually within 1,000 feet of homes and
                   would have required site-specific blasting plans.

                   There were no complaints tip to March 2000. A few complaints were filed after that But
                   became there had been no previous complaints. It appears that DEP did not pay
                   close attention to the blasting,

                   This is the one mine where management seemed to genuinely want to try to lessen the
                   impacts of the blasting. In fact, the mine manager asked me to tell him if I found any
                   reason why the people were having problems with the blasts,

                   After the mine received complaints from people soon after starting up early in 1999, the
                   powder company studied the vibration patterns and recommended altering the
                   frequencies. It appears that the delays were  lengthened on many, hut not all, of the blasts,
                   Unlike other mines, the blasting logs sometimes seemed as if ihey were carbon copies. As
                   we were inputting, we sometimes Felt like the blast from the previous day had just been
                   copied onto that day's log. Perhaps, they did shoot nearly identical blasts on consecutive
                   days, hut it seemed odd.

                   Bill Dye, the mine manager, said the complaints in April-June of this year resulted from
                   an unusual rock formation. The blasters unexpectedly encountered fractures as large as 6
                   inches in the rock. They had to increase the powder in order to try to break up  the rocks,
                   some as large as houses, Ikit the fractures and increased amount of powder made for
                   larger air blasts, he explained. There was no way, that he knew, to discover the fractures
                   before shooting. He said ihey tried to tell residents whai was happening,

                   1 asked him whether the mine could afford to shoot less per delay.  He said that ihey tried
                   to break the shots up into two or three smaller groups when they are-close to hosses.
                   However, he said, that it would probably cost too much in time delays to do that with
                   larger shots further away from the community. They do try to do preline, breakup and
                   production shots, and  have minimised the shots as much as possible.

                   He said that community residents are nderstanding if they are called ahead of time.
                   However, H would be difficult, he said, for a mine or DEP to survey a community io
                   discover the fw!! extent of ihe problems.

                   FOSTER  Elk Kan Massey

                   Dickie Judy could be the poster child for blasting. For six years, he has gone to
                   every level of state and federal agency and governing body.  Amazingly, most agree
                   that the blasting from the mine is causing problems. Vet, none want* to order
                   something done.
16-3-5
Dickie .lirdy builds houses for a living. So when H came time for his dream home, he
wanted everything perfect. The location is idyilic, more than 100 acres at the end of
Foster Hollow in Boane County, an ample flat iawn, and even a visiting hear. He let the
large while colonial settle a year before moving in—only 10 be greewti with a notice that
he needed a pre-blast survey.

The survey was done in September 1994. Another survey was done of Judy's older rental
house nearby. Within a few months Judy filed his first of years of complaints. Bill Cook
has been the DEP inspector the entire time. After nearly two decades with the forestry
department, he had moved over to  DKI* with an unusual enthusiasm for enforcement. He
jumped right in and issued a violation: "failed to prevent damage to private property
outside of the permit area; Elk Run Coal Co. must provide a list of repair* that it is
willing to make and a time frame for such repairs  by Friday 3/24/95."

On March 30. 1995. OSM inspectors Mike Supertesky and Richard l:rarfer inspected the
Judy's two houses along with Bill Cook. About the older house, OSM found: "1 totally
agree with the VVV DfiP that  it is obvious that the  paneling separations in three different
rooms of the house was caused by  blasting; it is also obvious that the age, type of
construction, and type of foundaiioa make this older structure more vulnerable to both air
and ground-induced loading.  The dynamic response of non-conventional pier or rock
footings afld non-convetttiortii! floor and waii framing to ground vibration is
different from that normally expected In the more conventional system; therefore a
larger scaled distance factor is required to insure protection of a non-conventional
structure."

About the Judy's new house OSM  wrote: "has also sustained additional cracking from
the time of the pre-bhst survey conducted in September, 1994. Currently many of these
cracks are considered minor or threshold cracks, particularly the cracks in the room
corners and at the intersection of walls and ceilings; however, there are documented
changes in the xi/e and number of cracks since Masting commenced. Based on the age
and the excellent quality of the  design and construction of this house, it is evident that
this house can resist greater air or ground-induced loading than the older, non-
conventional house. It is also wry  possible that in addition to air blast, this house is being
subjected to low-frequency ground vibration that are near the natural frequency of single
family frame structures and particle velocities could be amplified within the structure."
And this was happening when the blasting was 5.000 feet away.

DEP inspector Cook issued three violations for blasting, which forced DKP to issue a
cessation order. Massey appealed to the Surface Mine Board, which overturned the
blasting violations in July 1995.

Next OSM issued a Ten Day Notice on August 8, 1995, saying that lilk Run failed to
conduct blasting operations so as to prevent damage to private property outside the
permit area. In December 1995. OSM issued a violation and ordered Elk Run to improve
its Masting designs. In March 1996. Federal District Court ruled in Elk Kurt's favor and
overturned the OSM order.
16-3-5
                                                                                               25
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         26
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-666
                                                       Section A - Organizations

-------
                   Meanwhile Judy had gone to Washington, D.C., to testify before Congress about the
                   harm of cutting OSM's budget, which happened anyway.

                   Interestingly, his case became a dilemma for OSM's Nationwide Blasting Work Group in
                   early 1996. OSM had found damage at the older house at a vibration of .2 inebesfceeond,
                   Blasting regulations are based on the theory that no damage will occur below 1
                   inch/second. Since the Work Group has not issued a final report, the resolution is a
                   mystery.

                   OSM made another inspection on April 2, 1997. After finding two air blast readings of
                   12KdH. the inspector recommended more stemming (cover over the explosives in the
                   holes) and smaller diameter holes. It appears that holes were reduced from 9 inches  in
                   diameter to 7 and 7/8 inches only about a third of the lime,

                   In the summer of 1 998. Dickie Judy hosted a lour of the legislative committee studying
                   blasting. He also lobbied the legislature for better laws,

                   After a series of particularly hard Masts last  Fall, (then) DEI' Director Mike Castle issued
                   an order that air blasts should be reduced. However. Massey threatened to sue. and 0KF
                   backed off the order. Instead, Darcy White and Jim Miller of the Office of lixplasives
                   and Blasting convinced the mine to submit a revised blasling plan, which included longer
                   delays and shots in sections. In March 2WX), the mine gol a new manager, Mike Snelling,
                   He said he could minimize the complaints, but not eliminate them. However, from the
                   Spring through November, the blasting and mining was being done in an area ol' the mine
                   far away from the Judy's home. Inspector Bill Cook said they won't be able to determine
                   how much the new blasting plan has helped  until the blasting comes closer to the homes
                   in a few months.

                   Most recently, the engineering expert tor Bailey & (Hasser found that Judy's home  has
                   $5.000 in damage from blasting. However, it is too small an amount for them to take on
                   as a lawsuit. Mike Mace, director of DEP's Office of Explosives and Blasting, refused
                   to order the mine to fix the damage based on the engineer's finding.

                   Dickie Judy doesn't know where to turn next.

                   WHATTHli DATA SHOWS
                   We examined 8K blasts of which 23 caused problems. Hrst. this mine lias the biggest
                   blasts. Of the 88 blasts. 37 were more than 100,000 pounds. livergre«n, the  next largest,
                   had 20 of  It I over 1 00.000 pounds, Granted, large blasts can be barely noticeable if
                   properly designed. But the Judys repeatedly characterize the blasts as feeling like
                   they are being blown off the earth.

                   More than half - 42 blasts - were more than 1 .200 pounds per delay, the only mine  to
                   shoot such a high percentage. Regulations permit such large shots because the blasting
                   was usually between 3,000 and 9,000 leet of the Judy's house. However, when the large
                   amounts were shot within 4,600 feet, there was usually a problem. Those blasts include:
                   1.954 Ibs/delay at 3,200 feet. 2.85S lbs,/dclay at 3,500 feet and 5, 162 lbs./delay at 4,300
16-3-5
In fact, 17 of the 23 problem Masts shot more than I .900 pounds per delay. !;our of the
other 6 problem shots were binder shots.

Hinder shots were a problem at this mine, as at all the others where they ate used. This
time, otily about half the hinder shots caused problems. All those that did cause problems
were 9 inches in diameter. Several of the less bothersome used both 9-inch and 7 7/8-inch
holes.

KISTUiR Bamlmitl Massey, formerly Pittson

For more than three years, Everett Dickerson of Kisller kept carehil records of the
blasts at the Pitlson mine on tin mine above his house. When his neighbors started "
to have blasting problems & few blocks away, he showed them how to make lists, too.

But now Dlckerson has given up. The lists and complaints didn't do much good. The
only thing that might help now, be says, would be a lawyer.

This mine, which was owned by Pittson until mid-1998, stretches along the top of the
mountain on the north side of Route 10, reaching from Taplin to Kistler. The mine ceased
operation for about a year while it was being sold to a subsidiary of A.T. Massey but
reopened early in 1999.

About 110 bowses in Kistler and Taplin are within half a mile of the blasting, Ristter is a
tight little community with houses close together on narrow streets. Several residents
described the blast as reverbcratuij! through the neighborhood.

"Blast today at 8:36a.m. shook trailer and scared everyone in the neighborhood,"
Cornelia Morgan told the OliP inspector on April 2.1,1998.

I .arry Conn, a teacher, told f)F,P that the blast shook their house on March 6,
199H. "Very upset that blasting seems unregulated."

The DfiP inspector was not as assiduous as those for Evergreen and 1'aymer Branch. But
his investigation of the blasting complaints did shed some light on why particular blasts
caused problems. When Larry Bragg complained that a blast on Aug. 21. 1999, "shook
his house really bad." the inspector noted that the blast included "pre-sptit holes, which
are usually very loud." A number of blasts examined were a combination of pre-split and
production blasts.

Interestingly, a month before thai problematic Mast on Aug. 21. the inspector had
recommended that the mine "use more delays in  pre-split shots to cut down noise levels
and reduce number of complaints," It doesn't appear that the delays were changed.

Larry Conn reported that the Mast on March X).  1999, shook his house. The inspector
wrote that the blast was "on a point with two open sides and weather was cloudy with
light snow contributing to increased air blast."
16-3-5
                                                                                               27
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        28
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-667
                                                       Section A - Organizations

-------
                   As for the blast on April 23,I99B that scared everyone, the inspector found it WM "parts
                   of three holes un-detenated in previous blast. Would have been very loud."

                   WHAT THi; DATA SHOWS
                   We examined 182 blasts, of which 51 caused problems. This mine was different from the
                   others because we examined blasts in 1997 and 1998 as well as 1999 and 2000. This is
                   because the mine did not operate for part of 1999. and people had given up keeping
                   complete records by 2000. We also tad to use a diftereitt kind of blasting log, with
                   different information for the 1997 and 1998 blasts. Mine officials could only find the
                   records kept by the Wasting contractor, but not the official logs that were kept when the
                   mine had a different owner.

                   Them seemed to be four factors associated with the problem blasts: location, amount of
                   powder per delay, combined pre-spJit and production, and unusual shots.

                   This mine had the third largest blasts, after Elk Run and livergreen. When the blasts were
                   the closest to houses (3.600 feet), the problems came from those of more than 900 pounds
                   per delay and in just two of the grids.

                   With the older blasts, the problem ones usually were again in just a dozen grids and had
                   higher powder factors (more than 1 and us high as 1.5). There were a few other blasts
                   with high powder factors in those grids. But they were mostly just production shots, and
                   did not pre-split at the same time.

                   As the DEP inspector noted, pre-splil shots did prove to be troublesome most of the time.
                   Of the 29 combined production and pre-split shots among the 100 older shots, 22 caused
                   problems.

                   AMEAGLK/COLCORD/DOROTHY  Princess Beverly (Addingum)

                   When you watch  a blast go off from the top of Kayford Mountain, it seems like it is in the
                   middle of nowhere. And the blasting logs note thai for nearly every blast Stanley Park is
                   the closest protected structure (usually 2,700 to 3,900 feet away).  This is the cemetery
                   and campground atop Kayford that was preserved by Larry Gibson.

                   But the map shows that the southern end of the mine follows Route 1 as it winds along
                   from Whiteseville to Dorothy to Arneagie, Nearly all the blasts take place southwest and
                   south of Stanley Park, putting them less than a mile from Route 1. And it was the Litos
                   brothers, George  and Manuel, who kept lists of lite blasts that seemed bothersome at their
                   store along  Route  1 between Colcord and Ameagle. They even filed a complaint on Sept.
                   16, 1999 that the  blasts vibrated their windows

                   A couple do/en other complaints have been filed about the blasting. But some people
                   didn't know which mine was blasting, and didn't know how to contact DEP.

                   The complaint investigations were only cursory. The only significant finding by the
                   inspector was that the Sept 16 blast was actually two shots fired in close succession. The
                                                                                               29
16-3-5
inspector noted this "creates mere noise than normal, but would not be out of compliance
according to the (sealed distance formula."

In fact in another complaint investigation, the inspector wrote: "In the case where if is
believed that blasting has caused damage, the DEP's jurisdiction falls within one half
mile of the blasting site.  According to current laws and regulations, any structures outside
of one half mile are not considered in danger of blast damage."

WHAT THE DATA SHOWS
We examined 106 blasts, of which 5? were noticeable enough to be noted by the I jlos
brothers or cause a complaint.

Again binder shots were a factor, with 19 of the 30 being problematic. As the inspector
noted, sometimes two blasts went off nearly simultaneously and fairly close together.
This happened 14 times, and nine caused problems. Three of the others were small blasts.

Generally, it was the blasts with larger amounts of explosive per delay that caused
problems. The closer they were to the eomiftunities (and tether from Stanley Park) the
more likely the larger Masts were to cause problems. For example, there was not a
problem with a blast of 1,392 pounds per delay when it was 2,500 feet southwest of
Stanley Park. But there was a problem when the blast was 3,200  feet southwest of the
park arid had 1,386 pounds per delay.

This was one mine, though, were there was more variation in  delays.  Theoretically,
longer and more delays will moderate the ground vibration. At this mine, longer delays
did  seetn to make a difference in some of the blasts.

For example, on March 8,1999, a blast of 1,200 pounds per delay went off 3.750 feet
southwest of Stanley Parlc. It did not cause a problem and had delays of 9 IBS.. 200 ms.,
and 600 ms. A blast that  did cause problems on March 43,1999, was located in the same
area and shot 1,294 pounds per delay. It only had delays of 9 ms. and 200 ms.

PIE Mingo Logan. Arch  Coal

Deborah Hatt'ietd has taken her most precious photos and knick knacks off her walls. Too
many times, she says,  things have fallen off and broken when the mine behind her home
let off a blast. One morning in September of 1999. the house shuddered and pictures
shook. Quickly she called the 13EP I-ogan office. By now. she knows the number by
heart.

 The Wasting is actually just the most recent insult from the mining. For five years, the
Hatfietds have suffered though one of the worst cases of subsidence from the long- wall
mining under the Pie area of Pigeon ('reek. The cement steps  on  the porch shifted, their
lawn sank, numerous cracks formed and their well went dry. So it's hard to tell which
damage is coming from blasting, it certainly is annoying, though.

Patricia Bragg, the lead plaintiff on the valley fill lawsuit was dragged out of her quiet
life  as a housewife six years ago when her next-door-neighbor's well went dry just as she

                                                                            30
16-3-5
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-668
                                                       Section A - Organizations

-------
                   moved into her new house. Trish was ahte to get replacement wells for a couple dozen in
                   the commimtty. She avoided subsidence damage, and Hfc with the Mine was not overly
                   eventful for a couple of years. Then the blasting begun. Her house is older, and the roof
                   has begun leaking. Whether the Wasting has caused cracks and shifting is yet
                   undetermined. Jtisi recently, though, the mine offered her (as required) a subsidence
                   survey. That way they would know how the house appeared before long  wall mining
                   began underneath.

                   Over Tabor Day weekend, there was not one, but two washouts from the sediment ponds
                   for the valley fill up Nighway Branch behind the Braggjt and HatfieJds. DKP determined
                   that the mine had not cleaned the sediment and mud out of the ponds, and the muddy
                   water washing off the unfinished Fill had no where to go except down Nighway Branch.
                   Bragg's home was spared, but the water went up to the second step of her neighbor's
                   porch (the same one who lost the water six years ago).

                   It'i getting hard to tell where  the damage Is going to come from next in this little
                   community.

                   WHAT THH DATA SHOWS
                   We examined 154 blasts, of which 51 caused problems. When we went to look at the
                   logs, the mine official gave use  three sets of files for three different permits. We found
                   that the mine sometimes blasted twice or even, a couple of times, three times within two
                   or three minutes. The mine official said he did not know that was happening.  Every one
                   of the 12 occasions that we found resulted in a problem blast

                   The Bragg house is about 5(50 feet southwest of a house that was  used as the closest
                   protected structure in al least half of the blasts. This is another mine that shoots a large
                   amount per delay. Ninety of the 154 Masts were more than 600 pounds per delay. Of
                   those, 35 caused problems. A few of the non-problem blasts were about 5,OCXS feet from
                   the nearest protected structure.

                   But what seemed to make the most difference was timing, DBF maintains changing
                   timing cart make a significant difference. In fact, it is the one change DEP has
                   experimented with. All but seven  of those  that caused problems used only two different
                   delays. They varied: 100 ms and 42 nig, 100 ms and 9 ms, or 42 ms and 9 ms (all with
                   500 ms. down holes). On the other hand, 30 of the 55 larger blasts that did not cause
                   problems had more delays, generally 9ms  42 ms and Iff) ms, with 500 ms down holes.

                   The seismograph triggered on  16 of the problem blasts. The frequencies of 12 btasts
                   were within the 4 H't to 11 Hz range can amplify the shaking of a house. Only two air
                   blasts exceeded 115 dB. however. This mine only had a couple of binder shots with one
                   causing a problem.

                   VARNKY  White Flame

                   When White Flame blasts on the mountain above Varney Grade School, there's often a
                   palpable shudder at Judy Justice's home, about half a mile southwest of the mine. At
16-3-5
Jackie Keek's house, which is on the road up to the mine oft the southeast side, things
shake on the wall when the afternoon blast goes oft He's heed considering trying to
videotape the movement. Keck did some blasting whiie in Vietnam and other stints in the
military. He thinks the solution would be to do a series of smaller blasts, like sections,
instead of one big blast That way there would he smaller amounts of compression to
dissipate.

Several people have filed complaints, and Justice kepi a detailed log. which often says
whether the Mast was light or hard. As a condition of its permit, White Flame also had to
seismograph the blasts, so there is an extensive record of air blasts and frequencies.

The problematic blasts often seemed the ones with air blasts above 115 dB.  Harold Ward,
one of the DEP inspectors for Uie mine, said thai over the past few years they have found
complaints start when blasts go over 116 dB,

Justice believes her home may be more susceptible to the low frequency ground
vibrations because it is newer and built on solid rock. Its natural frequency could be
closer to that of the Masts. Indeed, the frequencies of the blasts are generally in the 4 to
11 Hz range.

WHAT THE DATA SHOWS
We examined 134 blasts, of which 63 caused problems.

Air blasts were one Factor, (M the 25 problematic blasts for which there was a
seismograph reading, 20 were 115 dB or greater. Of die 71 that did not generate
complaints, only 16 were large enough to trigger the seismograph. Of those  only five had
readings of 115 dB or larger.

Amount per delay  was also a problem. Of the 42 blasts of more than
7(M) lhs./delay. 27 generated a complaint.

The frequency readings are quite revealing. Thirty-five of the problem blasts generated a
frequency reading. And 28 of those were wilhin the 4 to 11 Hz range that OSM has found
to amplify the vibrations of a house, Only 16 of the non-problem blasts generated
readings, and only 4 of tha« were with the susceptible range.
                                   The DEIS should document Uie numbers of non-miners who Jive in MTR regions and have
                                   hjreathiog-relafed health problems such as asthma, and coal-dust-related disease such as black
                                   lung, lite problem with coal dust is related* in part, to coal trucks (me below) and coal trains.
                                   Now that trucks am more frequently tarped, coal dust is less prone to roil off the  vehicles. But, it
                                   still roils off coal trains, often time directly onto nearby homes. (Non-coal dust is still a huge
                                   problem with coal trucks, see below.)

                                   Coal dust problems associated with coal processing plants are perhaps best documented for the
                                   town of Sylvester, W.Va.
16-3-5
                                                                                15-2-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-669
                                                       Section A - Organizations

-------
                   Jury finds Massey subsidiary liable in ami dust case
                   By Martha Bryson Hodel. Associated Press Writer, Feb. 7,2003

                   MADISON, W.Va. (AP) -- A jury on Friday ordered a Masscy Energy subsidiary to pay
                   residents of it coalfield town about $ 1 Million in economic damages caused by coal dust
                   falling on nearby bouses, vehicles and other property. However, jurors did not award any
                   punitive damages.

                   The six-person jury deliberated about 1&I/2 hours over lltree days before delivering its
                   decision agatnsl E!k Run Coal Co. in lioone County Circuit Court.

                   Tlie verdict came in a lawsuit filed by more than 150 residents of Sylvester who claimed
                   Blk Run's operation, located no more than 750 feet from some of their homes, has
                   destroyed property values, making it impossible for them to sell their homes and move.

                   Residents had submitted 110 individual damage claims seeking total economic damages
                   of at least $3 million. Jurors awarded a total of about $ I million, said plaintiffs' attorney
                   Brian Glasser.

                   One plaintiff, Mary Miller, said Sylvester residents have been "prisoners in our homes"
                   because of coal dust felling from Hik Run's operations.

                   "I don't want money. My goal is to stop the coal dust so we can live our lives again,"
                   Miller said.

                   Jurors found that Elk Run had created a nuisance and had negligently harmed the
                   plaintiffs. The Jury also determined that Elk Run had failed to comply with federal and
                   state surface mining laws by failing to control air pollution or failing to protect offsite
                   areas from damage from its operations.

                   However, jurors declined to award punitive damages, saying Elk Run did not act with
                   intentional or feckless disregard.

                   Jurors also answered an advisory question that gives Boone County Circuit Judge Lee
                   Schlaegel the authority to place 13k Run's operation under the court's supervision. Jurors
                   said "yes" when asked if Blk Run Is creating a nuisance that is causing damage to any of
                   the plaintiffs.

                   It will be up to Schlaegel to decide whether to order court supervision of Blk Run's
                   operation.

                   The trial started in October and jury deliberations began Wednesday.

                   Because the jury found that Blk Run had violated the federal Surfacing Mining Act,
                   residents will ask the court to order the company to pay an estimated $2 million in legal
                   fees and costs associated with bringing the case to trial, Glasser said.
15-2-2
       He said residents also will ask Schtaegel to require KDt Run to Implement adust control
       plan the company outlined during the trial. A hearing on the company's dust control
       requirements could he held within two weeks.

       That p3an would include covering coal conveyor belts and truck and rail loading points
       The number of trucks hauling coal into the ptant would drop from 35,000 to 7.000 a year.
       Kesideftts also want the judge to order thai the trucks carry no more than 80,0*30 pounds.
       the legal weight limit on most stale roads.

       "If it's good enough for court. it's good enough for them to follow," said CHasser, whose
       firm has been working on the case for five years.

       After the verdict Glasser told about 50 plaintiffs: "This will provide some insurance that
       you won't have to put up with this in the future.*'

       Another plaintiff. Pauline Canterheiry, said she was  happy wish the verdict btit feared
       residents would have to continue to police Elk Run.

       "I wish 1 can say no to that question, hot they are people you just can't talk to, and they
       have been from day one," Canisrberry said.

       M&&sey Energy spokesman leff Gillenwater said he had not seen the verdict and cootd
       not comment.

       Sylvester residents in the audience applauded the verdict as the jurors were excused.

Unfortunately, Sylvester residents are reporting that the problems are not yet solved. Can the
DlilS possibly document the social arid cultural tol! associated with living in a coal-dust coated
town?  We repeat,  the numbers of people suffering illnesses that could possibly be related to both
short- and long-term exposure to coal dust should be documented in the DPIS. How can the FJS
assign value for lost time and increased ag& ravaiion for people who have to clean their homes
daily? Sylvester residents relate having to wash previously washed dishes Iteforr meals because
duM has settled on them, Hderly people put their health at risk when they undertake frequent,
vigorous cleanings of their homes' walls and roofs. Also related to coal dust is property
devaluation. Property values for homes and other buildings before and after MTR encroached on
a community should he included tit the nii£S, Stress again comes into play— both young people
and the elderly residents worry that their homes, for which they have worked their whole lives,
will be valueless should they have to sell.
                                         Th% dttst/r&ffi the big trucks and from tke trfffffc g&ing into ifa? mines Is awful and the
                                         company knows it '* anful,, but I almost h&w t& bt>$ the company to put d&wn water to
                                         settle the dust The forge xttpply trucks g&ittg tt> the mm?.*! are sfowfy breaking down the
                                         trms bnd$$, which is the cetmrnunity ',? only outtet to the mam highway. — Rich&rd
                                         Bradford ($m beiow; " Comments frt>m imttvlditah. "}

                                  Much publicity aad political posturing has suntwnded the issue of coal tracks in southern West
                                  Virginia's coalfields. While the issue is not solely a MTR issue, it is partly. Where coal is

                                                                                                                     34
                                                                                                                           15-2-2
                                                                                        10-8-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-670
                                                              Section A - Organizations

-------
             shipped by truck from MTR mines, the DEIS should examine associated social and cultural
             impacts. As with all MTR issues, die impacts on peoples' health should he quantified Hear,
             worry and stress arc big aspects of this issue—which take a real toll on human health. Since
             people driving the narrow, winding mountain roads have been kilted by coal trucks, fear is not
             unwarranted,

             Coal tracks also induce noise-related and other stresses for people who live near coal-preparation
             plants. For instance, people living along Rt. 65 near the Delbarton Mining Company (in a
             scenario repeated all around the coalfields) have u> put up with intense coal truck traffic. (A
             Masscy Hncrgy processing facility there apparently processes both underground and MTK-mined
             coal.) Tracks literally rattle the houses all day. from early in the morning until late at night.
             interrupting sleep. Mud the trucks' tires gather while traveling on (he processing plant's unpaved
             roads dries to dust and flies off the trucks, coating peoples' homes. Sitting on the porch is no
             longer an option. Garden  vegetables are covered in dust. Some people have abandoned
             summertime back yard barbeques. A walk across the street to get one's mail is perilous, as is
             pulling out from one's driveway onto the road. All these factors increase stress, and therefore
             health problems, for coalfield residents. Properties are potentially devalued.

             Also, as with all MTR issues, people suffer from disenchantment with the political process.
             Coalfield residents feel their voices are ignored, while coal industry lobbyists get their way.
             Indeed, citi/ens attempting to lobby their legislators on this issue have had doors closed in their
             faces and have had to sit through legislative hearings where legislators openly consult and
             consort with coal  industry lobbyists. Politicians are so obviously in the pocket of the coal
             industry that citi/ens lose faith in the political process.  The DEIS should attempt to examine
             what this means for society's future.

             In a .lime II. 2(X)2 Charleston Gazrtie article by 1'aul Nyden, "Coal track debaters meet at
             Riverside High School: Citizen arguments pit safety against jobs," Prenter Hollow, Bonne
             County. W.Va.. resident Pally Sebok is quoted as saying that most residents did not favor an
             increase for coal truck weight limits' "Since most southern [West Virginia] residents and the
             northern truckers and residents do not want a weight increase, it seems to me that the eiti?ens are
             not cum'fltly controlling our state government.

             "Instead of government for the people, by the people and of the people, if appears as if it's
             government for the coal companies, by the coal companies and of the coal companies."

             Another issue thtt the DEIS should examine, quantify and report on is the externalized costs thtt
             taxpayers pay when coal tracks from MTR mines damage roads and bridges.

                   Hernshaw residents flgMIng coal trucks; Attorney general, delegates otter to help
                   with effort
                   By Brian Bowling. Charleston Daily Mail, Sept. 21,2001

                   Hernshaw residents tired of coal trucks breaking state laws and endangering their lives
                   developed a two-pronged strategy for solving the problem.

                   One prong is Delegates A. lames Manchiti and Mike Caputo, both D-Maiion. The other
                   prong is Attorney General Darrcll McOraw.

                                                                                                35
10-8-2
More than 70 residents squeezed into a basement meeting room at the Hernshaw
Methodist Church Thursday evening for a 90-minute strategy session.

Randall Boyd, the resident who organi/ed the meeting, said residents are tired of dodging
speeding coal trucks, having chunks of coal and strips of recapped tires striking their
vehicles and eoal dust coating their houses and lungs.

'Tffi not against coal mining," Boyd said. "Fm not against trucking. But it has reached an
unreasonable level."

The residents agreed on several goals including a petition drive to gather 5,000 signatures
supporting changes in state Jaw to make it easier for state weight-enforcement officers to
document that coal companies are deliberately overloading coal trucks.

In imitation of John Hancock signing the I3ec!aration of Independence, Manchin signed
one of the petitions in large handwriting.

"There'll be no mhtake where we stand, eh Mike?"  he said to Caputo.

Manchin said they attended the meeting at the behest of the United Mine Workers and
assured citizens that they would back (heir efforts even though no one in the room could
vote for them.

"Whatever it takes, we're going to try to gel il done," he said,

Most of the coal tracks traveling W.Va. 94 through  Hernshaw come from Masscy Energy
Co. mines. The union is campaigning against the mostly non-union Massey to highlight
how its operations affect coalfield residents.

The residents adopted Boyd's proposal that they hold a second meeting when the
legislature is in Charleston for its October interims. While the focus will be on talking
with the Kanawha County legislators, Boyd said they plan to invite all 134 delegates and
senators.

Cam I .ewis, head of the Division of Highways' weight-enforcement program, said he's
been trying to get the authority for years to use coal loading and unloading records.

"This  is the first lime in years  that anyone in the legislature has shown any interest." he
said.

He also suggested residents push  for a tarp law that would require coal trucks to cover
their loads. Currently, an enforcement officer has to actually see coal falling off a truck
before he or she CM cite the driver for having an unsecured load. I ewis said.

Meanwhile, McOraw told the  group that his office could seek injunctions against the
companies selling and buying UK coal as well as the (rucking companies for conspiring to
break  the current state law limiting  trucks to SO.(XX) pounds.

                                                                             36
10-8-2
MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
            A-671
                                                        Section A - Organizations

-------
                   Once a judge issues such an injunction, all te computes irwolved become subject to
                   fines and contempt of court actions if they overload another truck, he said.

                   Before his office cm act, however, it has to receive authorization from the governor.

                   Coal truck safety weighs on minds of area residents
                   By Charles Owens. Bloefieid Daily Telegraph. August 10. 2003

                   WELCH - When a coal truck snagged a cable line outside of Jerry Duncan's home in the
                   small Filbert community, the man realized that congested coal truck traffic along the
                   narrow County Route 13 was letting a little too close for comfort,

                   "They hit the line that crosses the highway, and it jerked it out of the room that t had
                   fixed for a television room," Duncan said. "It just jerked that cord out and ended up
                   turning it loose, and it actually jerked the videocassette recorder around. I guess it was
                   jerked out of the little cabinet it was in."

                   Duncan  aid the coal (ruck dragged the cable line about 75 feet down the road just past
                   the residence of Giry Mayor Henry Paul. The incident happened last year, and it wasn't
                   Hie first  lime a coal truck damaged the man's home.

                   "The coal trucks also ripped the glittering off of the side of the house once," Duncan said.
                   "I was laying in bed, and all of a sudden 1 heard a thump and a roar."

                   Duncan, and many of his neighbors, have fou$ht in recent years to keep coal trucks off
                   Route 13 between Gary and Filbert because it is difficult for vehicles and coal tracks to
                   pass etch other on the small and narrow road.

                   "It's too  narrow for two cars lo pass - not to mention atruck," Duncan said. "We don't
                   really need those coal trucks right here. The sidewalk is actually up against the side of my
                   house."

                   "Me and most of my neighbors live between four bridges that are 16-ton weight limits,
                   and they are already cracking on both ends that connect to the highway," New said.
                   "That's due to oM age and years of overweight coal tracks. My concern is one day we are
                   going to wake up and not he able to get out of here. But our main concern is lor the
                   safety of our citr/^ns here. I would say 80 to 95 percent of the folks who live here in
                   Filbert are all retired. This is more like a retirement village."

                   Neve said mud and dust from coal trucks also is a problem in the Blbett community.

             Comments from todMdaals
             Below are comments (italics added for emphasis) from individual coalfield residents (and a few
             non-coalfield residents) as given to Coal River Mountain Watch, Delbarton Environmental
             Community Awareness Foundation and the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (original
             copies enclosed). Many of the people who gave comments to these groups may twt have made
             their own individual comments directly to EPA. Nevertheless, they wanted to share their

                                                                                              37
10-8-2
thoughts oft MTR for inclusion in our DHLS comments, Plfaw pay ytecMl attention to the w>/tv>v
afthf afftcJut pfnplt, Thest wonts tell the story nfMTR that the DKtS fails tn tloetimfnt,

As you read these comments, please watch for recurring themes, Fear and anger are real in the
MTR regions. These emotions are not to he dismissed because they are, weli, emotions. They
arise from the reality of life in the shadow of MTR operations. They arise from facts—health
problems, flooding, blasting, political margmalization, loss of culture. They have a real toll on
society and culture in the coalfields, which the DEIS must document and address.

Blackwater spills, fear for livts
My name is PaLsy Carter and I live on the Tug Fork River. As I watch the beautiful green river, it
makes me feel so peaceful and relaxed, then all at once the river turns block from a Massey Coal
sludge spill. I am not against coal mining, but we need to deep mine coal and mine responsibly.
Them is no need to destroy these mountains and streams and our children's future to mine coal.

f fear for my life and ray family's life when it rains. I think of ways to run for the hills for my
life, from the floods caused by strip mining. I plan to keep my family pictures close to me so that
I can save them.

The strip mining is taking everything from us and our children. They wili have  no future and wilt
never be abie to live as true mountaineers as we have and that is part of our children's heritage.

Under this blackened, horrible life we are forced to live with, because of irresponsible mining -
this has made our state "Almost Hell" - instead of - "Almost Heaven." The people in 1 ,ogan and
Mingo county need to wake up.

Stop Mountaintop Removal and stop valley fill mining—stop filling the headwaters of our
streams.
--Patsy Carter

Blasting damages
Mnnme has lived here for 55 years and hatln 't htut any probltms like this:
Mirrored tile fell in bathtub. Had tfl put up new shower wall.
Water now seeping in basement. Wall cabinet  fell - broke all my dishes, (basement).
Had to  buy new dishwasher and oven doors wouldn't shut.
Had to  have main door repaired. Wouldn't shut enough lo lock.
All doors inside house including cabinet doors won't shut good.
Ceiling tile on sun porch falling,
Moor hooved up in living room, dining room and bathroom.
Walls in 3 bedroom bowed out Tile and mirrored tile in bathroom coming down.
Had to screw paneling back in 3  bedrooms where it came loose.
Counters unlevcl now. Furniture stayed. Covered with dust. Pictures wont hang straight now.
All windows have to be screwed shirt. Have white shingles on roof, which  is now black.
Since '95.1 have had 3 heal pumps put in.
Blocks in riMement cracked. Can .see outside ~- we put silicone in crack. Several large cracks by
meter box outside.
Out building has large cracks - water now coming in cellar
-Mitrgaret and Monroe Crouch

                                                                                  38
                                                                                                                         17-2-2
                                                                                                                         16-1-2
MTM/VF Draft PEtS Public Comment Compendium
            A-672
                                                             Section A - Organizations

-------
                   g and tear, rained water
            (Comments deliverable at BIS public hearing in Charleston, W. Va.)
            My name is Maria Fitter.  These are my children, Jessie and Chrystal Gunnoe. We are from
            Bobwhite in Boone County. We are against Mountaintop removal. We are a family that Hves
            in the constant shadow of nmnntaintop removal, valley fills and slurry ponds. Hie mining
            around us has destroyed our quality of life. The Masting from the mines is a constant reminder
            of why our lives have changed so much. My children are not allowed to play in the water thai
            runs through out property because the ponds run straight into it. The aquatic life in dais stream is
            ail hut gone. Catching bait or fishing Is a wasfce of ttme now thtre isn't anything there to
            catch, unless it would he some incurable disease.  Wlto can my that, with ihe utmost certainty,
            this will not endanger my children's health? You, the panel of people who say that what the
            mine companies are doing is okay.  I'm sorry but this has not yet been a trustworthy source.

            / hfjw lived on thh sanw prop&rry far 35 yv-ars t>fmy lift. In the same town with the same
            people, that's all saying the same thing "Moimtamtop removal is going to run us out of our
            homes and off owr land like it has so many before us" and Fro beginning to wonder, are they
            right?

            We were Hooded in 2001-3 times.  With each rainstorm the creek and river fills up mom with
            rocks and debris. In 2002 we  were flooded once again. The ei^ek now rum much deeper and
            faster than it ever has.  Then on June 16* of 2003 we were flooded horribly. The storm was
            what the mine company called a once-in-a-himdred year storm.  I heard it was an act of God,
            which is Hie saying that the Buffalo flood was an act of God. / remember when / was a child it
            mined until / was ntnning in water to my kne#s in this same yard that is now gone.  Thesn
            catastrophic floods didn 't happen then. Why are they- lwij)jpeni&% now? MTK Is why. f'm not
            sure what all the scientific tests tell you* hut Common sense tells me that if'yfw fwur water onto a
            rock it '$ going to roll &fff if you pour it into soil it wilt absorb.

            TTje flood {m June 1$ has ntined our life.  The rains catne and th$ hollow coming through our
            property ross so fast that sw didn't have ft chance to reat't.  We were trapped ttt every dirgctfan.
            The river running by me w&s stilt clear ctftd ttt& haUvw w&shtng into this river wm racing. / HW
            being fttwded by a stream that 3 year,? ngo, before the stripping started, I cmtld step &ver.
            Within 3 hours after It started raining we had lost almost eve.tythwg.  The water c&ttung fay we
            was sent in an mttdslides th&tjilfatl the crevk imd mow the wetter ctaser to our house.  Thf
            tnttdsttde ton through my Imrn and through my orchard of fruit rrets, wh&re $her$ was one />/
            our dagx was titd ottt. The water (mtt mud catna so fast thai we c&uldn 't get our dog out.  The
            next morning his collar was tying in the water's new path. As the water ami mud continued
            down it filled a 5-/bat advert that hatljitst recently bem put back in from the storms &/20QL
            From 1981 until 2001 it was 3-foot culvert  It wmpctnofour access. The water washed aroimd
            the 5-fofif culvert and took out my septic system, my bridge attd ®tt of my drive  way and most of
            my yard. My yard now drops into a 15-foot crater, ft's twt sqfe for my children to play in their
            own yard. The entire path that this creek took through our property has teen destroyed.  There is
            still more mudslides in this creek's path waiting to come out. The quality of our well water has
            compromised to say Ihe least Up until the 16  we had good water but n&w it'$ terrible. We are
            now carrying water.
17-2-2
Thank Hod that the Hood water and mud stopped 20 feet short of our house. Our house as of
right now is okay.  OUR HOMI2 IS DHSTROYBD! The life that uv have atwavx known is now
nf>n~exif>tent. Hikf.s through our own land ar? now unsafe. W? have so many A//<&*,¥ and mining
breaks, W? we of Cherokee nationality and we haw always been taughi to live offth? land,  Tim
heritage will tw longer /?r passed down because it is being destroyed with each blast.  Everyone
that has a hand in  allowing Ms intniftg prttfttce in continue is allowing WV and its heritage to
fade away.  We the people of WV are goimg to pay the ultimate price.  We haw tt> /nr here after
lh? coal is gone. The mint? companies don 'l cafe to leave us in nan and leaw our people poor.
Leaving for HA would titfan a complete change of lifestyles, sottiettting we ar? not willing to do.

As a family we w& to love to sit on my front porch and watch a stomt c&m? and go,  N#w it
terrifies ti&  to s?e a storm come. When the rainy Atart everyom gels scared of what going to
happen next? fftt'A raining no one in our home sleeps. My daughter at 9-y?ars- ahl ij>
C(?n$tant!r worried with the mining going cm around us. She seen a sticker that said, "Coal keeps
the lights on." She replied by saying, "Yeah, but the trees keep our air clean, She knows what
tiffed MTR, valley fill and ponds QIC having on us. Yet the college-educated scientist is still
looking for the reasons we are all gelting flooded so horribly, so often. Hopefully this will open
up your eyes and make you see that the fomtnunity impact iff MTR is ,v/m/j(v itrvaxtathn. The
rights of people in  Baghdad it seems are more important than the rights of the  U.S. CHinm /
know our fights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness tire pretty much gone, thanks to MTR
and its practice.  If you can sleep with yourselves, I guess we have no choice but to stay up with
the storms.
--Maria Pitzcr

Surface mining destroying WhUi'sv file
I wanted 10 voice my opinion AC! AlKST Moutitaintop Removal Valley Fill mining. This mining
is HOT producing jobs, just the opposite, it is destroying jobs

The town, of Wttitesviltt is dying with each new surface mine, lite surrounding communities am
disappearing from  the effects of Moxwitaintop Removal the blasting and the flooding.  The
animals are running  from ih^e Mils/mm lack &f habitat, ami are comm% dtzwn into (Mr homes
and yards.

The hiring is destroying people1 '$ h&tftes, anil fken we have flowh caused by this type of
mining. Our children wilt $OT have a place and tmr mountain culture and heritage is being
destroyed wf$h e&ch nmitnmm.
We are the poorest people and we live in the coal rich counties. Why?

The coal companies DO NOT put anything back of economic development. There is NOT o«e
development site on  the 90,000 acres destroyed in the Coal River Valley. The  coalfield schools
are being closed and as a matter of fact - 2 schools were closed this year, and both are within 1
mile of many Massey Energy mines. Cotl is NOT giving anything back.

President Bush shoald come to these hojtows and talk to the people who live with the effects of
this mining. The recommendations i& this study is pure HOGW ASH I!!!!!!!!

P.S. 1 Hve in the coalfields, born and raised.
—Lisa Hefldef*80«

                                                                                  40
                                                                                                                         17-2-2
                                                                                                                         1-9
                                                                                                                         10-2-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-673
                                                             Section A  - Organizations

-------
             Brother left hnmetess by flood*, doesn't Bud wiid things in Oie mountains anymore
             My name is Jack Brown. Jr. and I live at HW Hnley Circle in Walhonda Village, which is in the
             Clear Creek Hollow. I am a lifetime resident of the great state of We&l Virginia. I was born in
             19.15 at Edwighl, WV and my dad was a retired coal miner. 1 watched him die of Mack lung 6
             years ago.

             When 1 was a small boy living in the coal camp at Edwight, Whitesville and the surrounding.
             areas there were thousands of coal miners working in the mines, not like today when only a few
             work in the mines.

             I have seen the streams run black with coal dust But not the whole tops of mountains leveled.
             The sludge dams they have built and the water they have polluted, coal trucks ruining the
             highways-for only a few real jobs? Believe me. 1 am not against jobs.

             When they polluted in the old days, at least 10's of 1000's of coal miners had good paying jobs.
             Then the let down happened; the  mines shut down and the  coal market dried Bp. people left the
             state to find work.

             But here we go  again. Big coal companies have found a cheaper way to get ihe coal. Not like my
             dad got it. but by removing lOOU'.s of mountaintop acres, Oiling in the little hollow streams. 1
             used to catch spring lizasxls for fish bait. We don't find the wild things in the mountains like that
             any more.

             Big coal has bought and paid for  politicians they own and don't give me much of a say so in the
             matter. They promise me belter, but big coal uses their money to change the laws to suit them,

             / watched the flood waters w
-------
            AH my life, I have been fee to roam the mountains and valleys near my home. Now, 1 would he
            considered a lawbreaker anil a trespasser if I were to go hack to these places. The first thing a
            coal company Joes when it takes a lease is to build a gale, hire security guards (whom they dress
            as county deputies to intimidate  the public), and install cameras to limit access. I consider this to
            he an infringement of my civil rights.

            Sometimes a blast from a nearhy mountaintop surface mine will rattle the windows and doors in
            my house, even to the point of hearing the sheelrock tear from the nails in the ceiling, and if the
            blasting gets closer the whole house may slip off Ihc props holding it up and slide onlo the
            railroad tracks down below.

            And maybe a large boulder from the cliffs up above the house will be dislodged by the Wasting
            and destro) the house.

            1 have Public Service District water, but I also have a deep well, which 1 hope will not he harmed
            by the blasting.

            The dust from the big trucks and from the traffic going into the mines is awful and the company
            knows it's awful, but  1 almost have to beg the company to put down water to settle the dust.

            The large supply trucks going to the mines are slowly breaking down the truss bridge, which is   I
            the community's only outlet to the main highway.                                          I

            My yard is full of squirrels, rabbits, and hears that have been chased out of the mountains by the
            blasting ol the snip miners and by the logging, which is a precursor to mountaintop removal
            stripping. The little animals coming out of the mountains are nothing more than skin  and bones
            because their food source has been removed. I love tx> teed these little animals, but 1 would like
            to sec the coal companies and logging companies pay part of the feed bill.

            1 would say that tmttintaintop removal strip mining has had a severe impact on my life and  the
            life of my community.
            —Richard A. Bradford

            Delbarion, Mingo Co. citizen concerns about coal waste impoundments* coal dust* blasting,
            floods
            1.
            1. as a resident and business owner of Mtafo Co.. think if you build these ponds around residents
            you should buy us out and relocate us. Don't put people in danger. Coal is not worth oitr health
            or our lives, I'm in  mind  first, I'm all for mining coal but do  it sage and there  won't be no
            problems. After all as a owner of a pi/«i place, if I don't do it right the people would put me  out
            of operation. So lets do it right and there wont be no problem. And 1 wouldn't blame them.
            Thank you
            P.S, So do It right. That's the only way!
            —Troy Columbia
             Coal waste impoundments are an accident just waiting to happen. ! base this opinion from past
             experiences; Buffalo Creek. Logan County. WVa. And Wolf Creek Martin County. KY.

                                                                                              43
10-2-2
16-1-2
15-2-2
Alia I can see no poxsibl? way thaf the penpte in Ms valley could be evacuated in case the
imfmundment fails.
-William Hall

3,
I am opposed to the slurry pond impoundment. With all ihe rain 1 an afraid it will break and we
will have a disaster like Buffalo Creek. / tivt below the pnnd, in a vallry, and if it brfukx there
will be no place tt> go fast enough to reach safet\\  live are endangered here, also ihe mnre they
blast emd mine, the \vor.w mtr water get* ~ the ihist is awfal.
-Dottie Maynard

4.
We have noticed some cracking in our  sidewalk.  We would he very concerned if a pond was
installed in our area. We don't want to see another disaster from this action.  A crack in the
sidewalk is very minor compared to the  disaster a pond would possibly make. We can live with
sidewalk cracks, hopefully that's all that  will occur.
--Gary and Bmnda Hunt

5.
I am against Wasting and the mining underground. If they were to mine we would be forced to
move yet again from the area.  Slurry ponds are not a necessity around such a rural area. They
will cause grief and worry for residents all around Hull Creek as well as Hull  Crook Hollow.
Also Mountaimop Removal causes sludge  to fun Into streams, creating even more unsafe water
for all  life, not just humans. We must  take care  of what we've  got. because  if we don't do
something, some heartless bastard will!
-Bobby Sturgill

6.
Structural damage, cracks all in garage floor, crack in blocks and cracks (hair line) all over
driveway, one large one, caused by Masting in early morning hours. Value of the property
dropped when sludge pond was approved by state. We were declared as living in high-risk /one,
Noise from mine equipment day and night, and coal dust damage. Several occupants would
piel'er to relocate, and would like to be bought mil for a fair market price and relocation
expenses. New garage, cement and home improvements app. 5 yrs. old.
--l-'red Smith, Delharton
                                   1 worry about the safety of my children and grandchildren. I don't think these impoundments can
                                   be made safe. The underground mining in the area could affcct this impoundment. The mineral
                                   rights I own can never be recovered because of the presence of this coal waste impoundment It
                                   has devalued my property. The added truck traffic and trains have made our lives miserable. Our
                                   well water quality has been affected as well.
                                   -James I'. Maynard
                                                                                                                    44
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-675
                                                             Section A - Organizations

-------
            Living near a coal waste iini^mmlment, not only depreciates the vafer a/ttte. property for the
            home OWWY or [mts the gmtmd water supply into question, or anxiety during hemy mm
            periods, thinking this HMV break, hut it devaluates life itself.

            To anyone not living in the coalfields.,. we are giving up our environment so you may light
            yours. Please think of us hillbillies, when nipping your light switch.
            —Walter Young

            9.
            Having  a coal waste impoundment within a quarter mile upstream i? a wry anxious situ&tiofl,
            not to mention the dust and coal truck traffic every day, which is a very unhealthy environment to
            any one. Jml wonder what it is doing to mtr underground water supply, just to put in  words, its
            like living in exile, it has destroyed our way of life,
            —Carol Young

            10.
            First you wonder what the coal companies are releasing into tiie water. If it will make you sick or
            cause death before your time. If it don't kill you, the next thing you worry about is if this thing
            burst will you he alive or if everything you work for will be destroyed. You live in a "panic"
            from one minute to the next and if it rains from 2 or 3 days you get very anxious, I don't think
            this is any way to live! Next you wonder what these coal companies are hiding.
            ~I.«'Oy Runyon

            11.
            Fear, anxious, panicky, afraid - these are a few words I use to say how I feel about coal waste
            impoundments. When the TV or radio give a flash flood warning you wonder if you are going to
            he alive the next minute or not. If it is going to he another Buffalo Creek or Martin County. You
            wonder what the coal company are releasing from the coal impoundment in the water tables that
            you are  drinking and why are they so secret about these coal irnpormdment.
            —Geneva Runyon

            12.
            My family and I feel threatened by tlu presence of the impoundment thai is constructed at
            Delharton Mining Company. When it rains hemy, we worry what could happen if it broke. We
            are also concerned about how the undergroutid mines wilt affect the stability of the
            impoundment. Aim,  there is more dust in the area, which is hurting people and causing
            breathing problems.
            —larry  and Alisa Maynard
             Blasting shades my foundation. Coal dust is all over everything 18-wheelers running overloaded
             way too fast. Our well water is mined. The slurry pond is too dangerous for alt of us that live
             here in this area. So many of the ponds break for different reasons. Don't want to be one of the
             ones to get washed away.
             -Betty Wilson

             14.
                                                                                               45
                      The fact that no one let me or my family know about the sludge pond at the mine site really
                      upsets me. Ifs a scary tWng to think that it could break and wash  us away like other sludge
                      ponds has done in other places and to see this in newspapers and on TV. I would really hate for
                      this to happen in my neighborhood. / havt two childti n f try hard to protect. I cttn 't protec t them
                      from this!
                      —Dorothy F.

                      (End of comments from Dellwton residents.)

                      Ecocide
                      MTR desecrates the earth Ood made for us all to he good stewards of and destroys this earth that
                      future generations will depend on to live. Whole ecosystems are being wiped out along with
                      streams that supply water and valleys  where crops can grow. This is » crime against Mother
                      Earth and her people and affects the welibeing of the whole planet.
                      --Barbara Warner
                       1955 Tatum lane
                      Lebanon, KY 40033

                      Lost Tourism
                      I love to visit the mountains.  If the mountains are gone, there will be no reason for me to visit.  1
                      do not care to visit a MTR site or a valley fill, even a "reclaimed" ode,  I don't think we should be
                      replacing out natural landscapes with  non-native organisms. We must stop destroying God's
                      gifts.

                      Ray Barry
                      Ijjxington, KY

                       Holocaust
                      I wish to enter my comments into the  record about mountain top removal.

                       I was born in WV and have lived here all my life except for a short period of time. I am deeply
                      concerned about this type of mining, as it will effect the environment harshly.  This will destroy
                      streams, foresttand, fish wildlife, that  were created by God,  We need to protect it from  (Ms
                      certain destruction and i believe it is mankind wtio is in chaff e of this task.

                       I do not believe the system in place is going to do anything but allow for the destruction of the
                      land for many years to come, maybe forever.  This type of mining is too destructive and should
                       not be allowed. The coal r»tain| jobs will be lost to big shovel and fast moving coal trucks ant)
                       nobody is going to,benefit tat the few on top of this action. The human society will he the
                       looser, fisherman, hunters, fresh water drinkers, coal miners, homeowners, wildlife lovers, wood
                      producers etc,

                       I make these statements not for myself but for the human beings who h»ve to live after this
                       holocaust takes place, if we allow it to happen. We are very short sited if we do not sec what
                       perils lies ahead for us.

                       Sincerely,
                       Larry Dadisman

                                                                                                         46
                          1-9
MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
A-676
Section A - Organizations

-------
             9i2Greendale0r.
             Charleston, WV 25302

             Left out information
             Why wasn't the "No Mountain Top Mining Alternative" assessed as one of the final alternatives?

             A "No Action Alternative" was assessed. This alternative is unacceptable to most people (except
             perhaps the coal industry) and probably won't be selected.

             Banning MTR is certainly not  impossible,  Other horrible environmental  practices have been
             banned in  the past (such as use of DDT, ozone depleting compounds, building of hazardous
             waste landfills in WV, construction of nuclear power plants, etc.).

             Sure, the coa) industry may not be able to mine coal as cheaply or <|uickly. Our electric bills
             would probably go up.   Fine.  That might only serve to make alternative and cleaner energy
             sources closer to becoming reality, sooner,

             But, consider the positive impacts of the "No Mountain Top Mining Alternative."  1 would have
             like to have read about the impacts of this alternative.

             In my opinion, this E1S is flawed and unacceptable, because it did not list the "No Mountain Top
             Mining Alternative" as one of the final alternatives.
             --Mel Tyree
             l)i-seiidiiiiilniciit nilii the imiitU-.ll
             What is the social and cultural fallout when people stop believing in the democratic process that
             is the foundation of our nation? Will the HIS address this?

             People in the coalfields have witnessed so much, corruption that it is hard from them to continue
             participating in the political process. Why bother? This, of course, is what the coal companies
             and their most attendant politicians and so-called regulators would most like to see — a silent,
             complacent, demorali/sd and politically inactive population.

             Coalfield residents have seen it over and over — the coal industry's reckless disregard for laws
             written to protect the people and the environment. When citizens have made headway, via
             lawsuits and/or organized citi7.cn action, to get laws enforced, the rules and laws are changed,
             and rarely, if ever, are they changed in a way that benefits coalfield residents.

             Although West Virginia ranks 49th in per capita income in the country and  dead last in median
             household income, the state ranks at the top in per capita expenditures on various forms of
             corporate welfare. For instance, under the administration of former coal executive Governor
             Cecil Underwood, the coal industry escaped mote than $400 million in Workers'  Compensation
             Fund debt.
             Coal has been the dominant player in West Virginia's political scene for more than a century.
             Growing campaign contributions from coal sources fueled the 1999 state legislature's resolution
             supporting "ail methods of coal mining," a resolution that was {specifically directed at
             mountaintop removal mining. A tax law passed in 1999 has dramatically reduced coal property

                                                                                                47
1-8
                                                                                                     11-9-2
taxes, while increasing the tax rate on individual property owners. In the 2000 and 2002 state
legislative session, coal's legislators* killed a bill that would have set stronger enforcement
mechanisms for overloaded coal trucks. Also in 21X12. the coal industry received a $2.5 million
break in the amount they are required to pay for their water pollution permits.

According to the West Virginia Peoples' Election Reform Coalition (PERC), Governor Bob
Wise did not receive as many coal dollars during his election campaign as the bought-and-paid
for Cecil Underwood, Nonetheless, 15 percent of all contributions to Wise's inaugural ball
($105.000 in $5,000 donations, enough to buy 21 tables at the ball) came from coal industry
sources.  Total coal industry contributions to Governor Wise for his 2000 election campaign gad
inaugural amounted to wore than a quarter of a million dollars,

The governor raised over $70.000 at a re-election fundraiser iit March of 2002 while the
legislature was debating increasing the weight limits for coal trucks. Most of those contributions
came from coal companies, cost haulers and land holding companies. For instance, Wise
received $20,500 from employees and spouses of Riverton Coal and its parent company RAG
Coal International. This is the largest single-day giving to Governor Wise  that PKEC has seen
from any array of individuals associated with one corporation since it began monitoring
campaign financing in 1996.

The coal industry got its coal truck weight limit Increase.

This is just one recent example of the coal industry's dominance of the political process (as is the
DEIS, with its absurd recommendations vis a vis the science contained in the document.) How
will the  E1S document coalfield residents' lass of faith in the political process upon which oyr
government is based? What weight will be given to the impacts this erosion of faith in the
system has on society and culture?
                                   While an lilS is not supposed to examine economic issues, this DEIS does, but in a very skewed
                                   manner. So. if you want to bring economic studies into play, how about a little balance? The E1S
                                   should examine All. the externalized costs associated with mountaintop removal / valley coal
                                   mining. Taxpayers are left footing the hill for massive clean up costs associated with MTR-
                                   exaccrbated Hooding. Taxpayers pay for MTR-related tax credits given to the coal industry, such
                                   as the billion dollar super tax credits that were supposed to create jobs, hut which actually helped
                                   coal companies purchase the massive draglines that replaced human workers in droves,
                                   Taxpayers also pay out millions when citi/.ens have to resort to the courts to get regulatory
                                   agencies to enforce mining laws. Long-terms costs of the environmental degradation associated
                                   with MTR are unknown, but should he identified and quantified.

                                   Unreported in the draft KIS are what the current and future costs to society are in terms of:
                                       * MTR-exacerbated Hooding;
                                       • reclaiming abandoned mine lands:
                                       • disrupted hydrological systems;
                                       • drinking water replacement;
                                       * lost hardwood forests' potential lumber value:
                                       * coal waste impoundment disasuir-avoidanee and/or disaster clean up:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 11-9-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-677
                                                              Section A - Organizations

-------
                •   lost value of life-essential ecosystem services;
                •   lost way 01' life (see below: "Lost culture / way of life")
                *   altered microclimates and regional climate (as an example, the destruction of millions of
                    trees reduces the transpiration of walcr, which affects both humidity and aif temperature;
                    also, the loss of hundreds of thousands of seres of forests canopy--shade--and the tops of
                    the mountains themselves also affects weather patterns);
                *   declining political participation as government collusion with coal industry operators
                    decreases public faith in the democratic system.

             The long, and  as yet, not-fally-identified list of externalized costs bring more negative social
             impacts. When real production costs are foisted off onto communities, governments and the
             environment, the true costs of coal are suppressed. MTR companies can sell MTR-coal for a
             price that does not reflect the true cost, since the company is not paying those costs. This sustains
             the market for MTR-coal, and decreases the competitiveness of other energy sources. This delays
             the inevitable rise of truly cleaner, alterative energy. Coalfield residents are thus denied a chance
             at the jobs available in truly cleaner alternative energy sources, as welt as the environmental
             benefits- associated with truly cleaner alternative energy sources.

             By allowing coal companies to externalize costs associated with MTR and thus delaying the
             switch to cleaner forms of energy, government is allowing global society suffer greatly, perhaps
             catastrophically, as global warming increases. According to a Dec. 30, 2003 CrfeaKt.com
             article "Global Wanning  Insurance Claims C5rew to $60 Billion in 2003":

                    MUNICH, Germany, 13ec. 30,2003 - Munich Re, the world's biggest re-insurance
                    company, has attributed a sharp increase in weather-related disasters around the world to
                    global warming.

                    In its latest annual report, the company - which insures insurance companies - puts the
                    combined cost of  this year's global natural disasters at more than $60 billion, about $5
                    billion more than  the year before. Insured losses increased to about $15 billion, a jump of
                    $.1,5 billion from the previous year. The number of natural catastrophes recorded was
                    around 700. roughly same level as 2002.

                    The report also found that more than 50.000 people were killed in natural catastrophes
                    worldwide, almost five times as many as in the previous year. The company tttribated the
                    jump to the heat wave in Europe and the earthquake in Iran, each of which claimed more
                    than 20.000 lives.

             (As an aside not directly related to DEIS comments, it is interesting to note that global-warrmng-
             reiated disasters killed far more people in 2003 than terrorists did. yet the US government is
             opposed to taking tny meaningful action to curb global warming. This observation does prompt
             the DBIS-related question: Arc our national priorities to sustain the systems that sustain life (and
             thus the economy) or to make the quickest buck possible and let future generations attempt to
             deal with the mess?)

             In an Oct. 14 Sacrame.nto News  & Review article, "We're Melting," Melinda Welsh writes:
                                                                                                49
11-9-2
       Ultimately, there- is little dotiftt that we are creating a future in which large portions of the
       Biirth will he flooded routinely: huge storms regularly will cost thousands of lives and
       cause billions of dollars in damage: mass migrations will be likely; and famines and
       droughts will starve and kill large numbers of people, especially those living in the Third
       World.

The final should Itemize and quantify all current and future MTR-related externalized
costs, especially from the perspective of ecological economics, rather than the increasingly
outmoded, traditional field of economics (wlrfeh condones Industries externalizing costs
onto society as a whole with no regard for ecological reality).

From the Stanford Report, December 1, 2000:

       How much is an ecosystem worth?

       It's easy to put a price tag on timber harvested from forests or copper mined from the
       ground, hut can we put an economic value on the less tangible services ecosystems
       provide, such as water purification and flood control?

       A group of 30 scientists, lawyers, conservationists, economists and policymakers recently
       came together at Stanford to discuss novel ways to market "ecosystem services" with the
       ultimate goal of protecting the'ecosystem itself.

       .. .ecosystem services ire the processes through which natural systems support human life
       by purifying air and water, detoxifying and decomposing waste, renewing soil fertility.
       regulating climauj, preventing droughts and floods, controlling pests and pollinating
       plants.

       Watersheds may be among the most marketable of ai ecosystems, according to several
       panelists, becaaie they provide essential services such as water purification and  flood
       control.

In "The Value of the World's Hcosystem Sen-ices and Natural Capital," Robert CoManza et. al
(h'.lj) A,v( c.'ioyA't'd«.'Kn ,Vcov4u.iiO write:

       lite services of ecological systems.. .arc critical to the functioning of the L'aruYs life-
       support system. They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and
       therefore represent part of Ihe economic value of the planet. For the entire biosphere, the
       value (most of which is outside Ik. market) is estimated to be in the range of US $ 16-54
       trillion per year, with an average of US$33 trillion per year. Because of the  nature of the
       uncertainties, this musl he considered a minimum estimate.

       Historically, the nature and  value of Earth's life support systems have largely been
       ignored until their disruption or loss highlighted their importance. For example,
       deforestation has belatedly revealed the critical role forests serve in regulating the water
       cycle - in particular,  in mitigating floods, droughts, the erosive forces of wind and rain.
       and silting of dams and irrigation canals. Today, escalating impacts of human activities
       on forests, wetlands,  and other natural ecosystems imperil the delivery of such services.

                                                                                    50
                                                                                                                            11-9-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
             A-678
                                                               Section A - Organizations

-------
                   Many of the human activiiks lhat modify or destroy natural ceosystcius msy C«HI,NC
                   deterioration of ecological services whose value, in the long term, dwarfs the short-term
                   economic benefits .society gains from those activities,

                   We believe thai land use and development policies should strive to achieve a balance
                   (vtween sustaining vital ecosystem services and pursuing the worthy short-term goals ctf
                   economic development.

            Sliort-Uirrn profit for a handful of individuals comes ai great long term cost to 4ll of us mid our
            children and their children. Can't the BIS at least give us a  total accounting of the extcrriaiixed
            costs associated with MTR'? If not, why?

            Homling
                   / fear for nty tiff and my family's life when it rains, I think of ways to run for tfo hills for
                   my lift1, from ihc flfxttht caused by strip tnifiing. I plan tt> keep fttyfatmlv pictaws cfoi'** to
                   me so th see a storm c&tne. When th? rains sfarf everyone g?t$ scared of what
                   going to happen next?  If if '$ raining no one in our hotts? sleeps. My d&M$ktfr at 9-
                   warS'oitl h constantly worried with the tnttii/tg §t)ing f>fi amiwd us... She fataws what
                   a/feet MTR, valtfyjtll and p*md$ are having on tis.  Yet the cattege-educatrd scientist is
                   stHHottkutg for ih# reasons we arettU getting fttxtd&f $a horribly,, so often. -Maria
                   Pifcer f,v**? above: "Comments from individuals. ")

            Several agencies (WVDHP, OSM, AC0E and USGS) have dose the studies, which support  both
            common sense and historical fact Denuded landscapes cannot manage water the way intact
            ecosystems can. Deadly disasters related to lhe denuding of forests (iind heavier storm events
            linked to global warming)- which can be tikened to the deforestation associated with MTR,
            recently have been garnering headlines: mudslides after the wildfires in California; landslides
            and floods in the Philippines and Thailand. Remember, too, in West Virginia our natiooa! forests
            were established to case the Hooding that ravaged the state after it was clearcui in the early
             1900s. MTR is the ultimate clearcut. Simply put. MTR exacerbates flooding.

            You've got the first hand accounts from people who have commented directly OP the DHIS  and
            front individuals' comments contained within this document. You've got the news stories.
            You've got the studies. And you've got yoor pollitcaHy-motivated, ecologically-ridiculous
            recommendations. What you don't have is documentation of the social and cultural toll of MTR-
            exaccrbated flooding.

            Since 2001, 15 peopfe have died in floods in southern West Virginia. (This figure does not
            include the two people who died ift ihe widespread floods of mid-2003, which occurred both
            outside and inside MTR regions.) Coalfield residents kmtw some of the recent flooding in
            directly attributable to the surface disturbances mid valley fills apstrcam from their communities.
            The clean up and rqjair costs for tlic Hoods that victims see as clearly linked to MTK, (and
            virtually uttri*guIaieU logging) Has topped hundreds of millions of dollars—am cxternali/^d cost
            which should he reported in the BIS.
11-9-2
17-1-2
Families Hvlng near MTR wperattens aid/or coal stadgo tapoundmonK have told us (groups like
Cos) River Mountain Watch and the Ohio Valley Hnvironmemai CoaHtion) that every time there
is a heavy rain happening or predicted, they worry excessively. It is no rural myth that some
children and their pai^iws will sleep—welt attempt &leep™ttt their clothes when a heavy rain is
happening or predicted. Some children fcign illness if the rain comes eatly on a school day—
they don't want to he separated from their parents should the floods come. Some people keep
their car trunks packed with precious possessions, such as family photographs, just in case they
should have to flee for their lives as water rises. The constant fear afld lack of a feeling of
security ftiust  take a toil on people's health.  The anger too, at the coal companies' denial for any
hlante, must affect health. Families may suffer and break apart under the strain. These are jvociat
and cultural effects of MTR that the EIS mast examine.

In June 2tK)3.  a dehige poured off a mountahitop removal site above the 50-year-old home of
Mafia Pitzer, The operation started above her home a couple of years ago.

The Charleston Gazette reported:

      Ten miles away. Maria Piteer had problems of her own. It h»d barely begun to mist rain.
      and  suddenly the creek in frortt of her house rose two feet.

      Of course, the  creek hadn't been itself since June. That's when a heavy rain washed off a
      strip mine on the hill above Pitnr's 50-year-old house and slashed a ravine through her
      yard. 12 £eet deep and 60 feet wide in spots. The ftoodwatera ripped her dog from his
      cottar, and would have swept her 9-year-old daughter from Piwer's amis if she hadn't
      slung the child actuss her shoulders and waded to safety.

      Since that day, every time that creek rises the tiniest hit, Pit7er panics for herself, her
      husband and her two children. This time, she suspected Ac mine had let off water,
      thinking the rain wight overflow the pond. She called the slate Division of Ivnvironmental
      Protection. What's going on? she asked. The inspector said he looked at the mine ponds.
      Everything seemed to be working OK, no breaks.

      Bui 1'it/er has to wonder: Is this what happens when everything's  working OK?

      "It'll be 12:30 at night, I'm laying in bed, and it'll sound like (he creek's up." Pit/cr .said.
      "So I'll get a flashlight and go out. and sore enough, it will be." Rain or no rain.

      "That  makes it hard to sleep. You never know what it (the creek] is going to do. Nothing
       in my  life is normal anymore."

       Pitzer stitl displays her homemade sif n alongside the rabble-filled ravine where her yard
       once was; "Stop MTR (mounttiMop removal]."

       But, Pilzer said. "Even if they would stop the mounudatop removal right now. we'd still
       be dealing with it tomorrow and the day after and the day after.
                                                                                                                          17-1-2
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-679
                                                              Section A - Organizations

-------
                   "Our future is basically trashed, and it seems like nobody gives a crap."

             The increased risk of Hooding in MTR regions is taking a psychological—-and thus
             physiological— toll on people, which should he documented in the HIS.

             As in almost all MTR-relatcd social ant) cultural impacts presented in this document, the
             increased likelihood of flooding for MTR regions is probably contributing to the devaluation of
             personal property. This also should he documented in the EIS.

             Falling property values
             Sylvester resident Mary Millet has an immaculately maintained large brick home, with
             hardwood floors. Her property used to be valued at $144,000 (and would he worth much more
             in a larger city), byt she says it was recently reassessed at a $12.000 value. This home represents
             the life savings of Mary and her husband and was their retirement safety net-until coal dust from
             a near-by Masscy Hnergy coal processing facility began coating the town. There may be other
             factors that have contributed to the home's devaluation, which in themselves may be linked to
             the encroachment of moumaintop removal (dwindling populations, school closings).

             Throughout MTR regions, homes we losing value. Blasting damages properties and rains water
             supplies. Potential buyers are scared »way because of fears of future flooding, worries about
             potential coal sludge impoundment failures, coal trucks, coal dust, groundwater and surface
             water contamination, lost recreational areas and last beauty and serenity. The EIS must assess
             property values in communities both before and after MTR operations begin. How can the EIS
             make M\ accounting of tlte social and cultural costs to families whose property is losing value?
             What does this toss of value mean for people's current financial status and that of future heits?
             What does it mean for communities and their tax revenue?  How much wealth and tax-base is
             being lost?

             Lost culture / way of life
                   The life that we haw always known is now nan-existent. Hikes thrtmgh our own land are
                   now unsafe. We have so many slides and mining breaks. We are of Cherokee nationality
                   ami w have always been taught to live off the land.  This heritage will no hnger be
                   passed down became it is being destroyed with each blast.  Everyone that has a hand in
                   allowing this mining practice to continue is allowing West Virginia and its heritage to
                   fade away. We the people of Went Virginia are going to pay the ultimate price. We haw
                   in live here after the coal Li gone. The mint companies don't care to Ifave m in ruitt and
                   leave our people poor. Leaving far us would mean  a complete change of lifestyles,
                   something we are not willing to do... 1 know our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of
                   happiness are pretty much gone, thanks to MTR and its practices.  —Maria Pitzer (see
                   above: "Comments from individuals.")

                   Our children will NOT have a place and our mountain culture and heritage  in being
                   destroyed with each mountain. —Lisa Henderson (see above: "Comment,'! from
                   inelivifhutls.")

             The Appalachian Mountain Culture Is, of course, unique in the world, Mountaintop
             removal is destroying the landscape that created and supports that culture. THE DEIS
17-1-2
11-3-2
10-2-2
foils miserably to document and make recommendations to abate this loss. The agencies in
charge of creating a valid scientific EIS on MTR must make every effort to exhaustively
study and quantify the social and cultural impacts of nwuntaintop removal. At the very
minimum, the social and cultural effects of MTR removal listed herein must be taken into
account in the final EIS. The final EIS recommendations must accurately  reflect these
effects and must include recommendations for actions that will relieve and eliminate the
negative social and cultural impacts of mountaintop removal / valley fill coal mining.

Cultural continuity is in jeopardy because of MTR, Where MTR operators have already
completely bought out/driven away entire communities, there the local culture Is dead.
Where culture dies, K> dies th« knowledge of previous generations: how to sane a chair,
how to build a fiddle, how to weave a basket, how to harvest ginseng, medicinal uses of
plants...the list could go on and on.

Some cultural impacts associated with MTR:
   •  Destruction of communities;
   •  Displacement of families with ancestral ties to land and community;
   •  Loss of free access to cemeteries (all known family cemeteries should be identified and
      registered);
   *  Loss of the connection with ancestors and future generations;
   *  Loss of community history;
   •  Loss of gardens (some have been ruined by sludge spills, some people are forced to leave
      the land where they once gardened) and associated loss of income (have to purchase more
      food):
   •  Loss of hunting and fishing grounds, and associated loss of income (have to purchase
      more food);
   •  Loss of harvestable understory herbs (ginseng, btack cohosh, ratnps, etc.) and associated
      loss of income-supplements and medicinal remedies;
   »  Loss of independence (the loss of harvested forest products (the "second" paycheck) for
      the family to consume could increase the need to make more money);
   *  Loss of traditions that instill honor and pride and self-worth;
   *  Loss of biological diversity and uses of that biodiversity by locals;
   •  Loss of soil and seedbank essential to maintaining biodiversity used by locals;
   •  Loss of hiking trails, rock climbing treas;
   •  1/jss of health related to lessened phy&ical activity:
   •  I ,oss of streams for children to play in;
   •  I .oss of sense of spiritual connection to the land, or sense of belonging:
   «  Loss of renewable timber harvest and orchards and associated loss of income;
   •  Loss of knowledge base of traditional skills developed over generations (herbal medicine
      knowledge ami other learned skills);
   *  Heightened stresses upon individuals and communities;
   *  Loss of property value;
   *  lam of peace of mind (worry and fear and anger over contamination of water, air; tailing
      property values; Hooding; coal trucks:  future);
   *  Loss of sleep (worry, fear, anger);
                                                                                                                         10-2-2
                                                                                              53
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       54
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-680
                                                             Section A - Organizations

-------
                   I ,oss of sense of awe that comes from gazing at night sky (MTR operations can he a
                   source of li^ht pollution);
                   Loss of quieu which is very important for some people in terms of both their health and
                   spiritual weliness;
                   Loss of beauty and landscape as source oi' inspiration for art. music, prose and poetry;
                   Loss of faith in democratic procesg / political system;
                   Rise in tear of intimidation (fear of organising via door-to-do.or tactics; fear of expressing
                   one's opinion openly);
                   Infringement upon right of Tree speech (fear of expressing one's opinion openly due to
                   intimidation);
                   Rise in health impacts for individuals and entire communities, with the possibility that
                   some are suffering from pOvSt~trattmatK>su*e&s syndrome  (noise and worry of blasting,
                   worry and fear and anger over contamination of water, air; falling property values;
                   flooding; coal trucks; future);
                   Dashed ideals (after endlessly dealing with non-caring regulators and bought-and-paid-
                   for politicians, peoples' beliefs in the founding principles of the nation are eroded);
                   Loss of ability to insure homes atsd other property for Hooding or Masting damage as
                   insurers opt out of providing that coverage.
             Sludge impoundments / bliH'kwaUr s
                   Living near a cottl waste impoundment not only depreciates the value of the property for
                   the home owner, or puts tlw grotindwater supply into question, or anxiety dttrirsg heavy
                   rain periods, thinking Ms rtiay break, but it devaluate life itself —Walter Young {see
                   above: "Comments from individuals. ")

                   Fear, ctnxiotts, panicky, afraid - th^sff are a few words I use to say how I feet about coal
                   waste impoundments. Wh&n the TV or radio gives a flash flood warning you wonder if
                   you are going to be alive the next minute or not. If it is goifig to be anothtr Buffalo Crefk
                   or Martin County, You 'wonder what the coal companies are releasing from the coal
                   itnpottndmettt in the water t&bfas that you are drinking ami why are they so secret about
                   th#$e coal impoundments, —Geneva Kunyon (see above: "Comments from individuals, ")

             White not all coal sludge (or coal waste) impoundments are associated with MTR, the BIS
             should take note of which are and examine the social and cultural effects upon coalfield residents
             who live near these lakes of MTR coal waste.

             As with the Hooding issue, fear and worry are big factors affecting people and comniuni lies-
             Questions that people report asking themselves Include: Should I keep my kids out of the streams
             (due to the frequency of blackwater spills and potential for the watei/sfreambcd to he
             contaminated with the chemicals that are in sludge impoundments)? Will the impoundment
             overflow if this rain keeps up? What chemicals are ieachtag out of the impoundment into the
             groimdwater and so into my well water? Should I he buying our drinking water? Are there really
             tanker trucks secretly dumping who-knows-whai into the impoundment up there (an oft-repeated
             coalfield rumor)? Where would we go if them was a failure like the one in Martin County, Ky.?
             Could we survive a failure like thai?
10-2-2
17-2-2
Situations like the ones detailed in the three news articles below are repealed frequently in MTR
legions. People's concerns for their health and safety—their very lives—are justified, yet the
DEIS does not report nor qnantify Hie toll on people's health and well-being.

       Coal wastes spfH into waterways; Pipe ruptures at Kentucky plant; fish killed
       By Roger Alford. Associated Press. April 11,2002

       P1KEVILLE - Nearly 135.000 gallons of coal wastes spilled into streams in eastern
       Kentucky on Wednesday after a pipe ruptured at a Pike County coal processing plant,
       officials said.

       A plume of black water 7  to 8 miles long was responsible for a large fish kill on Long
       Fork and Big Creek, and forced cities along the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River to close
       water intakes during the flight.

       "The intakes will stay off  until environmental officials tell us it's OK to turn them back
       on," said Bill Davis, emergency service director for Mingo County.

       "This is had, hut it's nothing compared to the severity of the previous one."

       The previous spill,  which  occurred Get, 11,2000, involved more than 300 million gallons
       of coal sludge from an impoundment owned hy Martin County Coal, a subsidiary of
       Massey Energy.

       The sludge clogged streams «nd turned more than 60 miles of the Tug Fork black.

       Joe Schmidt, spokesman for the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection, said
       the latest spill was  the result of a pipeline break  about 11:30 p.m. Tuesday at Sidney Coal
       Co.. also a subsidiary of Massey Energy.

       The pipe carried liquid waste, primarily dust and particles washed from processed coal
       before shipping to power plants. The waste is a gritty, tar-like substance that also contains
       chemicals used in the cleaning process.

       Katherine Kinney.  a spokeswoman for Massey. said the company shut down the
       processing plant as soon as the rupture was discovered.

       "We are still investigating, but we don't know why il broke," she said.

       Charles Parsley, superintendent of the Hermit. W.Va., water plant, said an employee saw
       sludge in the river Wednesday afternoon, about  12 hours after the  spill.

       The brunt of the bank-to-bank plume arrived at Kermit at nightfall after a 20-mile trip
       front Long Fork. Other towns downstream were being notified of the spill, but it was not
       immediately clear whether they'd need to turn off water intakes.

       Louisa and Fort Gay. W.Va., would be the next cities affected.
                                                                                               55
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         56
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-681
                                                              Section A - Organizations

-------
                   "We're taking precautions, but this is not considered a big coat slurry spilt" Mr. Schmidt
                   said.

                   Biologists and conservation officers with the Kentucky Department of Rsti and Wildlife
                   Resources were monitoring the spill.

                   "In the Tug Fork, it probably won't kill any fish," said Kevin Frey, a state fisheries
                   biologist. 'In Big Creek, we expect a high percentage fish kill."

                   Ms. Kirmey said the spill doesn't pose a public health danger-

                   Coal slurry spills !n$o two W
-------
             The government reports that have come out since the Mattin County disaster have not eased
             peoples' fears. Instead, they have confirmed peoples' suspicions: Another disaster cotrid iappca
             at any time.

                   Report: Impoundments &mia fail! Federal oversight called for
                   By Nancy /uckerbrod, the Associated Press. Oct. 13. 2001

                   WASHINGTON - The Mine sort of thick black sludge that covered Inez. Ky.. a year ago
                   coold wreak havoc on other communities if the government doesn't take steps to prevent
                   coal waste storage systems from failing, according 10 a report released Friday.

                   The federal government must have more oversight authority of the roughly 600 coal
                   waste impoundments in the country, according to the National Research Council report.

                   After coal is washed, a mixture of coal dust, clay and dirt often is pumped into an
                   impoundment and  allowed to settle. In Appalachia, coal companies typically use an area's
                   natural topography to form the storage basin for the waste.

                   The report said (lie failure of the hasin area is t leading cause of impoundment accidents.
                   hut federal oversight of basins "has been less than rigorous." The researchers said federal
                   agencies need to be given "clear authority to review bisin design."

                   In Inez last  year, Martin County Coal Corp. collected dirt and particles washed from
                   freshly mined coal in a mountaintop sludge pond, but the waste escaped through a crack
                   in the bottom of that impoundment. The 250 million gallons of sludge then flowed into an
                   underground mine and rushed off the mountainside, covering residential property and
                   killing fish in creeks.

                   The report said the gov emrneat steuid set standards for mine surveying and mapping to
                   ensure other impoundments are not established next to old mines, which can lead to
                   structural problems at impoundments.

                   The researchers said in many instances old maps UK inaccurate or missing. For example,
                   a fire destroyed at  least 30,000 mine maps at a state government building in Kentucky in
                   1948.

                   But Tom FitzGerald, executive director of the Kentucky Resources Council, said it is not
                   enough to recommend that the government create new mapping standards. He said the
                   council also should have recommended that coal companies be required to drill into the
                   ground in areas where they want to construct impoundments to make sure there are no
                   mines there.

                   "In all cases, you must suspect there may be problems with the accuracy of a map unless
                   you can validate it," Mr. HMierald said.

                   Bruce Wat/man, vice president for safety and health at the National Mining Association,
                   said companies frequently use radar and seismic monitoring to check for underground
                   mines.
                             "it's not as if the industry is fixed in time and not using any of these technologies,* he
                             said.

                             The report also recommended that the government come up witn a coordinated plan for
                             assessing the risk of impoundment failures, and it said more research into alternative
                             waste disposal technologies is needed.

                             .Mr. FitzGerald said he was disappointed that the researchers did not spend more time
                             considering alternatives. "They should have undertaken that assessment themselves rather
                             than calling for more study," he said.  Alternatives to impoundments exist but coal
                             companies steer away from them because they are more costly, he said.

                             Mr. Watzman disagreed, adding  that there are techno logical and geological reasons coal
                             companies often turn to impoundments.

                             "You can't sty thai there should be no more impoundments because that it isn't always
                             viable," Mr. Watzman said.
                             But doing away with impoundments would make many coal country residents feel safer,
                             said Nina McCoy, a biology teacher who lives a few miles downstream from the Ine/.
                             impoundment.

                             "I do think they are time bombs," Ms. McCoy said. The waste "doesn't need to be kept in
                             a water dam that is above people's houses."

                             Ms. McCoy said she  was disappointed the research council didn't look into water quality
                             issues related to slurry spills. The report did recommend that researchers conduct an
                             analysis of the chemical makeup of sitirry, so authorities know what kind of contaminants
                             may be in the water supply.

                             States with impoundments include Kentucky. West Virginia, Tennessee. Pennsylvania,
                             Virginia.  Ohio, Alabama and Mississippi, according to the Mine Safety and Health
                             Administration.

                             The most notorious coal  waste impoundment collapse occurred in Buffalo Creek, W. Va,,
                             in 1972. That accident killed 125 people and injured more than 1,000, the council's report
                             said.

                             Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Nick Rahall, D-W.Va.. pushed for the National Research
                             Council study. Both said they would follow up to ensure the report's recommendations
                             are implemented.

                       Implementation of the NRC  recommendations, enforcement of existing mining laws.. .these are
                       things citizens still await. We repeat: White  not all coal sludge (or coal waste) impoundments
                       are associated with MTR, the HIS should take note of which are and examine the social and
                       cultural effects upon coalfield residents who  live new these lakes of sludge.
                                                                                              59
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-683
Section A - Organizations

-------
            Stress/Fear/BteiUh
            Are people living near MTR operations in tact sufferiitg post-traumalie-stress syndrome? At the
            very least they are suffering from unrelenting stresses of all sorts that take a real toil on
            personal, familial and community health. Some of those stresses have been detailed above: the
            noise, dust and damage from blasting: fear of traveling roads dominated by a long a parade of
            coal tracks: fears about health deterioration caused by dust, blasting noise, numerous stresses:
            worry and fear about the next disaster, fear about air and water and air pollution: aggravation and
            inconvenience of lost wells; the utter frustration and anget with most regulators and corrupt
            politician*,.. the list goes on. The EIS should examine the MTR -related toll on personal, familial
            and community health.
                                                                 "Minimal'* Impact?
                                    Photos of fflountaintop removal / valiey fill coal mining in southern West Virginia,
                                          taken by Vivian Stockman  (10 pages)
10-5-2
            The prepares of the DEIS have not done their job. We repeat: The agenciej in charge of
            creiting a valid scientific BIS on MTR must make every effort to exhaustively study and
            quantify the social and cultural impacts trf" mounwintop removal. At the very minimum, the
            social and current cultural effects of MTR removal listed herein must be taken ittto account in
            the BIS. The HIS recommendations must accurately reflect these effects and must include
            recommendations for actions that will relieve and eliminate the negative social and cultural
            impacts of mountaintop removal / valley fill coal mining.
10-2-2
MTfvl/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-684
Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                          Twisted KUH Golf Course Oft $« MTR site in Ml&go Co.—-how many golf courses,
                                                                                                          (sinking) prisons &«d shopping m$tl$ ($$$ for what population) can fit on at! the MTR-
                                                                                                                  and already trt southern West Yir^Eiia9
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-685
Section A - Organizations

-------
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-686
Section A - Organizations

-------
MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
A-687
Section A - Organizations

-------
           Julv 2001 flood damaue below MTR sites near Dorothy, W.Va.
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-688
Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                          Preliminary Performance Review

                                                                                                                      The Office of
                                                                                                              Explosives and Blasting
                                                                                                            The Office of Explosives and Blasting is Not Meeting
                                                                                                                        All Required Mandates
           This is what coal companies call reclaimed? The most biologically diverse temperate
           hardwood forests on earth are destroyed Take a good look at the "wetlands" coal
           companies claim to have created on MTR sites Better yet, test water samples to find out
           what is in these waste pits.
                                                                                                                                               Ottrmbtr 2802
                                                                                                                                                 PE02-3A-268
MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-689
Section A - Organizations

-------
               JOINT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Edwin ,). Bowman
Chair
Billy Wayne Bailey, Jr.
I'm1 Chair

Oshel B. Cratgo

Sarah \1. Minear

Vic Sprouse




IMaen Members

Owight Calhoun

John CanfieM

James Willisitn

W, Joseph McC.'oy
(I'acaiicy)
Vicki V. Douglas
Ojair
Earnest H. Kuhn
Vke Chair

Scott G, Vainer

Larry Border

Otis Leggett


                                                                                                                           WEST VIRGIN rA LEGISLATURE
                                                                                                                                         £u*n and Rpwdrch f)m*tim
                                                                                                             Sate fetish
                                                                                                             i» W«« Cmk Driw
                                                                                                             Tfe HMfttiAte Vick^ V.
                                                                                                                       t Vi^ifiia 253054470
                                                                                                                                                   15,2002
                      OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR

                                    Aaron Allwl
                                  Legislative Auditor

                                     John Sylvia
                                       Director

        Susannah Carpenter, CPA      Mkfead Mklkiff          Paul Barnette
           Research Manager      Senior Research Analyst      L*e Ann Vecellio
                                                          Research Analysts

                      Performance Kvaluntion and Research Division
                                SniUing I, Roam W-314
                                 State Capitol Complex
                            Charleston, West Virginia 25JOS
                                    (304) 347-4890
                                                                                                                     ', and Bln^«r»R is ^H Veeit*Hj An r
                          We ir&Bsmiited a di&ft cof*j wf the t^t^t
                      L>«fflmber2,2y02 We held siif-xttC^femoce with the <^Bm!>ecejnh«f 4,2'J*',?  W
-------
                                                                                                        Contents
                                                                                                                        Kxmitiv e Summary.	




                                                                                                                        Review Mei&od, Scape and Methodology..
                                                                                                                        List of Tables
                                                                                                                        Table 2:    Claims Al!<3$n$iBl&&ng Damage




                                                                                                                        'fable3:    AgeofOpaiOaims.	,.







                                                                                                                        Li*t <)f Appendices




                                                                                                                        Appendix A:  Transmhtai Letter to Agency  	




                                                                                                                        Ap|M;Kdix B:  AgC3>c."v RespotiK	
          I'ag.' 2
                                     Ikvankcr 2M2
                                                                                                                                                                  Page J
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-691
Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                                                Executive Summary
                                                                                                                                       J:  Th* Office  <>t Fvpli'sivo - '^1 itt K^U^Ii'r^1 !VJ^  IhiV^.St  j'itf n
                                                                                                                                       K^fiTej^tMit^f Iv^it.lMs^fhwM 'c!^«i< iJiUifer'i'f,;^,^^'.
                                                                                                                                       wr.jv^if.j, -(iij,! ni''J'i•
                                                                                                                                               ^ iittti
                                                                                                                                                                 fii to Receive (
                                                                                                                                                       t for i
                                                                                                                                                                       of C bt»M*s
                                                                                                                                                                       .lli ^rc v '
                                                                                                                                 •Jw ni'fijnite:! pMndiio,  Vs A m^uh, « t' «> s-n. ix-i.J T( :!•:« !*>«' (>t N >-r
MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
A-692
Section A - Organizations

-------
                                                                                        Review Objective, Scope & Metbodolojj)
                                                                                                          II -| -I ) i i  »
                                                                                                      f \,jl vA»i jB- tl 'IMtH  .I'ai,.  '< < o
  • . 'ill VI "I MM fl v sn iu! ' - --Jr ,fl, t»s.l..,\ i>i>! i , Klll.I USI'I »>< lit >' 'W-l \l .< I*1 - JK I SiiL L1 "* i Pttgt 6 Dceaxtfr 1992 ' IK (l*i IK Kj* • M-,JJ!| li D i MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium A-693 Section A - Organizations

  • -------
                                                                                                                                    1
                                                                                                                                                                                  ; K Not
                                                                                                                                                            th
                                                                                                                                                    ,\*Sv^ <_y$  tKl   s!n t \i s  tiv  v^    f     i    '
                                                                                                                                                  K III!    O( F! I il   <1 I ">"  i    <     I   I  tr  O
                                                                                                                                                »'< r  it >i I I  I i i»  i\t  \  'H»   i  i    ji^'tlHti
                                                                                                                                                   t >-    U t'*~ L(  j H 5 ?_   hi   v { * v  i    t1! N    X j 1
                                                                                                                                                  i ^' i  nt y t 3 i   i^i i i^^<  i5!   -f r  ^ ^ 1 u   ^
                                                                                                                                                si   i«i s 11  (A  I  '. < ,1 I i  Ml   . t   1    K 1 if r  s
                                                                                                                                                <  U  II. 'ill l«.f  iH \tM  V  V
                                                                                                                                                   Rf ^ulfllioH < f Bisi'-l'ftf* on SitHau Msn< tyw 
    
                                                                                                                                                   HIM  i<  >   u  n    t  SM    ,., t"  i >f. n^ t   -,
                                                                                                                                                       a»l,  '  i   ,i  i U I,  1   D is  i  v \
                                                                                                                                                   Rut   i  i  i,t VOItl
    
                                                                                                                                                   SetfmijolOiulifit^tjoEnfof !fldnHl«.iK Pfrinrmint I if I K«
                                                                                                                                                   S«i-\t*^  Pn^tlHi swlt'ti fil  *  <   t  l i i HEI      i
    
    
                                                                                                                                                   HP'-  >•  !tu    I  'it<   01 n IVM Ma - ,.' i   i
                                                                                                                                                    M intuining and O|>eratin| « System to Receive Cnmnliilnts -
                                                                                                                                                    The OEB has been in ike pKX=*";!> of ckvdi>p«vg a s.ystc!n tp kxave
                                                                                                                                                    c»M()laiiits, Howwcr, safSt!gdif1ku!«icsl5asdc!r<\'eslthccofrip!eti.«i
                                                                                                                                                    of Ibis system
                                                                                                                                                         Bhing a System for ill* Investigation of Claims -1'hi-re is
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-694
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                      <.  <  K     m tuOHl  ,   is in "i  in   >  it   ''i
                                 v *  J     I 01 IK >    in    i. h s \   ,A 'h OIBtll u  i  K
                                    !  si  (Mfius  ic      Kt   1}     t „„! ,e st.il!. s>li
                                  !   >M   ill «i s \,  's I *  J     i ^ r   ^   t r  s>« fe K l i i
                                 v i !K,U,.S    < S I  i  H LW  >
                                           K
                                           i.  k
                                OKB (ieueraily Meeting Mandates
                                                                                                                                   The Regnlsfion of Blasting on Surface Mine Operations
                                                                                                                                   Has Not Been  Transferred to  OEB from  Mining ssnd
                                                                                                                                   Reclamation
                                i      i«  i  ,  l1  i. « ' ,,' i
                                I      I |  ^ i i   i v I !   £J    c *  I  ! !  St  V'
                                                                                                                                                      MA   III
                                                   T«M» I
                                          td Petfoi-msnci Mi siirti 4chif nd!j tiscOFB
                                            —   —                  ~
        ttotdafc''?
    
    i '  p ? i siU *  r  < *
    ' Pr. H'« i  Nar •>>
     f-v t
                        r.
                                        "ht oil hovwe isd t i  ts.
                                                            a b'at v tl A cr I ft  f*c ^
                                                            ^a^ ut  t  i  >iivlW<*
                                                            vt-tb* Mi sr^ca i < ' ffl'felp
                                                              i Iw m  Utc su& ^^'j sHntiar
                                              hr ^ 1^ *>iif«orli uSJ-Hnvi
                                             ' *•"< I) i 'n *i  V>   ''Ilk « « ct^'I i
                                        The OEB is Not  Currently Training Those Performing
                                        Pre-Blast Surveys
                                                                                                                                          ffh'f n/" Kxpltnivt't
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-695
                                                                                                                                                Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                  ()l Hf- S\*ti'in fm Kcceiving and Tracking Complaint* Is
                                  V>< \ <>( { iilh I unriinnal
                                        IKO, Bi<   ui    1  i  i LS. (it v  I     ,  i oi i ' dii  -  it   , .
                                                                                                                                             >  n  ll\ u u  ')) I t  i i    nt.lt   •.  I iv * hi  < ) •>  i i
                                                                                                                                             J t 'i l <. t" H!K f 5 v !  i  !"  it '  i^ sh C is  f T  I to  aK   ^
                                                                                                                                             t^a II rMiuloi^5tf  H  v^t  *.M*j i  L i?  fU 3H i  h    !  '
                                                                                                                                              i  uwcUi ^ntf v p etd i <.*.*!( u'v"* i vrn }si ^ii« > ^  i
                                                                                                                                             \i  l >H  (U\SK*u it^i! f 1^xvk,s \ii !i luff H M S
                                                                                                                                             lil»l\''l ttO! >i Ihlskil  k!i    i  l \  I   (1,1'v  >
                                                 Xf'lKilu1 ,111 us ^ 'ill (I 1*1 V<- l> fit >  >-!>-  ^' II Hiv 'f j(U
                                           ^  IMS  ^doLtulo In  1 j HI.  ILJ   !    1 1.   c!  !  ^i  r-   \t  >j
                                           ji  «f>ii,i ^ht»   ^ i su ->^  x  d»  \k^i  tt !4i p  ^~*  t  tcit i  s
                                           win tt> ,->(! 10 ^ v I .1 ill il  n-   V>.  '   ^   I'.t    "  'i UI ('.
                                           JHi .s',tt-ni t lltls I   I ] it
                                                                                                                                                                                      / /
               fitge 12
                                              llecfjnter 29
                                                  Offtw
                Pag*!3
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-696
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                    Table I
                                              s Alleging BlMtlii
                                                       ftf Claims
                                                      14*
                                                                                t»^e of Total
                                                                                73%
                    Settled
                 Tstal
                                                      43
                                                      212
                                                                                21%
                                                                               100%*
                 * Cfelsss ssmy be tov^aatetj i:is&&i on lack of jwisctieitot, M&re by &« cfaksust v$ mpanst to saiitast attempts
                 flute* Siy fbg ehsis$&fit to stjgs sa&»s-8i-y forms for continuing fee proc&ss.
                 ** Pswatsges R&y wt n*M ^p to 100% slts4: to roimsKag.
    T»bl* 3
    Ag« of Opal Ctoims*
    l-ess than 1 year old
    From 1 to 2 years old
    Older than 2 years**
    77 eMrns (52%)
    58 ciaiiBS (39%)
    S claims (5%)
    * Based tm tkte received by OH 8
    **f ive open claims cotttaiaed no date indicating the date She claim was
    received
                                    OEB Sites StaffiBg Irregularities as Reason for Delays in
                                    Meeting  Mandates
                                              (Ht'l  ^t  I ll'l  to Is M  0  (.lU   1 >     I' Ob ()  >  '    (
                                              f  -.xdtx /  Itil I       It        i  I,     a. tit h        !
                                               Iiv  t HI , 1 1 lit  ,1     ' 1 so 1 I)  v  ' ^  '   !  o 1 ti I  I '  11
                                                                                                                                     ! *& / i-  i  t/
                                              Effects of Israel Mandates
    
                                                    \  n  le.l(« M  «. nrfRi  i
                                              T^ tliLtO"V^ *•  !  I  1 ? 1      I  v  i  t
                                               i >4s  nrvt'v  1( m i "U>k(ll Hv ,
                                              WKlt- ) I? tk Kti I tj'lc 1ft.  !^\\  pU h    !>
                                                                                                                                                                                                   H  '   1 J Ll
                                                                                                                                                                                         llf  ' ii i
                                                                                                                                                      t('l •»  i  i  i  illi I I I   vn  >l  t i'  ll   k' >•
                                                                                                                                                      L«  RH-V nf-h'i1-  1 1  t  > Ik i  ' (h(OH>  -    *  i n.1'1  ( '   kit
                                                                                                                                                      (in. •»"•>'  Kit. * Hi  iUI>  »(  ''• I  ""*  -'     s>.>i<.u   «lt  M  >ltttltM»vc li.  !!1   'lO») I  /t  , , -T,
                                                                                                                                                       ""! * pt  i I  tv f\^     Hl1!^*!  M   '    ,1  ul    )  *l t  f!   i
                                                                                                                                                      hstA"  (>L ii i U 11 M  MX iHc  ')'  I  ' v!   \ I ) ih>  <  i.  I '
                                                                                                                                                      \  ( ' 1<>)>t'   i H II      1   >>  I
                                                                                                                                                      mil    »v »\^ i   'ii  U     i     i   i    i   •   i •   v l'\
                                                                                                                                                             \\l  >  ^IJ 10 •><•>.  li.Jv'>l<-  1111    ilS  v   Hi
                                                                                                                                                       .Ml»'«»    ,alf,'i",  ^                ft i  I"
    MTM/VF Draft PEtS Public Comment Compendium
    A-697
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                       K»  M-i   H  Us  \H.M^tt t  KjU^^-Jj  f)f
                                    v.   * .* •« ti  j ' p  t  HH * tmv IK >v .  f  Kw i ^ .
                                   t Uv M i* u* »»n ttl^ithvOI P»i tu ' ** k -vUiP ^  t.s«| >
                                   «- ' ,  t'il h  t>! H'shyifu^  »s vti * s, o<* ^--  < * t'
                                      '?) s1   (Lfi m * ! «  i p i   '  u t'l  \f jf ^ i ftlk   I' ^ M
                                    ' t-^i I  r - M,i «»t U  , ^ -'Run  P- V>'i f,  '
                                    in i st  «.,   mi-H> i.  «i Ktu OK v ^  ^ ** *i  f nn
    7     flu f t*£iditttv/> l»r//*c»i* Offtn? rnvtn/twittii tbttt tf*? Of ft hi?
         t ttnffniiftt Mid n'vunvt ttttgutn /?i iff? f t-'tfU&tttt*? iftfUittif tit*trt*
          //«• ) *tfi\latt\t>  imtttin* Offm wctwnm n*h that ih*? (H >
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    
                                      Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                                                        Appendix A:  Transiiiittal  Letter to Agency
    
                                                                                                                                         WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE
                                                                                                                                         PetfotmaiMx Evalimiiatt and Mafsrrh DMtlmt
                                                                                                                        (MK)
                                                                                                                                                            DecvrotMi 2, 2;X)J
                                                                                                                             M*e Mice CMe«
                                                                                                                             Office of Fsp^awvftS and Bla
                                                                                                                             Wa4 Vu^tjj^a Div>.ijoii of £'mrua
                                                                                                                             Ml Mrjankia R,w, WVJSMW"*
    
                                                                                                                             fV,ir Mt, KJace
                                                                                                                                       Io twr^rait a t^afl u'py iff tW Full Frrjt>TjBaB0e Evahutw^ of tihss *^01ce oi
                                                                                                                                       Bktstlni;, Hfsj-fcfH^t i> -Unttokd ^ofo^ |«^ssrato1 at ihu Sunday, D^tm^sr ! 5. ?SM!2
                                                                                                                                       ^ vf ttHr j"9il C'aron;j"M on fiovirtiawii ( ^ttEttSitwsy  ft i* (.-spcUj^l tbsi a
                                                                                                                                       x*myo*ar ags.m,v beptesaii at tho n « tutg fo Dfssli¥fc^fv>teJ to &il r^ort aid ansr.vr
                                                                                                                             ;mv .tufsj^j;^ th? rnmmitt«e maylisv^ 1' >TOJ %\>ai^ li^e fA («hs*tllo sn ex't eonteti^'e to ^-«cu*<5
                                                                                                                             ftp) cmKwns ytivt m-^y !>ive usiii die tqiysf M«.-MI I>ei.-imEjei \ 20U2. i
                                                                                                                             pfe^&e TfCUly us-.  Wtf usyHi >MW wrfe,^ RS| oaw fey IKKMI tm IVc«tnbci 10, tifcO?
                                                                                                                             te ^ Irftied ir ib? mml ^^srt
                                                                                                                                         t thai yoar ptsi^^me! Us,\4 tl=e dmft re^i^ »i ^eiriidaiiul ^su that st is. i be
                                                                                                                                         « n<^ dffUiatfid With war a&£i!ey fbasi } ua It -i >-<>ur uj^spe
                                             Dtfember !«t>2
                                           Joint Cama^Hft im (Smentment ofld Flnaitce    .,-.„-.—	
    
                                             riff <• iif r»yvtv» tv.il Ktinii,,,'.               ¥jitt \'>
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-699
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                              Appendix B:  Agency Response
                                                                                      n, was
                                                                                  fSas?
           i'age 20
    MTMA/F Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
    A-700
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                            Vtfest Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
                                     Division of Mining and Reclamation
                                      Office of Explosives and Blasting
    
    
                                                tive Audit Response
                                                                                    ;  Vv
                                                                                   HI
                                                                                    1  bv
    
                                                                                                                                    jt e ^
                                                                                                                                                                           H
                              "*'' H3v» s se-v!  i f  f 1 1 u * ~*t fii*> a' -1 f  f»«.us  * ^  ir    '
                              r? >*  y •>  ? H t i i I )<1<    t a <• n\* y M  t,4 nf j n r    i  3 1 > IK
                              "'"^  ii  j! Jl   1  i Xf  •i
                              t *? M  *   *  O ISf  t J  S , bf^l1**!.  "»  IH*   ft   i,  t" f*1 'i
                              "*   *v c t * f *fi- rfft «  i»>. u   ^-f ucl  */th  n    j dt t   H
                              t, *• £tt?iv ^u J 1k i ^  r  "t «t >^>t ir\ I  -.* tQf  H* t
                                                           ry (/» jt  M»t
                                                                                                                          ( f f
                                                                                                                                *  M*  *> -  h    Hi'*tH *  U j"'
                                                                                                                              xu  t^ s i  i  f«     i r{    > ,  ^ f '
                                                                                                                                i  ATM  n f  ' f 'tt T^I l  « »V  f*
                                                                                                                          *•   j i -J I*, * f ! il i * >
                                                                                                                                   <*H P   H    1 •»( »!-  » X -
                                                                                                                                   i-i i,   «•}    *   \j Hi
                                                                                                                                         J.   i >sr  tf •» f
                                                                                                                          [  p •- H   n1- t  f  !       i S
                                                                                                                          1    if uy ! ' * i  us.  fc    t
                                                                                                                                                         tfl
    MTMA/F Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
    A-701
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                IVIgintain and mrate a system to rtceiva and adstress question^. goncema.
                                       f it*      \ r v  t  y O     f   )  f f  "N  t  '  !  rH ( 4   it i *- J
                              '          if  r   M  i       n    *J!  -U   *«.•! i no n i    «  '    i
                          i    f * M  !   H *  k  «*(  '    i   * i Off-  /   i  i  * f   p M f  *,   ( i
                           <   ^ it    r*i  if , ^   i" M  s sy u r n  i 1 *•)* di /    !*  if *- L^ s"*H f d ft   ; *-
                          1  ' *  !  <" "* w   >r i KG   Hf *•>* Q£ M- * t«.t  i!  t}{   «;}s   m i *  I y if  >  df>1
                               U* t ^U" «**sM !   * '   C !>bi   Th sf"f !»    O  fl «w k  |^c\w if( o
                                   1s    t*i    , I I  i  M i>». t1?. fi  i   t i      it  , 'o   l Tf^! « n*
                                J   I 9V- t}f  i p j f ! >th* CTB •*   !  ! "• 1  t i  I ^ i)l| I     ! f  ^ M   f i"i  f j  r ^> !  t     si H 4 cm* J  i  t  ! > -*
    
                Set the quattficMion IQI individuals and f|fm? |?ftftQTOJpg
                                             t  *  i y M  it J
                                                                                                                                            A*, **MA n     1*   >£ f 1- V  «l okl*.   T  *  «• * r w* * I * I •», *• b »M *»  ft y I
                                                                                                                                      r J1' *  Mr   >  d^ fei* *fe * *  "V ? ?k v  ! * r*d n *  n* •* ^ 0  * i *•  *  -   ^ i" *   J "t * 4  *•
                                                                                                                                      We-5- A *  ">p  J^f r* * t^niy ft if j t*"pj"i t t  ft**f 1 -injj *-»   ^iii'fl1^'^*-5    ^ > t    >j
                                                                                                                                       sfdJM*  th^ft£ t- fethn  >^2{X'
    
                                                                                                                                                                     tstefs warkinoon stafaee mining operations
                                  1   ! ! 3 'S t,° -.F Pf  t f bt ( I IS1    t V 1*  > «  p 'f!  *>   * i c
                            t  r  A    if yiqc1 (  f ui,  "f •«« n i  f  *"> t)!1    *  j 3^    !  ^d
                            l *.<" ,^ >n*i j^  c r  ' t 1 3  *» b4   i v t* !Ji l rfs ^ njp  s,<  H Ts ttM1"*
                              iat et f Oj *  j> vr^ii ^ih(=af fj  nt'K  n t. ^ B *(f i f i   ' ^  t    *s?
                             JkJ i    3* > f'tdkJ* !f ^bir --^1 <**•. ;*  f
                              »  f"h  c f  ft 4J   f1  ' S  VGT i7 "KO   f  t l v  J    ittrtt  U 1    s
                                nnt ettlM'      f Ei  t      ( r   cf t -*   j M j;    i   *if  f L
                                                                                                                                            C*
                                                                                                                                                                 tt
                                                                                                                                                                                         i. t  f
                       ^ >, CE
                        /  i >
                                                                                    OLf Vf
                                                                                                                                                                                   nwrf Xttaxting
                                                                                                   Page 25
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-702
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                              h  ' } i y  'I "
                                                L i  **y   i  **  &• ^
    
                                                                                                                                                                                               lf»    v •> KIS   f  >r^ rt>» t«*tt
            i        '   u  'f<-.  rt • t  t hr ]      f v ^
        .   ^ t   ^   * ,** !'iv     •    "s <. ft   * <, ^  t* i * r -^  »n ?! f iuf QM1 'tm n^o^k*-**
    
           The OEB afso developed and established disciplinary procedures for ail certified blasters
    responsible for blasting on surface mine operations These procedures identified specific ctrcumstarices
    where a blaster would be cited for violations  The penalties associated with blaster violations  may include
    temporary suspension or revocation of the bfasteris certification
                                                                                                                                                      The tracking system was devetoped by OEB to track milestones provide a digital record of claims
                                                                                                                                                events and to provide general details of pertinent aspects of each claim This $ystem was not intended to
                                                                                                                                                be an expansive database For the intended purposes thss system serves the office needs  However
                                                                                                                                                OEB appreciates the recommendation of the auditor and plans to review the existing data system for a^eas
                                                                                                                                                of improvement.
    
                                                                                                                                                Offict to ceiMiiKt study.
                  claims.
                                                                                                                                                                              (^fflcc <}/E
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                          A-703
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
             & dpi n tg.iJ'
             Pats* 5*
                                                                                                                        Tt< f U « W -HI (> ! ^*•( ' >r»«-^  1f *  i » » r  ^ f  w ^r  O
                                                                                                                   *t d (  H t > vt^ fu *• " v l3Ci  ^ ! J*tt* y f'Tt.dt0  C? j  L "*
                                                                                                                   u  tj <,d vt=t , i » jjjfMj 3 i  !  iy  > f,*y s *r  -o-
    -------
                                                                                                                                                      Photos of Surface Mining Hasting {effe
                                                                                 Jl t  .  i   .: f  i
                        i
                                              « )
       *  f     1   i.   M / X   (  j I ^ <  Tt* 1 y* < *    ' "V j   ^ !S ••        J d*" W / fh  > I '' HI
    
       •       \ t t< *  v*   ?  3     H   4ft"   I    ' f M 5c } ff -!  Wit  i (  ^ * *   A * t 1   '
    
          1          >   f    »v  jx   -Xf  f  t, Kji     t  ly«-
    
    
    >   i   " *    j« f   ^ j j •* ^ t  3^ / tt   ^ *•>' f i  v   , * f.  i!    11 i =.   ^ 4 i i A   i ^n
    
    g;ppfijMSiP^
    
          t  f     -  AV w s (  4  v    Jy   •   t     n    !   M   t-x K (t- C  t
    
     f      *-     i             -n  di  i  t / *t  * y* i^
    
        »  i    l f  t f,  j  *    *   t* J(iX,  *  I  %^ t   ft,   i-*»^H*y 3   -, ^^
    
             (         u f
                                                                Photo Caption- Emily Justice, who lives
                                                                next door to Jerry Pinscm, talked about her
                                                                fears after a boulder crashed through
                                                                Pinson's home State regulators said they
                                                                plan to take additional measures to fix the
                                                                problem of "fly rock."
    
                                                                From the Louisville Courier Jfwnuif,
                                                                "Boulder from strip mine rips through
                                                                Pike home; Dangling rocks threaten other
                                                                residents in hollow," by Alan Maimon,
                                                                Thursday, August  15, 2002.
                                                                                                                                                                        Debris from a Boone County, W. Vs.,
                                                                                                                                                                        home's foundation, part of %hich was
                                                                                                                                                                        reduced to rubble by MTR-related
                                                                                                                                                                        blasting.
                                                                                                                                                                        Supports installed by the family to try to
                                                                                                                                                                        keep their home (same home as above)
                                                                                                                                                                        fro* collapsing after MTR-related
                                                                                                                                                                        blasting destroyed part of the homes
                                                                                                                                                                        foundation. A WVDEP blasting inspector
                                                                                                                                                                        insists that the destruction was not caused
                                                                                                                                                                        by blasting. The family knows better.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-705
                                                                                                                                                                              Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                  MTR-relatad blasting has cracked the
                                                  porch of this family's Boom County
                                                  home.
                                                  The same porch as above, side-view.
                                                  A crack in a Boon County home's
                                                  foundation produced by MTR-related
                                                  Hasting,
                                                           A crack in a Boon County home's
                                                           foundation produced by MTR-related
                                                           blasting
                                                                                                                                                         A crack in a Boon County home's roofing
                                                                                                                                                         produced by MTR-related blasting.
                                                                                                                                                         A crack in a Boon County home's ceiling
                                                                                                                                                         produced by MTR-relsted blasting.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-706
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                               fhis photograph, submitted by Robin
                                                               Benriey of Logan, reportedly was snapped
                                                               by an independent trucker ha** drawn
                                                               considerable interest from those who have
                                                               viewed it personally  I he person who
                                                               photographed the mine blast said this
                                                               particular photo contains aft image of the
                                                               devil's ftce mstde the cloud of smoke and
                                                               dust
                                                                                                                                                     D003582
    
                                                                                                                                                     D003S82
                                                                                                                                                                 73260113-3600
                                 ss
     ioog)nmofserofflK»Rimmma Smote C
    ' TOAL fXJST
    
    'iRVE COMPLAINTS &lCfefVtO OH 102991 FOR COAL DUST IN
     SYLWSTiR WV HARRY RIDOIE- &ANUAL ARVQN MARY
    iMSJ,E8 H&LUNE THOMPSON PAULBC CAN1W8ERRY AIL
    'PHGNEP IN CCWtAINTS STATING THAT COW €8 JS1 FHOM THt
     Et K RUN MINF COMPl FX HAD BtOWW ONTO MOhTS IM THE
                                              208JS80&
    
                                              ^3406
                                                      HFAVYSlftST ON it
                                                                          W S K RUWS S
                                                                                                                                                                                                 CLK (fuW COAi CO R *¥TOKFf! f
                                                                                                             WST
                                                                                                  HC
                                                                                                  F i K Rt mi f OAL C *"»MPA.N¥ INC
    
                                                                                                  flK RUN GOAL COMPANY SNC
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           BiK ft! 1N COA1 C OMP AMV
                                                                                                                                                                                                         D FURNACE DUCT WORK
    
                                                                                                                                                                               OUST FROM STQKfcR PLANT GOTING WOftSfc OVER TH6 LAS1  rELK fttlN COAL OOhSPANY INI"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           FLK RUN COAL C
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   SptttJgsdry  QLAOVFO(^.fc8MlNQ
                                                                                                                                                                               HQUOW WASHED OLfT ON ? 38-81 AN&ASAtN ON 6 3-01 WANTSIBUfTALO MtHB«3CO
                                                                                                                                                                               iT INSPFCTSO TO SEE & f)' ffTAl G M!N»iC. OH QAS CrtMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                               l'NOffe'QN731-O'i M3R PETCWS VOU-EWWtXJMCEBNSASOtfl  (
                                                                                                                                                                               WATER SEE PS BEHIND 118? RSSiOCNeg AS NOTED B£LOW
                                                                                                                                                                                       F TO TOY sten lie *w pee THC MIHMJ CCM-^ANY
                                                                                                                                                                               MSE«AMUS^«MlTilDU«>(SO!«)EOHOJ»D THIS ACTIVITY
                                                                                                                                                                               (CfffAteD ASfFUATON WHESE Fi OODiNQ AND RUFOfT
                                                                                                                                                                               IMPiftCtEO CIDZFH 9 PFCIPERTV 'VFfiBAL COifftAH^T OF
                                                                                                                                                                                              _     .,
                                                                                                                                                                                             Pl AlWAMT
                                                                                                                                                                               PAY WATER B84. THEYRKfiiVH) ^^ffciR^»:^ST WftTFflBKLAS
                                                                                                                                                                               WERE TOLD BY SUf f At O PSD THAI THE WATER Bftt WA"3 THt
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      COMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                               lie whsro t-fatlsSia
                                          m'2001 is
    
                                                                                aaftte
    
                                                                                  1tS^H^f*w'*(twlii«^wlK«JB
    
                                        8S4PP01 flfrtlM  (STORM VfeSrEB£>A¥"WA\SMfcO Difir<3<=F O« HAUtfeAD ONTO   jSAMa« L COAi CORPORATION
    
                                                                                             toCflTAPOifel 56ATCO DBA'SCHOf
                                                                                                                                                                  --....
                                                                                                                                                                  IP' ^
                                                                                                                                                                                    _^                  _   __ _ ^ _ _              ,..^-...-  ___
                                                                                                                                                                                     t^Mt 'ff AtfeO flHAtT5(^lTSP''tHfc iOACKJUT NLA« .ATOG1C '^>At CO' DBA ARCH Of
                                                                                                                                                                               RILEY CAMP ON BUPFAtO CfiEfeK ® VCRY BAD ALSO STATfcS  JWEST WKSINW INC
    MTMA/F Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-707
                                              Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    tastjoias
    QOOOJ&I
    00-MG8J
    0* 10S1-
    s,-«H 183
    DC" IflS-)
    TH3002 H 1159
    8JP2001 144KOO
    tya'scoa it.*; 00
    ? i VSng S» (M* '
    116^002 14 1T00
    11 i & J1 14 18-24
    1 '£2'2QQa 19 55 
    W W2001 5 M 00
    f S * W01 18 »iW
    DiJ^T VtR BA isftJK COMH AtN^Nf STAU S tHAT tftY APiXtt MWt ^iif«A AfKMOF^
    TCV>KTML«*»RrOTMLCAHWAgHlASTM'SMTftgt»)A f WTSTVW ^(A IHG
    SPRAWD IT Off AND IT WAS OUSTY ASAffJ TODAY
    CtJ«r«y n qd  < OMPANY
    fAftJ^ wflSw auwwti oft ma motmtWn and atom) sfetes of lh& road since 'QREfcWVALLfeYCnALCOfff'AMY
    Of* w Valto Coal biswti 8^5 aftMiwon
    iDu oti «ufl! Prfad from roal t(«i« gelig HiRi Fefepisn JjliD VOL LEASING INC.
    Wrtttfs !o ft»v3 oort coirajany to pu! av^ on toad H Sids hava (o 'MO V£ L LEAStNu iEJC
    iw^fc to rfoti itont b« siop in iha mud
    f"oal dumped atengRoole ll^aftflffiwelsattisM^itCWilOp Tl^Y! Nhff SAif ( hPANY
    1 1NC
    'Oo Q 1Wi S 4 % pm at«J 117'( 1 O 1 98 ^n steak uisd- damaqe QOM S COAL COS.^ ANY
    1 mid »&=S«(3 H me 3towmg a«SM m cwifftg aft wgi °h«bf(f^es 'GOALS COAL COW£ NY
    TwoKtofBani2'17 1 mini- Between 2< 4 00 see wJ &in« tf-tider ^'AttCOALroMPs Y""
    andmor%x8s(atesn Wit c«2l8 1M I
    (BLACK WATfR IN SPfltiCr LALS^FL F-f»fa< 'WfNOftfWRRf- OlffiCESftOW
    S)stfit»S M Mavclhotne Goaf Company iu& Laused r iSFCONO TTFfU-lNGC HP.
    Jerry Q«ds*flb*3tty and myseit  Goal » (ORCHARD s ( /U, CO
    •*• JopSig dp 4S«i u(» "^w^jis tn the ' pos* (fiet^od Wsbb^ Tlor^ at f rafe
    Rfets«»tf mwa hoaiB) J^Jkirtjoww Ma c§w^ediM owned fcyttao HiD VOt tFA&iHG JNC
    UWS ABl 'LTT 1009 YDS FROM TOAL f RUCK ENTRANCE DU Ttfe'DEtflART NMHWJQr fcWftNY
    t fcRHSLE COMING FROM HIGHWAY COAL TRUCKS 0!W tJ&£> 1
    N fiOAD AMD fT TURriS TO DUST
                                                                                                                                                                O01S5S1
    
                                                                                                                                                                OOIfJSBl
    
                                                                                                                                                                O80199S
    
                                                                                                                                                                o&rass"
                                                                                                                                                                0901095
    
                                                                                                                                                                O3010(l
                                                                                                                                                                0^3099)
    
                                                                                                                                                                0500591
                                                                                                                                                                                  11 00 W-DEI
                                                                                                                                                                                  )! 17 4^ 54
                                                                                                                                                                              "1 2000 0° t'JWO ~
                                                         'DtSFrSOMT?! tJSNE K VERY SAD
                                                        ^BSfli**«8ertt*Mrprantromwine LwMOfi&t SSafoty.aOPsana
                                                         FUQfftVt tSJST ANDWO&fc ^ftOfrf SJRf-tOtM>M3 M»C
    
                                                         iBLACK WATt-R REPORTED ATtCAR BOB WHITF OR JARRFLL t,
                                                         IBRANGH AR&A GAIL FORWARDED TO rep BY MS IA AND
                                                                                                                                                                                           INe^j county raafl wasfjed
                                                                                                                                                                                           |f& CwroJf te coRcemef Htrt RntAta Cowi Comowi/ is t*«3ng rUos-e
                                                                                                                                                                                           from ooal mim=tJ ai fhs ci»ti(>«ay'<5 HarA'ir s Crui't ¥tna on H^ir refuse
                                                                                                                                                                                           'OK tswirfl fO-lfXM^InmBiCKiHfie nsces'^ty and proper rtgNs a*»a
       P1ONFER FUEL f ORTORAT1ON
      CAS7ERN ASSOCIATED COAL
      •CORP
       PASTFRN ASSOCfftfrn < C'AL
       CORf
                                                                                                                                                                                               ss ftjiuBisq csal from S 3004 06 a
                                                                                                                                                                                           sugtne bntkos to
    
                                                                                                                                                                                           Coat I««* traffifi
                                                                                                                                                                                                        (JO'S Mweft ru 39 fifrf (he R«* Cf&ak H.s*o&.J
                                                                                                                                                                                                      } traffic Tnc^w^iiigltiflnobyfOiWteldet^triidvsow
                                                                                                                                                                                                       ig ItrnTMdrforK C«» Co
                                                                                                                                                                                             sisottS 130) $ i&MamafttJ tt OOamaa«JonS'iSlei 9 4 iS
                                                                                                                                                                                             i  e»*»etvo(ySra*d and slio* tier na-kteitew a**  '21Q1BI4?
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          POWELLTOW COAL CCSJIPANY,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  COAL COK^ftMY, JNC
                                                                                                                                                                              y" 200  1  !700"J^'eia^ma(!*3Jif5ikerif(om6ii gtesai«ac!8mmsdlTSirorafsrtied .00  MAftn>BKCOAl fOi^ANY iHC
                                                                                                                                                                                           toH™#mg 1«.90 01
                                                                                                      9 iMARfOUKCOALCC ^ANY t
    
                                                                                                       m MAPFORK f"OU COMPANY E
                                                                                                                                                                                              at 4  Op.m onl>*3jQ2 Rtr*j%str i bfc   dlfigsfaildt
                                                                                                                                                                                              moljilB !*o«w steofe tii toni* re^S^ {xsd
                                                                                                                                                                                              att 1120410pm «atroto tn «W one on 1^02 kfwksthifiQS  MAfiTOPIK COAL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                «  -60      MAfiFOHK COAl COMPANY HC
                                                          hs ijare ftJf Sn tua water tern ilia WtiSe vt«
                                                        3 iSTOTKFII E »1 YAfiD S »KH
    -------
                  ; ilPiJSI S3 &UINf$3 TNfiRHQMFSf Hfc VART PlMPg^ft TROCra  "SSAI t OffiEK gtHTOY OFWV™"
                   (OVER A MS3BW4U. A«O 90 •«. OP THt TfMt THEY DON TUST AMv'lNC
                   'WATCK ON THE COAL TH&Y ATO ALSO LOAOWO TRAINS AT
                   WIGHT AMD NOT USING ANY WAT?R WHE-Rt THE COAL CC*£S
                   OFF THE SFIT ANf) fT CAUSES A B!U ClOt  IT HAS SNOWED THEY APE- NO! RUNN1N0 TMFIH WATfcR ifNC
                   ,SPHAYE.F!S RKSIOtNT ALSO SAYS THEY AW Oi(MPS*3 AND
                                     SNI&HT
    1 '10»103f><*3&55-  CCWUMNANT SA®SHE^ANTSAN"iN^lCtORT0COMPTOl^fTC^IS^'llSlTOYlsn^
                   iHrR HOUSE AND IOOK AT THF DUST ON HFR OAR AND ON THF- (INC
                   (SNOW 0EFORL THE SNOW MELTS TOO*Y SHL SAID it WAS   l
                   TERRSiF
                   "COot  (XJST IS GETTING ONMYruSTQI4EtetANGMY}rARS   "KANAWHARWgR'tERWWL-S""
    
                   '•WANTS PfeflMSTTEt TO HIRE A PEftSON TO KfcEP THE CARS AND!
                   PROPERTY Ct FAN                                               	
                   'fusffwf OUST WAS ai OWING off SOMJEDARE-^ & ONTO MR .KANAWwWivWtl^NAiir"
                   iflWS PUCl QF BUS8CSS WHICH S LOCATED APPROXIMATE: LY iNC
                   SOD YARDS SOUTH OF BONDED AREA WHFRE Ol *ST WAS      ,
                   fENCRATED WHFNMNWSTlGArfcD WK FRY WA^ VERY
                   WNCOOPLftATIVE & CCSNTIMtJALLY USFD ABUSIVE tANGUAGE T
    
                   1-HOtJM. HASKFN DUSTED FROM OPCHATION NFAH HOfcfe.    JKAWAWHA RIVfcR TER&EfMALS
                                                                    INC
                 .  .^HKajLATPQ.Nl3fOHK	fQMffl M»fflG COMPANY
                   TRUCKS Aft! TRACKING <~OAL FSffiS ONTO HtGffiWAY ON WHtCH PFN COAI rSjRF7
                   SHCTRAWLSTO WORK GFTTfNQCARCTRTY EVERYDAY
                   CfTtTFN STATED THAT fWO STPARATE DOCKS Wi RE OTlNQ   ,
                   THIS IN DiFFFRFNT AREAS AND THIS ONF WASNtSOBAD*    '
                   Cfft/tW WAS CONTACTED BY PHONf- ON«i2P$              (
             'JiiOQ LfUSt COMING fftOM ROAD IS rOVFftBW MIS PATIO FURNdURfc RCH KSPRSC1 DEWf OPMENt
                   'OARS, AW> H«X«.                                  (iNC
             tfi 09  Bl ACK WATFft IN LfTTLg COAi RP^R
                                   149MM v
    
                                 7 18 2f»1 10
                                                                                                 'INDEPENDENCE COAL
                                                                                                 ^COMPAMV B«:
                                                                                                 ]f ACtF tE^LPlOY ffC:
                                kwa
                   W1OWN WATF H R(*iNPMe OFf yoUNTASJ WO WEST FORK
                   BFFORE COAi COMPANY NfcAR RAiiROAO TRACKS
                   AWFKlXfMATHY,>«tJYDS PAST RAIlfKJAO TRACKS
    
    
                   |DA!iY CniZ£W WAS CONTACTED BY PMONfc ON Wfe SgPT H  ,
    
                   OUST ON HIGHWAY AT AHO NEAR ALL LOADING DfV KS ON    AQtJfl A DOU< ING
                   |R£FfcRfcDTOSTRtTCHOr US 32 PERMIT NUMBERS NVCH.VED
                   »JCLLH5E AQUttj«i LOADfrKS DOCK PERMIT *O-ft«61-«7  NPt^? l
    
                  , jtWtfifraieoa fFN_co*LCOfi!* _5PB*reo_s___	
                   CJt'!?lNS ON OUNTA"W FORK TONCfRNfeO T>1AT OEL8ARTON
                                                                                                                 COMPANY
                                                                    CKLSAWTON1
    
    	_^_*^!!^yfc-p_JWAj^^^ftCt-O^PAMYW&reCTOHONSIT|_  _	
    8 11/2001 08 3G 38  MAYBE A BLAST OR ROOF FALI SHOOK CftLING FANS AND     D£t SARTON fct$3!MG COMPA*SY
                   WfeTFROMTHPyffffi IHrtWBAfi                      Wit fiAHTOM MI*S8*JG COMPAMY
                    RECEitffcD CALL FROM 0 WJ-WTfc ON 911 FfLFERRAl BLACK    E.ASTLRNAbSOClftrEDCOAi
                    WATER IN POW FORK At MARR!S _                     CORP     _
                    Tfte fii i rtrapaidw sBHea Mie^ fe^d rcaswed a c«fir?n s jifiona oaf)    CHiTOPFF COM COS T^AI
                    •Myioji »iat ffte r-eSuMt (Jam nl ClH'^ifj^* Co^ Ctimfsany wes oveel ippinii
                                                                                                                      iNC
                                                                         «J hat* him
       f*t"t»1 i4iW17   DiiiiBw»lHtts("rwht><1(
    i
    110  ?0011630M   Cu-dfrc«ntStbCf9«kCttt*
                                                                                                 'KAMAWMA RiVFR 1 l-RMIMAU
                                                                                                 iffiC
                                                                                                 APOt^E COAI GO DflA AiV'H OF
                                                                                                 WEEsT WKiJM^A ffC
                                                                                                 APQQEF COM CO WA ARCH Of
                                                                                                 WPST ViROIHIA, INC
                                                                                                                                                                                    723,-200-t 12^3039  Btt EWCD FROM TONY CMffiAC 72001 1 26 P M SUk^WaHASjJ
                                                                                                                                                                                                   CAU^D DAMAQS FftOM HC*^ StDtNS t OOSE ON HOME HAS  '
                                                                                                                                                                                                   ,HAD POLBLAST SURVEY DONE flY.RJPItm' CAti K1O J>ND    i
                                                                                                                                                                                                   |Si iRVfeY EX»ffi BY L^JKMOWN NO COPY YET ('MAfSCH^ BAD
                                                                                                                                                                                                   'BtAST ON 7 13THT/> -ffi-AST ->24«31 AT 5 4
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                   ^ALLEO ABOUT 8UkST»ia TO M, tttVS, CALL HSPEHfffiO TO   wi
                                                                                                                                                                                                   (iOQAN OMR ON S 8 01 FW>M OfeB CfFED ^ OATES S TM.S FOR >
                                                                                                                                                                                                   BAl> SMOT^ P 1W1 09 23 a  B 1 91  5 *? p  S 0) 01 7 20 p AND  '
                                                                                                                                                                                                   JC1O1  '.Sflp CALLED TO OOMF-LAtN ABOUT 8LASTINC BUT NOT i
                                                                                                                                                                                                   ,CLAIMN@ ANY O
                                                                                                                                             81300
    
                                                                                                                                           F-OS130D
                                                                                                                                           ___.
    
                                                                                                                                           PO7tJ»ftO
    
    
                                                                                                                                           ^woi""
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     JlJf (TER CO^i GO iNC
    
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   " ]jUPIT£ft"eOAl GO'tNC	
    
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   "  |5jp1re$eoAt"cd INC" '
                                                                                                                                                        821 2001 tW SO/)?  iBJ AST1MC D
                                                                                                                                                                       lf-OLi OW IB3 BY L T PACK 0) -S3 02 BLASTING DAMAGED
                                                                                                                                                                       'HOUSE (Stfc PREVIOUS Mft<35§)
    
                                                                                                                                                                       OPERATIONS AND 8LASTSNT 'JHANGiCfiJt^' SDfeNtrigS
    
                                                                                                                                                                       IFELT BLAST«HEARD«oiarnoM^AST AT 9w AM fH©
                                                                                                                                                                       DATF AFTFR RFCFNT T^FSRORtST ATTACKS THIS fU AST
                                                                                                                                                                       'SCAPtS KtDS WHO ARE NOT OU> ENOUGH TO DK*«N
                                                                                                                                                                       ID^FEflfcNCCa WOUfDLiKtCQftSHNfrS fOLlfj«T OR CEASE
                                                                                                                                                                       (BUSTfrlG FOR A DECENT PERIOD UNTIL ADJUSTMENT CAW BE
    
                                                                                                                                                                       'BLASTS EVENTS WAi««i HOIJSF  LFTTFR tt KT» ES" "	|SipitEScoALco"ff
                                                                                                                                                                       rEVeNtSONS'27 3-4 9*6 915                           !
                                                                                                                                                                       FOI1OW UP BY I T PACK 01-03 2O03  BLAST5«3 S^AK^O      !
                                                                                                                                                                       HOUSE _                                         ]
                                                                                                                                                                       TRFKfflTI»GSLASTS>S3 D&TfcS THAT SHOOK HOUSE. ElATES - Ifr MUPl'tEB GOAl'CO'lNC" "
                                                                                                                                                                       *«-24  n'SMI 7 813 1*ft 2ft 1^ 4 NO WWftT OF OAdtftQf S
                                                                                                                                                                       AT THK T1ML {iETTER ATTAa^fcD} "WVD£P HAS TRIED
                                                                                                                                                                       WPEATFCtY TO CONTACT MS CASTLF AT PHONE # PRHVttJFD i
                                                                                                                                                                       ^PitASF PROVIDE AODfTDNAL PHOHF                    ,
                                                                                                                                                                       & AS) ING SHOOK MOMT StC MR OS DftTSD 1 1r &          JUPiTfR COAL CO »*
                                                                                                                                                                                             OSlow ShScwa f»appKmt          COASTAL COAL WtST V
                 'Dead (tsii tn MH&ourl Ran bHow pfapaKattoi pfanl
    
                 . Waiar W Mi«KOiii1 Ran J^ow Iho ptspprsliofi {SfflM K Ma^s a;
    i,9O»1   'COASrAL COAt^wlSt WuiilA
    
           COASTAL COAI WEST VIPOIN1A
     	JLIC _  __  __
    Fmavmg JCOASfAt f OW WFSf '
           U.C
    3tot    fCwKfE COAi C OMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                                     9 252001 13 28-09
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            iy Water  CONSOl I
                                                                                                                                                                                                           at good OOaiav haahSKJab6t}iae)e o t&Say Sftsofc fijuae Ho«is at*w«n. f-wfdca on inside waBa that ih   tUVLRTON C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             er Hioydstra Waite ^ro hog hai<
    ^.^061 11 J"00
    
    !
    -------
    ttt At. K WATtfi HM R JMCtifCK
    
    BLACK WATER SPILL IN RUM CPE.EK
                                                                                                 BANDf «IL CAM C ^l ORATK #
    
                                                                                                 jBANDfeMU COAL GORPQHATIQN
    
                                                                                                 BWIDMBLC
                                                MAK&1G  AJdEPf US SPOT N COUNTY R AO
                                     J01 1  f>044   iAST!N&GN61 01 i»ND§ 2301 WA< HARD AND SHOOK MfS  AtFXPNFRGY INC
                                   120011400 2  8LA n&(30N7  G1AT44/AHD?t   1 AT 4 IB SHOOK MT
                                                      AMP K?^ii^j3j>tciu^8^^            ,    , r
                                                                                                 AL£XgNtW~Y f
                                 ? f <$  1Q74I04  iO*STfRQMS#
    
                                JW6W001 104 ^7   SAD8LASTAT 10,40 A A TODAY 9-6 01 QEB IHSPfcCTORS W£F€ (/
                                                AT MtS WOt SE AND HAD QOhffi ON THF JOB ABOUT 3" fcMHi T£
                                                      ALEXENERGY B
                                   » 2*S>1 11 it* 00  ftuclr J
                                                     g al 6«wgfiso(r MiHftig Company
                                                     ftimwft HOWN TWC STREAM 'TftACF TRLESf GOAt COMPANY
    
    8LASTING DAHACLD FWEPIACE IN MARCH OF 3001          FTB*rE CHfLlf COAL COf^*ANY
    
    iWAP^TS Wt-LL WATER CHECKED WATER IS RFD             TRACE GHE£K GOAL COMPANY
    I
                                       NS Wm oh 11^ hf^i"*t S    TRACE CRCEK COAi C303g  ,CrTt2EM SffttfD TH
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      <: (j
                                                                                                                                                " 1030 32 iCrreEWSfAtfO THAT ACOFSS ROAD 8TTWOENP
                                                                                                                                                         HEAD OF flS-Ffi BFtANCH HAS WA$*«D OUT AND fS IMPASSA
                                                                                                                                                         WSOJJtESPOIS ALSO PONDS NtEOCLEAtCD <£(&LQt
    
                                                                                                                                                 11 16^6  *fcXrHEMELYH#F8JSHOTVOC{ajRRCOON&ai ® 1 SOP M f
                                                                                                                                                         9"26*-411PM  SHOOKHOU8£ TEARl«a(r TQPECES"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     __   _
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ( COAL C/f JfANY
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      *TR«CF Cftt-FK COAt COWF'ANY
              1 102^iM   "^ILASTAT )2^ VTRYBAtTo^C'jf^^DOK9*^8 AfaO^BLASf'AT"fRAC£°cfift"if COALCoSpANV'
                        10-16 SHOOK EVERYTHW W HOUSE" OCCURRFD ON 1&2     |
    
    
                        Oh OATESAtaJTM'SOFBlASTSfLLT fQRWARDFDTO
                        ItS'ECTOR r^KE Ai 11|_1 f 15-01 JUHM FLKSHFf)
              1 160047   RESIDENT STATED HE WAS OUTSIDE DIGGING WftTEfl LINE AND TRACfc CRE£K COAL COW) ANY
                        FtLT VIBRATIONS iOiND fttR BLASTS ON 11-8 01 ALSO PseStTTNT
                        iRFQUtSIED UDPrS OF PHPVtOUS COMPLAMF FORMS i
                        fcXPlAlNKO TO RESiE^NT ! WOULD HA\€ TO G£> THROUGH
                        !GWG TACK&TT s PAPtRwoRK AND FIND THF FORMS AM      '
    
              i1 J^-OO1^  "CALLl^CEfVEOBYJSJROf tWSt !2 4 01 W^OUW) 13 00 P M     TRACF CREEK COM COWPAW
                        FfiOM RAVELLA )N f«TRO CS^R OWICC  CALL WAS ORIGINALLY
                        TAKkN 12 "3 01 AROUND IStiOPM SYSOWONf- SM AiRQtJALfTY
                        OF^i^E AND REfTHRfc.0 to HEf%tRAVELlAQ FTOW SANDY
                        t:ONWAY At A!f! OJJAifTY THIS AntRMOON 12 4             i
                                                                                                                                           M1W001 144/42 -CAUERSA»1 BLAST C 11 69AM SHCKMtHOUSE*OHARD
                                                                                                                                                         THAT HER ROOf- OPEWfc.DA^' AMD WATER ItftK^D MTO HFR
                                                                                                                                                         'FOYER UND SOAKED HER tew wfiPET SHF SAID ONE DAY rr
                                                                                                                                                         lSH(X>K HFR OFF OF A !.AO0fcR SHE WAS KTAfCl^tG r»J -
                                                                                                                                                         PESttFNT At SO f OMPLAffCD OP WATCPOAJAI (TV Pf^Offi f »*S {
                                                                                                                                                                                                     jWAS FfiED SJTt IMARCUM STATES * HAS R:
                                                                                                                                                                                                     BliiLDING A PORCHtON OTGtRSBf-R
                                                                                                                                                                                                     •*S( AStT1«G AT 4 «) P M  SHOOK HOUSE VERY BADLY
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      TRACL f~R£tK fOAl C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      TRACT CNFfK COAL C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ) (W f TPPfX CO4U WiMPANY
                                         fl KtCTKf DPiCTVilFICSOST THF WALLS
                       WSMW THOUSHT THEY went: sajppo^o TO BE
                       fU.CUtMfN9 BUT THEY ARE HftiA.*iQ COAL EVfcRYQAY DOE?  ,
                       «OT 8ELI&VE TH?YOOtAD POSSffiLYBf W CO^tt^tiCE WSTM  '
    
                       W*LY WATER IN (SRAGGt GRK 2MDCAL' PFCV!OUa.Y-CALLf D
                                                                                                                                                                                                   > AFtin*'HtiitS{tdenifl»id»arfyU[)a*6fl)fa*M3d)motne9ilCMter
    C                                                                                                                                                                                                    liters wait bt&dt water tl^vsg &t«e i % Foth  He nnps^ti tiss!
                                                                                                                                                                                                        lixxji ttcmsiMvaSto ofitttti be rratSted StinijJately afiof h«altif^i ihls
                                                                                                                                                                                                               « a fwfiis!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  alabout 1030wastou«}an!lsli(w**i«(sa«9haKllt t
                                                                                                                                                                                                           a mmiPte(l(t(>*irliiSKrt«ftHrt»'vait  VJ  Bowroan tpifeww at^rft
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         s tmStrdfea cts^KM
                                                                                                                                                                                                     !MM«cM««ialarMi!toBjj8irrt»R{w  Dust w
                   ftm~w»^r6fiSSBnp6has^enitBHMng«ry Msflpro BWW> stifwy (0r sJHske tosse and wjfittood rf    >
                            ig.joay.jMyg afiaded we8   ..J,,,,_.^nm,IT.	H	, :::::ar:,::,r-^an^	!	
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                 A-710
                                                                      Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
     1324200
    
      1'1-2001
    
      14SOQ2
    
    
      1  *aooi
    
      f'Maoet
    
     *S'1  2001
    i_	_
    'Tfe'aooi 1
                                      ioflaietefveo Soim aacte a
                                       teamstYSame
            1' 09 OS  |M»wng on PatriM S 1SW-00 has caused taiga ttwfw anrt aarftmotit to> foa "PATRIOT W!tN8>ie COMPANY  (
                            ft (ha steam KSas&m Run) iK*ftd far Hsskteju^
                           G9r^^tfte0m«8) AffOu^iyafXttS^^^gfcSof    f^fttteT MWffi COMPANY  J
                         Uif*Kj compan fee {S8*s«lts> 1002 so                  '
            oe W -00  Ffyftjds from Patffoi %mgs*3iE*ofiR8fitoHiin3fa was cast onto fits   ,Pftf&!OTMfNlN8Ct MPANY  J
                                           13«000
                                                             si*isPat(i^Sino?o9?qsi«a^r^inje*i)ar iwking    |PATRi T Mi«^5 ct MPA V 1
                                                             19  CemiBfiBM w«s» «aS*eH» to (togantown O8M the*   ,
                                                                 ilwiCatto imsw&lor Spgdatot. fp           *
                                          OR 4 -TO   Mr ML WyfcafkKFeqffiperiaro  buflfangfs&Kisa^oit^ORtmBte-iteg  WfflKH MINING COMPANY I
                                                   on P^trtOl KINfi$ Co A itK permit S 160a-g?
                                          00 40 60  1Dete8ffomStsrtmg^aMCO!^^^inMui^on^lft»' niy Is boJng dutflp»(* VftEgPORT (W»aF«3
                                                  *'*« Frespofi Mtolngfs sSrtp pit                               CORPORATION
                                          11 MS}   Sunae* fastis fis- caused waisrquaMy in w^ to woe on           FWePPOftT MIMWQ
    31 20011130'"0  B«Bva9 fit! WSSfisg has caused w»«*ilftg to kHjmtallon and "S
                     hlfRSEy
        '-^oi ntvirxj E^fiHi5gitefl*PMFh5Sio&787rtaecfflu^  S8*nsge to ihw h
                                                                                                       [PATRIOT MlfflNQ C
                                                                                                       '
                                                                                                       !f ATRKJT M
                                                         b Two (M holes BOS tod
                                                         ttrif W to* af6«hs n»ysBt"iiy awnetS&yhtm  Hei^so ^
                                                  tndnai&d that Iva hatf ^of recsivM any ntstticsilon Jfom N«-sco ptior to
                                                           to»tri tnifimg on their pfiporl^ ar«) nof pa^nis TO^tHte  £
                                                          wdttte So (mow how checks ami frafdnoss ,ifa dsSermjtusd to
                                                          l prc arty owns! &pa petu foytiHra1*
                                                     iJ e( Leatharaoad^n^nStftwdiKiSM Leatti6two
                                                      ntfl r«efe6 ftffrs [Orpce-bto! soway (mmFute fence?n«J s&oui
                                                                                                          ACOATCQMMNYYtMl"
                                                                                 !A»t MOW
                                                                                on -Wilty T
                                                                                   ig Eimiio vitnaJlng *m,ft««ft
                                                                                                       (
                                                                        Tj»e w hSva fssan many mere si
                                                   i  06 13i$1 O 5 37 06/^0 9
                                                   nwfddy W<*» w 3? dssp dnBsrf 1 74 Siww Wast *t« ft=*s betas m
                                                   ami iltetKitoied  H tm ftd m 00
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       12 1 0l ««
                                                                                                                                                                                                                Rams
                                                                                                                                                                                           3 cat ta 1701
                                                                                                                                                                        ^.^.^	^ "L^ffiK.^'^SSSllSi,
                                                                                                                                                                        •1 t"s 20 m Btaai w 1? tr oi aatween
                                                                                                                                                                                 jMteHSiOft 8ism ustfsal.  Ssssi
                                                                                                                                                                                 iioa'*n1too*$H wMWJSS   _
                                                                                                                                                                        rt iBiPo-o-t %a»oni2!^f^i-to*fififtoiissturnseaBfltth^tt"
    
                                                                                                                                                                                 Ww»,eo4-PSafKl*Wpin  _
                                                                                                                                                                        1B ?5 00   Btest on * 5 ea at 2 24 pm shOoirh«i tome to the ptfont that lh$
                                                                                                                                                                                 I»enJowa raised ami ifto»* ^«J cooM le«! -WbraSon oadsf her teat
                                                                                                                                                                                              a ind^iwKteace w Progress Goal __     _
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 JE window s*-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       i M* wirafowa ft! teer iNWPCWDCNGt COAL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       	. ^...jt^PMF'Ajft.ftjC  „..     _
                                                                                                                                                                                                             ftjrfiSfflg	,	cgjyyANY, Me    	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 was *H«4«r wfiti m*fe     ThSWj®F(BSf^Ai '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                lamage iu Ihfe tiotro W     CQBP&WY )NC
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    COMPANY, a^f
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ei WDEPE1^6£NCE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .COMPANY iNC
    MTM/VF  Draft PEIS  Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                                      A-711
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Section A  - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                        .OCiMf AW i«C_
                         '.& 10 *X)   Mr P&tiy adwfess ttwl fta tia new tort fitted i*! 8ia nqm to a P«J   [{NQf~reND£NCE ("X3 L
                                   Waal ritfvey and tti«! h» Iws prevtousty "sBsijad dam tge f rs m fctaatin    (COMPANY INC
                                   ftfK>eetlg,i)ed liy ROT Shefits from fte \,t$B$t Oftes)
                         M^J«(XJ   Itoslmg is shaking twt home an a feguiar basis  ftaHoltawie  da*   'iNDFPFMOF NSY t AL
                                   iHKtiiR ware rap rted11 2?(i1445 1? 17-01 aUlTjm  12 37-01 « COMPANY INC
                                   i *iO(jifl  1??8 1 at 330pm I40ptn smiTiOpm  1 2<  al
                                   ia-^spm  i 302atiQO* am andsmwe
                         ! 10 4? 00   BkjSifl MI 1 16 02 at 10 3S £> m shG k hoiBSS and (ifsfa&ttf the *Sio6s IMM1PLNM.NCE tOAt
                                   ra«gMKtft«                                              COMPANY INT
    
                                   41, p.«t  itt&   on 1-ga02al Ifr* am  Srx Ahar terns  H        'COMPANY INC
                                   WMiams   am *smsd ftaf cofifimis sttaMttg #$ damage fwf (t^ifie
                                                              £ Q2at«2 f> m
              4 seconds Mfs Ftotrat ts
              ftoms
    •14 H1X   B(a«a ss 1 P8W fi 1 33 p.«j •JJWQ* INe twit-w
                                                                           sfttsofc her Unms Tti  bkai (aaed ior ST^nFPCNDFNCf TOAl
                                                                            flsaaboulthacoirtlntHJil shaking a! ha COMPANY INC
                                                         fil* ftnma and MJ»CEJ Hw »>ndaetf9 TN" occur0 anwa
    
                                            1100   Loud blast th?l faatefi die *toW
                                                                                        PtERLE, S EA®.£ COA1 CO
    
                                                                                        ICAWM^tY ClJi»i C'
                                           u -wg (Jimage                  " '      '
                                        ] eaKismj} eiama$a
                                        g siselBd m fiw area and they how sof tee®we<1 a fx
                                                                                                         PHfTCHAHD MINSNa C' INT
                                                                                                         .PRlTCHAiRD-MiWffjQ CO INC
                                                                                                         fPRITCHW^D M!W<3 CO INC
                                                                                                         PRn OHffiD MfN»«3 CO IMC
                                                                                                         iPHrTCf-f>«t) MIW8>1G r  INC
                                                        *ihWi Botraa f
                                                                     (B cau'^d by C C Coi^ C
                                                                                        PRITrMAFiC M
    
                                                                                    * of CC COAL CC*'
                                                                                                                          i INC
        * *X)   C' nt^iwEil *i
              Wh!r« oak Cfp
        i ,60   ^xsig ^xl fiws? »S8 havs K^j«fi«n'*ea wassr to   aa a watft at *erV  Cf COAi COMPANY
              cjoo  m thfc Creak ftyCC Coal C mpa«y
                                                       y aiwi'ifitee w* iimre 8) iagoneapyandm swduppufflp               cCf OAl COMPANY
                                   !^"s^  1 1J4100  [C^it etwfSPr-C'iTfiafty **imiia)HK>* to deliver s^fiout hnrftovrtig to caM  [CCCOAi COMfW^Y
                                                   TBwwy«wo* C&ment tri*c*sgolndtothe frstfta sfte sfe g(^n  loo (drat    i
                                         a wjono   fiodtoHerU i
                                                                                        V put t ravel EM* if
                                                   To^SalSfl eotiaifu'tei a 4 he t Np'datti wiBiaTwA« Wt ppes    AI^At.JGHiATl*ft*S INC'
                                                   tRisa ftnfe tw "an^l t  iiafiiteftw water (tft* Fays te ha eti»riplss«Kl
    
    
                                                    C    AWALAf HiA-JKHTJ1NGH*K.
                                   a. Jfef «tofl
                                   !euptosr
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        e ojwai Rocks wora tieaid tatting Straugt)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ate h*xna  CcJtiptsmlaea jJ«le? thai nti
                                                                                                                                                               J22001 1 ix'OO   ffiastirtgfttimPaynlerBranchSAnaig liKr
    
                                                                                                                                                                              rwnfelte ftom« g^K In^tad af Cy tona  WV
                                                                                                                                                               ^ MJ1 ti1 "0 00   Sissitng dom Payntw Sran1^ f^r^ig tet. aortas trri
                                                                                                                                                                              Have i"^awtl  re«fl« in a cto«il«(cltnt
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           iMfldft 1-S!JWM?!|fe_,	„	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         PAYNTER BRANCH P,i
                                                                                                                                                                                                   cafeja                                                      „		
                                                                                                                                                                                                 i  8NsSJng(fitftai)a6EnM)fiteWlst^
    -------
                                                                   s Ihal ttie bias! Sial
                                                                   «flet5ji3Mi3tM)ao!)«i™Ah]%TW
                                                                   ^PM ("«)piaifil«(it iiso a4st*«iib
                                           HO aO;W!N"iS'i"§"'SHAkflila HOUSf  f HIS OCCURRED AT 3 V
                                [12fH2001 1B *JOO BLAST AT 16^2 HB& *3HOOK FNTtRF HOUST
                                72r2*xn -s5nS51  His Ba» dBrirepwtHdbyfmofisiJn? 2501 felt Manis-yefe ft*
                                '               raL JTI Smiteee S"bon 7 1ft 01 rfnd * 710) On 8 8 01 Mts B.
                                                        is en 7 3*J 01 anstS--) 01 w»r-s hard and  hook fiar
                                                    * f COAL CfWANY
    
                                                    CC COAL COMPANY
                                                     <"C COAL COMPANf
                                                     FALCON LAND CO iNC
                                       4 001*
                                               BLACK ^
                                                                      HQSFT MINIS OH UPPER MI fNTtHR(HJGHOL8 VCRY LARGE BLAST AND LOTS OF  HOBCT MiNINQ INT
                                               VfeRATlQN  R6*5!D5-NT i iVES ON HILL AND IS GONTFRNED
                                               APOUT 1 4 ti'itl Of C.-OWCfSFTf D"^M WAY LATER FXPP-FSSFD
                                               ^uWCLFiN ABOUT DFEP MSNttJG UNt'tH THF PFtOPERTV AWJ
                                               t>ytJ&!DfcNuE OAMAGfe  BUiiT TIME 12 12m AT 174S
    
                                  * Jf*)l iOiv»<36  tDWPLAtfJANT HAfa IMUK »rtJ>THAT TH^YBFt E^F  THAI
                                               DAMAGE HAS OCCURt^D TO THEIR RESIDENCE DU£ TO
    
                                               OAlL.p ENPrATFD COMPLftflJANT HFMfVES THAT THIS
    
                                               THROUGH
                                  ) ?001 10 '»> 42  rnitR ASMAt W#4. fl'JOIi.ATEO THEY ggl CVk 1HAT OAHAQF MAS Al Ofe£E CiOAl CO DBA AR( H OF
                                               r^ CURR€DTO FHES'RFSIDENCF OUE TOSLASTRilQFBaWI    tVEST VIRGINIA tfiC
                                               ARCH S HUFFfCR COMPLEX HO SPECif-iC DATES INDffiATED
                                               C Ot a^LA INANT 8CI IFVS S THiB DftMAfiL HAS Ott-URRED OVE R
                                               AN FXTENDEO PERirfl OF Tfr^E f HROUQHOUT THF I re O
                                                           HASINO)£Alf DTHEYlei.iEVE TMAT&AiWAOiE
    HASOM URHEOTO THDR OFSfUFNCE DUE TO 6LAS! fNO FROM YJEST \ IRGIMI* i
    ARC M is RUFFNCR COMPLFX MO ^TCIFIC OATHS B-JDtCATED
    CCMH-AfNANT f^l^VES THt-5 DAMAGE MAS OCCURRED OWR
    ANf XTf-NPFDPEfilQUO* TSWF THfWUSHOUT IHt LifC
    
                    KHOUS
                                                                                                        SAl CO DBA ARCMOF
                                               BLAST AT APPROX 142S  -
                                               SfTF sSTIli StLiJfcBRtSINTHEAtR rHO« »GHT IT
                                               ,TQ KNOCKSLIDESQtASSLGfOB OUT
    S4Q97.V1
    
    Sb^tJ?^
                                                                                                                                                                                                          tj i 13 *s» $
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            K HFB Hl*l8t
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  APCnSf F COAL (.'"* E""BA Afe H «"*
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  WWiKGSFJIA tfC
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  MAfcRuW8nNfc DL tfELOPMENt
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  MAHFKJWSOMi* ^-FVtLO^^i£,^fr
                                Mi^ V(ftt«irf uimpfdifit t" that ftor w«^i *9fi! 1?'JGTHAT ^OOK FR-TtJfWS AWD MB^ROR Oil THf WALL SMARROWSONf DfVELOPfJENT
                                SnwfcCNf-RWYANDB 1401 ALSOT(CCEfLiNO ISLEAKfi%   CO
                                AROUND THt CHIftfflCY
                                K ASTB^JQ TAMAGtS TO Af ARTWWTS Ht RtKTS SiOf K
                                rO'WDAtJOHCRACKINO TWOWEUS QIC WFNT OHY FOR
                                IA80')TAMOMTHA«D BURNED UP THE PUMP BOTHWHl**
                                HAW OfHN&fc WAtEfl
                                crriFFwripNT FC/-EIV^ ANHTICEFOF* APREBI ASTSUHVEY
                                                                                                                                                      |!-a AW 6LAST1MG SHO^K PiCTXIHE f-RAfclS AT ABOUT 11 45 ON  HAWROWBCNE DEVELOPMENT
    
                                                                                                                                                      HARD SLASir *T 114s OM 7* 31  WLLL WATER HAS LHANGCD  MAOROweowt oevKiopi-icNT
    
                                                                                                                                                      I^SiE^Nf OOMPLAWEDOFEJCfeSSwe ^ASTiNG VfBRATIQNS  f,WRROWBflNt. oevteLd'pfelEWT
                                                                                                                                                      CHANrS S IM WATER {Wt^ I) DAMAGE TO MOM£ d i iNSTABt F   CO
                                                                                                                                                      R' JGKS C N HILL MAY BF fMPArTED BY BLASTBJO
    
                                                                                                                                                      «EAL BAO^LAST oM'/'T^wi Wio W4 / >J«iofATi'W&
                                                                                                                                                      I r9«>VHl01 AT 4 *i THf- CHiL0FCN AK &t SRED OF BLASTiNt
                                                                                                                                                      jTMt ^ 1OTS ARC DAMAqirid THgg H^US
                                                                                                                                                      SHOOK HOifKi, REALLY BAD  Hid HOU&g MA? CftArKS iN MK
                                                                                                                                                      HOU-5J THAT WASH f FH£W AT THE TIMf ortHTPHE a AST
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  *iARRGW&ONF OEVFt.O^^NT
                                                                                                                                                      'SHC HECaVH) A PI IE-BLAST 8UBVFY IN JANUABV 8' it SA^
                                                                                                                                                      THATS^-iF M/>SOAfJAt^isf ROMHUSTINti TtWl HAVF
                                                                                                                                                      OiXLRfCO SiNCC THE 8» WitY WAS D^NE  i e KiTCHfiN aO<
                                                                                                                                                      IS 8) ANTgD i THPRE ARE CRACKS IN THE BATHROOM ARt A
                                                                                                                                                                                                       FWHI-iOWSONE n&VEi.OP*SEMf"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  MABFtOWPONE DEVELOPMENT
                                                                                                                                                      AREAASO'/T 12YEARSOtD AtSO T^C FOUNDATION IS
                                                                                                                                                      CBMKfcU AKDTdtrABiWT DO«»H*S WILL Ni* T CLOSF A PftE
                                                                                                                                                      BLAST StJRVf Y WA9 TONDUf TFD
                                                                                                                                                    1 'DAMAGE TO HIS CHIMNEY AND f LOOR OF HIS HOfcC BUST1N&  MARROWBOEit OfeVtLOPM
                                                                                                                                                      .FROM MARFtOWBONF DiEV Afi^UNO^PT 11 200t THR££     CO
                                                                                                                                                      KHOTS IN A POW IN THL EVENING t LOSfc TO f)ARK NO PH^
                                                                                                                                                      BLAiG 2 T'l 9 TIMES A WEFK ABOUf-H> G M TO fed*"' SLA^f^  HAHMCO PNEPGY
                                                                                                                                                      HAVE BF"eN V^RATB^G HO^S <" OfCFRNED CONTINUED HARD  f ORPORATION
                                                                                                                                                                                                  PjXjffq£ffWt.ONCSOAYLVLNgjOAgOjJt ?*^£)H-«—
                                                                                                                                                                                        36TT41 H£ BY OCCUPANTS  BLAST ^
                                                                                                                                                            flf)A«CH (T GJ-fAUMCEY HE H_b>W HAS K:F N VERY     HANNCO tNiBCJY
                                                                                                                                                      MUDDY ( Oft 3 GAYS CITIZEN JS CGHCERfffiO WATLfl iSN T SAFE CORPORATION
                                                                                                                                                      'FOR H>-^SE8 T1^ 0fiB*< AND HAS SEEN HAUUN43 WATER FROM
                                                                                                                                                      HOME
    MTMA/F Draft  PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                               A-713
                                                                              Section A -  Organizations
    

    -------
    SS018&4
    8SS1SSJ4"
    S5015S4
    85Q1SS4
    SSGIS&T
    8301 VM
    S501SS4
    9SOTSM
    S50S594
    
    SS01604
    SSCJiSSM
    S501S94
    8501594"
    SS01834
    SS015&6
    85m 5S6'
    S501SSS
    rS&Wi ta-OSL41 jBLftSfK^ffiadKf*DAf^GCON RESOURCES, UC
    (MPACTfD 8V W €> 5 WATER FROM LfTTLt UGL 1 BR ON 7 «-Q1.
    DISCUSSED VIA PHOfjE iN PAST S RECOMMENDED THAT A
    WRITTEN COM^lAINTSEFlEDWfTHWWSP THBWFUTTtN
    CGMPLAtNT DETAILiMQ DAM'XQES & C O&T RECEIVED BY W V
    FROM Ei/EWT FROM I fTTl F UGLY BRANCH ON 72901 CAUSFO
    BY H0R£t>W RtSGURffcS COAL C O
    8 1C001 16 0U-01 WATER S MUD OAMAQt TO MOUSE & PROPERTY PROM LITTLE HORf^N'ReSOURCEsTLLC
    UGLY BRANCH WATER AND MUD IN WELL COMPLAINT Fll FD
    ,S'1 11 BY PHONE HbLtlVEH FOLLOW UP WRITTEN ff^LAfNT
    ft. f rfnoi 16 if r ^a ' WATPR * MUD OAM'Gf- f 6 HOU^E S PROPERTY f ROM LiTTi F HOftr?ON RFSOUfiCI-S ! 1 C
    UC1Y BRANCH WAfERSMtlDtfM WELL
    S'l 2t11 1-6 1S08 PPOPgRTV iMIWTfD BY WATER SMUUf ROM LiTTtFUOi Y HORIZON (IfSOMRTCS LLC
    BRANCH ON SUNDAY
    » 1 Aflf ie ~*y -PRUPEP1YNPACTED BY WATERS MW FROM LITTLE UMFY HORIZON RE °GURl FS LiC
    PRANCH ON "it INOAY
    8'1 2001 IS 4S 07 PROPERTY fMPACTED BY WATER AND MUD FROM LiTTlE UQLEV ^HORIZON RESOURCES LLC
    BRANCH ON SUNDAY
    8 U/2001 10 *S *$ i ROPbRI Y D«MAi>D B i FLOOD WATFR FROM HOBlK)N 'HORtZON RESf i fRL.CS Li C
    rcsouftres u P POWD FAft.ufc OUTBUIIIWQ HOT WATFR
    HEATER YARD & I£AYB£ W6Lt IMPACTED ,
    &-14 2001 14 '"* 40 'i SOf% DAJMaED B? f"f"*OU WATER FROM HORI?ON (HORIZON RESOURt^ES, LLC
    ,DAMAOE
    b. 1 ' >POi 12 00 B7 PROPERf Y DAH«<3ED FRO! *BY Fl OOD WATCH FROM HORIZON"" HORIZON H"£^5URU£"CUC
    -RE'SOURf ES PtJfO FAILUfiF 'OPERATION HAS BELN Uf^OCR
    fcNhOm EMCNT ACTKB) &INCE " 29 01 COWIPLAfriANT SHCTJLD
    FttAO THB FORM CAREFULLY BACK Of THIS PAGE- EXPLAINS I
    UTf?EN RIGHTS j
    891 "3001 1?m-06 PFSOPFRJYIMPAC^DBYWATF-RAPffiMUDFROMdTTLLUGLY'" NORllONRESDt.fFlceS.IiC" " "
    BRANCH ON 7 28 01
    UG.LY I3MANCH ON / P9-01 CAUSFD BY ItnRlZON RF<-OURC£S !
    •COAL MtfC !
    10. "HXM 10U033 HfjMEOWACTpDSYftrODF^NTOF? 2«01 WHICH CAME IHOR1ZON fiESOURCES, LLG
    mOM LITTLE I'GL Y BRANCH WHFRE HORIZON TOAL IS j
    I^CATEO •PBFWX'SIV O*!NT WII ' *" jHORfiSON RESQUHCES, LLC" 	
    f Ol 1G |SAW)Mfl.L COAt COFiPOfiAtKiN
    21 26 S 27 ¥feRY SAO WJ^ST ON 21feT SHE WORST SHOfit |
    o;:cufi ABOUT 4 JOPM -PERS t'« HRftNAr&rrE 12-301 MR.
    DKCE-RSON Al SO CONTACTED COMPANY j
    1*> IJ-asOl 1? «S 18 SIA-ST OWU 18-01 AT 13 ft &OUNDtDl»tE TRL*CK RAN " "'"^BAMM.i'cdArraBPOHAfiON"
    tTHPO!KaM HOUSE WITfJCSSLDHUGEClOUDOf DUSTC^MSNG i
    iFROM S^OT.
    !2J*fei2«)1 12,40^7 0LAST ON 12-18-01 AT 12:35 WAS THE WORST HE'S EVER BAWDfetiLL COAL CORPORAT5QN
    HEARD, SAiD HE SAW A LARQE CLOUD OF DUST AND THEN
    ISOCKS FLY OVER THE HILL. {
    8^1796
    
    S5CH7W
    S501TSS
    
    
    
    
    «» 	
    5^2035
    SH02-.S5
    3«STjifw7
    eta^Mi ut Ola«mfjh'Wtam^mJ'»ytftn§ wa*r is gwng few fsfi
    .m^ay fc rtw ooRWrtary
    S«j 20»1 '« *J 3B EXCESSftC SEOaCNTATtON A EPiO^tON ALOW LAI *fi£X FORK iAl FX ENEFtQY INC
    ALSO STAIES trtAt DC fcXTRA FLOW OF LAURFL FCWK HAS I
    n6DIF(trT£D THE SfRt AM SJ AND AROUND M!S PRQPCRtY
    ERODtN<:i OUT ROADS AND FENCE 1 IMPS CITIZEN BELIEVES
    THAT MiRTAOJ tflNINQON SAfnPfPMfT IS THF CAUSE (
    10?iJa66l T4;14,17 "I'^ffia ® WfCD Up DUE TO fifcASTtWia - NEED WATER' f Ml? iALEX ENERGY. INC.
    JS&PING US S4FPOSEDty BEING TESTED BVACCULA8. MR. !
    WEECE IS ADAMENT THAT THtS SWtNO HAS NE^H GONE DRY. s
    GET MUDDY AFTER BLASTING. CfTKEN PftJVtDED A ONE 1
    GALLON SAMPLE OF WATER FROM THE WELL THAT WAS MUDDY j
    TO HAROLD WARD DEP SUPERVISOR, CETI2KN Wli, CAU DSP i
    . WHEN WELL WATER CL£AF*$ UP SO A TOE-BLAST SAMPi. j
    THE L0S6fN>MfiUB8M3 ON POINT ABOVE ACCESS ROAO i
    ACROSS FTO& HOUSE, HE IS AFRAID A ROCK DA TREE MK3HT s
    CWE OVER Mil OWTO R<5AD WHILE TRAVELING !T. MR, N££CE !
    'ALSO snoweo ^t HISSPRINQ BEHIND hot* MF SAID s
    1 IfcHtooai^tafl BLAST $HOOK HOUSE EXTES3tVrLT PENCHULCORP
    1 i& 2002 10-38-00 "BLAST SHOOK WHOLt HOUSC NO DAMAGE REPORTED PLN COAL vORP
    KTTL-HEN OBNCTB WHEfiE ANL»OT1FD TO CJ II iNQ ?nd \
    -FURTHtR DAyftt^E TO SAMT 1 t" ^ SHOOK MOUSF S DO^H^
    ?18PM3*ctl 18'8213'JePM SHOOK REftLLY 8AD* MECKS
    HOfC B AWROV SOO FFtOM SHOT T ,
    1 1 /112001 (y 9"^ 8LA3TM3 ON 1 1 8 AF 1 1 P AND 5 IS SHOOK E\CfiVTHtNG (N j Fffl f OUNTY MININQ B«
    THE HOUSE ALSO BLASTING ON !1 ?8 At 9 4' AM ^tOOK [HE
    STUFF ffjTMFHDM^ THEY DLAS1 ABOUT TWtE A DAY AND !T
    SSMlf NWOR^ ^INCL 1HE TRj-OOUNTY STPIP HAS BFFN 1
    BOUGHT BYS0ME.0NC gtSE THFYDON1
    1ia%'20010'(3&'32 BLAST^JTON 1T27 ?8 AND ?fl WAS VERY HARD (VBRATION TR1 COUNTY M^JING 8^C
    CAfLtRSAO IXiREISWOSEN1^ INTS-CMBLASTlNu !HAf
    HARD SHE SAID ff QrsAREO IMf-M TO DFATH ft WAS ^O LA' >O
    11*28ffl0010»<>4/)9 SSLA'STB'iiQ ON 11*37 AT -43Q 11^ AT*? 30 AM311 5S AT R4S WAS ffRI-COUNTY C^JING, SMC
    VtRY BARD (ViBRAl iONj THtRE f« NO SFN*5t M THEM ;
    BUSTING THAT HARD SHfc SAC IT SCARED THtM TO DI ^TH IT i
    'WMSOlOtID J 	 , 	 	
    1tiS&a»! e*i?S$t AT AlSOUt *SJ SHOOK OVEftieAD LK3Ht IN iHOtET ft^JNG INC
    klW*@RDOM. ?
    eis^oQi w-ee-ais DUST is NOT BETO CONTROLLED BY THE COWANY {WHITC RMC ENERBY #«
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-714
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    «,^
    ssaaaus
    8»if3@fi
    S5023S6"
    SS(SK&" "
    S5SS36
    S8JK288
    •iVv "SO
    K«2Mfl
    SS05SS6
    ssiir—
    S502^S6
    esoasss
    ssoasss
    M> IfcuHXJI 111 1S W
    1!>^>f POT1 1" ?4 01
    11 .. JOOl 11 IS If?
    1t-t*jari01 134^32
    1 1 ^?japoi r^ 4? 44
    11 •>?''2001 t >Oj?"J1
    1 ' JD81 M •*«• 00
    ^ V >X)1 tS ^j?%
    a ?^£"i
    1 1S'^!02lfiin-40
    i wWypW^ite
    1 *f 300? 10 «^ 11
    
    10HX501 144003
    • 4AKH11WW
    ,WFlt fS£*Y SHEMAOCOMW,IAMCt.*IUNrfOft!l*3TtSTHER
    ^WATPFt SHF HAS 2 WCLLS AND A NATURAL SPRiNB AND THfcRL
    (SNf ANYTHIf K3 S^LPiNQ FROM THE SPRING AND THE WFLL (S
    WELL HAS S3E6N Erf Y FOR ABOUT A MONTH SHE HM) K*OT
    .CALLED 8EtQHt WOW BECAUSE IHtY THOUGH n MIGHT
    RECHAROE BUT It M«.WT
    INS ONI REPORT STATED 1 HAT C fORGE UftYHLWCALLtD IN
    ICOMMAINT AB ft FtPF£.S£NTAT!V£ J-QR VfcRNQN EDWARDS
    ALLECINa A OUST P«Q8i£M AROLWO 10 IS AT t> X>1 or
    RAGLAND MOUm-A-^
    ULW fe TfcRHISLE FROM TRICKS TRAVFiLWG ON MYSTLflY
    •MOUNT A&J
    EUST FROM BLASTING (3 WIRING H'XISE1! CARSANDLAWN
    'DUST FROM 8!A«!TINGI8 SO «ADrHFYGA«1 SITOUTSftX
    TNESR KCU8E
    w7wp^^rb^SI«i"Hfcefw> S.AST AT THE MAFsSH FORK ELEiMENTARY fNDEPENC^NCE COAL
    & HOOiAnoUNQ 12NOONTOOAY(917fltl ME THO'ttaHF ff ,( ^PsfPANY B^C
    1WAS A B< 1MB FXPl ODItJa i
    %LAST ON SAfURDAr 12 101 AT 1318 SHOOK HIS HOUSi HP ifNDFPtNDENCE CO-«L
    BRA&roftD S^W THF S.^f*£ FSOftl THE BLAST AND ffJULO 'COMPANY ING
    TASR (T i
    8U>STf(«sON121? 01 AT 1836 AND 1638 SHOOK HOUSE JN0O>£NOU*X COAL
    COMPANY INC
    i OUD Bl ASTiNG HOME &HOW4NG f BACKiS W CtR.NO AND ffiDFPPNC^NCC COAL
    WALL'S SMF BEJ EVES AA6. ( AUS6D BY BLASTiNf^ =tHf HAS WTO COMI*WY INC
    RgrgiygD A CALL FROfcl THP INSPECTOR THE OAK Hft.L OFFCP
    SjMU Mf WOULD OONTACt HER FftGM COffPt AWT ON 11 J 01
    BLASTS ON 12 17-01 « 1812 i \t&"> 12 19
    PWTIC^n CFtAGK»iG 64 DtNINU ROOWFLOfldDA fTi^M "STATED COMPANY \tir-
    iHt, HAS PPf VtOUStY HAD 2 BfWKEN WiMDOWSflEPl A^D
    DctsNT KNOwiT WASCAU^OBYBLASTWOORNOT st«3T
    ON 1? 1701 8ETWEFN 1400 AND IfiOS fcW PfTTR
    BLAST ON 1 5-03 a 1624 *>HOOK THF WSNf*OWS!NH£R HOUSE, +IND?P6NfCNCr f 0*L
    AND SH^FEIT HSR FEET SHAKfNG 'COf.S'ANY iNC
    'St.ASTON 1 &SWAT 42dPMt'HOOK HFH ^-tOUSF ANtDKPJOCKtD
    THINGS OFF WWDOW ^!L1
    BUST ON i 8 02 AT 18J) SHOOK MG&Lt HOAffc RFALLY BAD
    RHINO'S FML OFF COUNTFRS )H HOME 'REALLY STRONG
    BIAST
    &i A?T At APPROXIMATELY 16^5 ON t«JQ? WTTLFD WINDOWS
    KNOCKED tHINQS OFF OF WftLLS & CRACKfeD DHYWALL
    'oKlrlQliSAT 1HS9A at AST SHOOK HFRHOf^E WB^OOWb
    BROKEN HHUSL KTB^Q TOm APART THIS BLAST BROKE
    GLASS TABLE PAR r or TV STAND
    LAntSE Bl AST ON 1 10«2 AT 1610 yMILAB TO SHOT
    LOMPLA!NEDAB"UT0N !®W
    'ftLA^ON 1 tOSi9 i* 1B10 SaWILAR TO ONE (^N ItW TH)Nv»1
    'KNCX Kf D OVER
    1 1 HIS BLASTING COMPi AWT WAS ! ORWARHFD TO LOOAW
    OFFICE FROy MKb FUREV FHOM DEP OAK HILL OFFICE
    LOMPU^ANT jNfMTATtO W SHOTS SHC'OK HER HOlfSF
    '(SLASt MQ OM 1 't&«2 4 10 30 AM WC'OK HOLfefc
    'SLASTtfifeiON 1 1&<5f*Kj
    TJMPANY tf«3
    itfffffPENDLNC-i ^"OAi
    CJMPftMY SJC
    ICOMPANY t4f
    [ffiDFPFNC&NCE ( OAL
    COMPANY SC
    ^irepfcNDEt*' F ro*-! 	
    COMPANY INC
    r QMPANY B*
    liNHTPT PJDLN^t COAt
    COMPANY friC
    COMPWY tNC
    COlSwnNc'' 1"°AL
    COMPAMY INC_
    MARR(>WQDJC DEVFLOP^NT "
    C"
    1
    PEN COAl CORP
                                                                                                                                                                                        iBTASfSHOok HOIK i VIBRATED FOR VMiSuY&S ) i FELT'{JX£ ''( feNGQAL COHP
                                                                                                                                                                                        AN EARTHQUAKE'S NOOAWACW NQTfcDJW'MI'Hl'SSt AST    ,
    
                                                                                                                                                                                        WHGfiHOtJSE *HOBC filtlR'BlASfWASTreD      ~~ 1%!NCASI'OCw"
                                                                                                                                                                                        '&**&*« 8 EWJflNING UEMEb FflOH FORFST FIRfc ALLEGED! Y    PFNCOAL f r3Rp
                                                                                                                                                                                        STARTED BY PEfiMrfTgE IS OOVE.RJNG Hfe HOUSE AND
                                                                                                                                                                                        CSUSSHQ HJiM AM) FAMILY BRFATHtNG PPQBtEMS           I
                                                                                                                                                                                  4 lO'Oo MAMIPJGKOMPfcNCOftLIS TtAfMNG UP HUMf-  »M0      PEMt^Al CORP
                                                                                                                                                                                        BUSING -CAMAae- TO (MO) WFLt
                                                                                                                                                                                  435-«0 WELL IS <3QfNQ DRY SULFUR IRON AWO OIL IS NM WELL WATER Pg&CHR-CORP
                                                                                                                                                                                        'CITIZEN PEELS THAT BLASTING FROM PEN COAl IS PAUSING
    
                                                                                                                                                                                  4J50S tfTlffiNCAUFDTOVOfCrGOMCERNABOUTFUTUfS. RESULTS JPENCOALCOttP'~
                                                                                                                                                                                        .OF- "VtRY HEAVY EH AStlMQ TO Mi® HDMg AM> PROPFRTY  HE
                                                                                                                                                                                        M ATL b THAT MF < o* 10 SNCURL DAMAGE- nri?EN LIVES
                                                                                                                                                                                        APPROX e-W-iFf PfiOfJt LAST ISHOO1*K3ACTtVfTY AND *5AME j
                                                                                                                                                                                                         i ACTIVITY                      	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         COALCO"!
                                                                                                                                                                                                             if WAS U)N£ TO THE CFtMa   ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   - ALSO OOQH TO HOUSf I
                                                                                                                                                                                                 © WI-CN YOU SKl/T IT'. UTIZtN U\t S Af PROX.
                                                                                                                                                                                        3000 FT FROH LAST SW5OTWQ ACTIVITY ANB ftPP&OX 'JWOfT
                                                                                                                                                                                        Ff OMFUTUHE ArtlVfTY.
                                                                                                                                                                                        "BLAST 'il-tOOK WHOl E MOUSE*  BIA'ST WAS AT ieSKJON
                                                                                                                                                                                        11 5 ft| CHECK OF tOQ SHOWS SHOT IN COMPLIANCE        i
                                                                                                                                                                                        SHOT SHOOK WHOUL HOi KB"                _
                                                                                                                                                                                        MUt5D7MUMKV«AlEfttNftCF2f FC?flK  NOT BLACK BUD K
                                                                                                                                                                                        !A !*E PIT WASOPENCD UP LOOKED AT GEORGE. S CREEK
                                                                                                                                                                                        IrrsriEAR                                                ___
                                                                                                                                                                                        RfcTUfWEDCAiLTOUPOATT t*f ALTIZ05 ON FINDINGS OF    MfQHl ANOMIMN
                                                                                                                                                                                        COMPLAJNT-S'Wef  MRS Al TfZKR ^A!D HEft rf!AN08AUGMT£F!
                                                                                                                                                                                        FOUND DEAD MH^NOWS !N DINSESS FtUN fWAR OLD STONE
                                                                                                                                                                                        CHURCH ON S 17 Q* BB.^VtS THfr FISH WERE KiLtfOBYTK?
                                                                                                                                                                                        Pfi WATFR OfS^MAWH: TROM FftFfcTF FORK ON S 1
    
                                                                                                                                                                                        gUt^tttNG ON TMF TOLtOWlNG OAT^^ 1 Tl&^tES SHDOK EWTfRfc;  (A¥ibT ^NASiis
                                                                                                                                                                                        HOUSE « HATTi Et) TOt WINDOW^ 123&S1 1S^f ijJS?S0116'»» INC
                                                                                                                                                                                        AND*tt«£t$i8 RECEtVEOAODltlONAl COMPLAINT ON 1 /®
                                                                                                                                                                                        JFOH A BLAST ON 1 "W AT iS41
                                                                                                                                                                                        Bi ASTIMGONTHE FOLLOWWQ DATE$ * TIMFS SHOOts: FMT^ftE fNDtPtNDei^e'
                                                                                                                                                                                        HOU^" X RATTiCO THt WIDOWS 12/S6 J1 IW5 1(*26ft11P'SS COMf ftWY, iHC.
                                                                                                                                                                                        AND* $#21*2* ftPCFfVFOAOOfTIONALCO^LAiMT ON 17X12
                                                                                                                                                                                        f-OR ABLAUT ON 1 ?«2 AT 1541
                                                                                                                                                                                                    ^ HIS P
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 E IS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                ' WAIfcSiS •MUDDY HAS    I
                                                                                                                                                                                        'SOUGHT NFW HOT WATER HFATCFI is HooKm UP ON PI» tc
    
                                                                                                                                                                                        (AROMMOAfJQ 1 RFSOfcNT SAYS HE ONLY WANTS l)AMA
    -------
    ssbsass
    SbttW 3
    SSOSSN
    SS06489
    S5057S2 "
    8S8S388
    SS07886
    S5GS4M
    LTO15S3
    U001SS3
    UOB1S83
    UDtM583 	
    UOeWSS
    U0010M
    UBS1963
    
    imsra
    Of EXfHO&JVF*S AND BIAS! IffiS MRHAi-L RJ PORTS WELL IS
    6H1N0 DNY )»ND NOW CAN RUN PUMP NO LONGER THEN 16 20 ,
    MiNUTFS WITHOUT LOSING WATER,
    tMUJMSnW? #i3i*WDUMTO COMPLAINT PRFVtfSJStYRW-EftRED TO OFFICE Ai£XtfCRGY ING
    OF FXPLOSftfLS AND Bi ASTIMQ MR RUN YON Rf PORTS Wfl L &
    so^a DRY
    124.&Q1 Ui«j06 MP, RtJWYON CONTACTED WVOEP ABOUT BLASTING ON TMf- ALEXENERQv ifrg;
    FOLLOWING 0ATFS 1& 1^-01 11 2 fi 8 38 29^0(11 V'DI THtt>
    MH 35 DOCUMENTS THES6 CALLS
    FOLLOW ur BYLTPACKONQI u32JTIMlJATinN (T AlFX ENERGY, iNcl
    EXISTiNG f OMPlAtNT
    1-31,^1 161042 ^fcRYHWDBLASTAT4(npM STOW DOOR OPFNFO WlL&A ALfX ENEFK3Y, INC,
    CiHAZY Bt ASTW
    <•» ' awi ift4j"7 BAOOLAST AT 1040 AM TDDAY90-01 ^PSIN'WCCrORS WERE Al f-XENEROY7»JC. 	 "
    AT Hi H(X *?C AND HA mOWE OH tH£ KJ& ABOUT 36 feSNUTES
    *^4 «<61 If " % LRY PAp PLA T AT 4 O* P f 9-34 01 iALEX EM£W«s&o2v rx>oo 'BI AST iwas'MAKiNG MOUSE i WINDOWS, " ft K RUN COAL c^WAwT iNC,"
    1 -S^(K)1 1*aooO PU<»T6AbiN COMMUNITY ' (NDSPFTaOgNCE COAI
    roWAWY SNL
    U ^2001 06 ivi 14 CfTl?FN LIVES rCAR iOWE CCf-C TtFtY ON HUM ORt^K AND jAlf *(3tt COAL tO DBA AROH OF
    IDUST fS THE WORST ME HAS PVEfl $£01 SAYS HE CANT iWSST VlfiGINlA, me.
    iBELIEVe THAT fc»JCH DLlST COift-0 »E LEGAL, !
    id^JSOBI 09:05-40 [J6EMAYWTO"mLE0roSPAtiA^DALLK:E'NfefeOE, WATEH |«L£X ENeRQY', INC.
    QET MUDDY AFTB* BLAST*^, CJT12EN PROVIDED A ONE !
    GALLON SAMPLE OF WATEft FROM THE WELL THAT WAS MUDQY^
    (TO MAROiO WAF* GEP S«^HV!SOft. CITIZEN WtL CALL E€P |
    IWHEN WELL WATER CLEARS UP so A PRE-BLAST SAMPL |
    7/17/2001 lg:a?:44 Mf, W^nsr eated ..(Sin Vempn ai tewneSfersyMH (wins on MfTlil lAPPALACt^fAN ^i?JG IWC
    [cswtiptsdniMa ol "«'SW 1^:15-00 iSee ai}»c(i«)3 *iStsfi CiwnpWil TRte «mfrfaini is 'dii^etly ^S«i5 i*-45^00 jOimS^ffltied cparvtay frf walw-loterweadue to mining of Eaafsm ;fcfl»itertK ASSOCIATED COAL
    iA^sasiafe) tiosl CesJ^sif^'s Pede«t( t2 &$n& jCORP,
    1 1^2001 QS'W-fle Water toss ten aptfo@* >^*;h sappty drttiki^g watsr ssa »e* as aprtogs ]E ASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL
    (f echsir(^} far^i jxwt! £«(t crseK. iCORP,
    1.'1&a6o* W)-S«:10 [Lft^S AT LIWYTOWN, YARD; ia'ABAOK « HOUSE ® SETTLiNa & JEASTCflKi ASSOCfATED GOAL
    iCBACKfNQ, MAY BE SU8SOENCE OR BLASTSMG. DOESITT KNOW ;OORP.
    |FOR SURE WHAT IS Q0»&3 ON. HAS SEVERAL SURVEYS DONE I
    !ON RESIDENCE. [
    1,'g4'8002 1Sr:00'4S iSUBS«3E("tKE DAMAGE AT HOU^i iN LINOYTOWN SA^yfc'NT jKASTEffi A^OCtATED COAt
    iWALlS ARE CRACKED A1«!k£AN.iNG, .. Icor^,
                                                                                                                                                                                            CME'CSREO, (
                                                                                                                                                                                            FROM
                                                                                                                                                                                   01 tS:8M3& ffequ^Beni m todwwTOpfofimty. W^Mtdeitog^jouHegal rtglu a»d  jCNEfiSY fMRKETBMG CW!PA,NY,
                                                                                                                                                                                           iw^afltra Swew yjM te |p^sg on,    _                    !^MC,__
                                                                                                                                                                                   Voe-4&1«io 'Icifl'^N FlELS'imf "CFWCK UNOEW tHeiR'^St¥"HOK€ S"	IRODKSPR^Q'tiVELOBffMf
                                                                                                                                                                                           JMIMe ftEWTEO AND iS EMtTT8*3 SASES WHICH RW: THEM   IffiC
                                                                                                                                                                                            SSGK, SYMPTOMS; NAUSEA, WEAKNESS, t&GMT MEAC^O.     I
                                                                                                                                                                                            MUSCLE ACHES. OOQ HAS SHOWED ALLERQSC SYWTOMS   |
                                                                                                                                                                                            WHEN TIED to rRONT TORCH, DOES «or WHEN SWVE.D TO   1
                                                                                                                                                                                   	SACK.	_........_	_	_		[	
                                                                                                                                                                                   112:88:00 ^ifingwa!! to appSsad)lng th^1-"M9 ara® tmn, PreAfuspsn^a^aessSfelMCELFtOY GOAL COMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           MCELSOY COAL COMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                                          ' Itei prape% rnSsa c(' irtn^'trnder hw'prap«Hy wtei 's*ie Jk-W
                                                                                                                                                                                           jateeC.E.N(nW«pr^)«(fyi*!chs»p!ffd5M«a, Atea, ejauns w*
                                                                                                                                                                                                         ii&sldeneB dsnisge le bam (mm «*mpa{vy.
                                                                                                                                                                                   1 14-$S;OG  jWatsr to^i to Ite-ee springs awl one caffid weB OR ptoparty ptwttosoa  iMCBLBOY COAL COMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                                           jtiaatC. E Mewten. FtejwsBIs mWtsg ewe intemwikMi !w Itatvar'a      [
                                                                                                                                                                                                      !» «oonti!) natef ato te
                                                                                                                                                                                                 a IB '
                                                                                                                                                                                            Tbeoecfp  wsifliKrf^Dhad
                                                                                                                                                                                            Hin   2f »•) l*iipewMJyMet
    
                                                                                                                                                                                            SuSstidenea ret Jtad water lo
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    j Sa««h hart (»« « <•  ifffto'
                                                                                          ^ 1 tm.p«f* tttono
                                                                                        -< offl
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           MCF1 ROY GOAL COfePAWY
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         i t* F! ROY COAL COMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Ais imp*d to i^irwis u «a MCCLBOY'ddATcOWPANY	
    
    
                                                                                                                                                                             L-12!^^. JB' ° °°_ iWstof tosawt^mert s Mm is B«« #*Jegu«tg__	McbLriOY.c6AL TO^yMiY ^ I-IIIMI
                                                                                                                                                                             6 j^OO! 1 1 U8 'filSCCNT IS NOW CONNECT?" TO PLffli tC WAllR FROM     'RAWL SALES S Pf¥VgS5INa CO
                                                                                                                                                                                            (HATTAROY WifSDENTiS AFI&fltD  1TH WATER
                                                                                                                                                                                3001 1100'?  HO OOMPIA1NT                                    RAW1 SAlfSS PROflESSgKf5(.O
                                                                                                                                                                                          ~tt55t'C*«n>]NT~C,ALLeORt.tilUehn TO CLOSL U^LAINT
    
    
                                                                                                                                                                                            NOCOfc^LAINT
                                                                                                         BAWLSfllkSSPFiO
    
                                                                                                         RAWL SALES s wocfcSS&K. c
    
                                                                                                         RAWL SALES* « P«fX'E.'5la!Mts (
    
                                                                                                       "iRAwT&AtES' I 'PlwC'ESSBfoT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                < O
                                                                                                                                                                               &SfKH j3r?5:W|lte09fBpJal«a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              L SALSfS 4 f&OOF&SfNG CO
                                                                                                                                                                                    1»2S:34  Wo
                                                                                                                                                                                           iWiter&^feodiartginiacrt, CiteM! is OTw^mrf Btxsrt Ihs prepoood  pOMPAWY
                                                                                                                                                                                           ... _ _j»diangelfom"iKisltir6'«J*l^ti'«foiary'atth^Hag3rtShKa. ;
                                                                                                                                                                                        _JHej
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ., POCAHONTAS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          lENERSY.UC
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-716
    Section A  - Organizations
    

    -------
    umi?M3
    
    
    
    l,i£V>8>333 '
    
    
    utH48§2
    
    Um.teaa "*
    
    UQ204B3
    
    iwgo4!S
    
    UG2M33
    
    uo»«3
    
    UOKHE3
    
    
    LJWMgg
    UbgMO'""
    
    
    
    UOK8880
    
    UMrcoo""
    . _ „
    
    U061WW
    l*(MflS>
    
    1 f >1€.H
    
    twi*
    
    
    NO^jpiK)
    
    IT&1 JO
    
    U06i-Sfl0
    
    UOSteeo
    
    uosiisw' '
    
    ubstijoo'
    ....
    UeSlgOQ
    
    U051S89
    
    
    uosm-o
    
    
    
    UOHJKG 	
    
    B"4.?W1 lofcijo •Jnitttit tbifflptoni f)fcmeilia Hf»f,S* r twryf l«fliBi3onOBi/'*ji
    Betefl«5ci in tmpce* r Terry ^asftfatimwN "onlartp (""R^ism R)
    08 "*Q1 Potow-up fetter face ved04'i4«1tStted(«l'SM*}i,aHa* <>iii}2 inOi'OO t iOdy Ma^)flfdv^n!Ni£wifo(i?fiefttai Affoocsfe GBieeretefre- &!*•
    j^mfrtasni Ottesnctee a hava a coTplsmt btsiJSfeqBsstingany
    ififwsntt-wi vaitaitor60^mHl«%«%ftfap^fc&te!dwpM**l
    t" -20C1 on w 'S' KdUwSh bZStSida ? Jr fins mor O»M  U& ^«ei Mats i^s-^t f gas ^fciffiagtej w^uafK. life in SndUMi Ctwet1
    
    8 1620*1 Mi's 10 H- te»is methane gas }• DtffsWiFt irom the wiwti Bi (rant ct fcf*
    («ss'isisf^ tal *s n^ war« *yo eWomTK' to^ttartvit
    !0 fCi'SOOl 11 W*9 imic.fi Creuii tia& bt»"n diBnaf e$ by mine subinftniL* in thai Hows <««
    'noo B>H^»II m wms ^e.
    Ki t '^0111 ijprifuxi strtwimftodte'siBedifi trxrtan t^eekaa We iocattooofa ^aoe
    TO* n- S4! m«v !«v !!Hdi*u-D«r[jift fiom Ttwf ft iKde wat (Biglxwfclwfenwntesatme
    clvtmicaiiiu 81 hwrtofea* GwnjUateUnt Has »eqi o led MS0S at
    »BV Snow diomtcal additwss to the water
    1 ^ awg 15 li-9' l*H^ft»flft«b!*«*ft§!KiT*eB»sm IB loon! fit Sis f -itdsff
    7-02O31 !2 ta-OD 'itis oW tMt rnoytti nSne t-opefl {CNcopceCo^Co ^« ) Kids,
    * ukl go m'Scin HHi 'lad tof> fei nite" Coal Cp i1«!{jantt. witl! de?ef
    add h&T b*«n cpsncd t! -4 mofsHi Lwsap on Neely Bac'ow
    ptvfet^ ^.^ bly (n tw ntma of HIHJ^ * 1 lii tlm
    '< J' 11 11 r^1-? f* f ra,^siuiit(!to(t^«lwo"i! ttieco.iMfip*B!haB«;rfilngtwi«aQntft
    tlft bndna amllir* pfanrti CkM"a<^< «t(y4^sf!»SiiHit(W*f'.p»fii^
    onlo berw ol one i ne load Wt i^ovts fta it Jbte bMsatt*^
    11'1*S001 IS I'iOQ GiStfFom'- i)(% ra?a (« !IMU *ei!Nt1«S' W (e¥
    B'i"6!^ 141 '*0 N< * iMir Waftte pufifct w^JW« ^y^ f E1^ *" srai*
    
    S'-syi 1411-00 ^Hatx) &#j *«ii J foc'deO! D«8iniia} t»> f»iM* wsdw syslem put in
    
    a ^iOi Wn^-iiO Ms to haul »«tw Want fHMrwtifar /^B"'P"'wi
    
    1 L* iiwjiX) 4^a^a6)t 3 Always hed v»ty timfi^! st*ia
    wa«'![!«iBt»- wafpr sj«ft(nptit 61
    8* **••} M <«•<*>) Ma 2 «0t> 4b test *^a AaB (»i|ed tn1«*80 In1 ?9 fiiodil S--a
    sji't4 well Bi4t> hmffi attvsjyi. had tftssterf u e WanC? [Mibtic «f3l
    i to tfM deep Uw-d to have &*3frt> jt watw Now !ia« Bml!«fl use
    1 roiifty "faatafi 1 11* ye^m jga Two ptoj^a ww w^9 fsisisliow onl^
    NoteiOfSv Ihi* f^odhi'ola att «ar
    IW -V t 14 ">w Already in 'estigtie byGEP CMR bU t» iwedvHtlfic K«ttf>
    Chap*na« fi!«gd*bfi H»'iMirflthada«!lowvwiiiirgs i/ gaUofi <
    teei (Sft^J v^teti i "jO fosi t^low c 1 Hwe Pi^ad a iww wetf m fho UsS few mnfiiii DOTt^trtiucfiwaJ'^Wii'ffi
    
    't,* NEOLffWKJW CWSL
    CtJfiiSPAfJY
    
    
    C JNSOUI AT!T N UDAL
    COMPANY
    
    ca~iFFw VAiiev COAL txjMPANy
    
    GFieEWVALLFYCOftLCOMPWJY
    
    U S &f EfeL MIWNG CjOf^PftNY
    UC
    U S STFFI M1N1HG COf^PANY
    (tlC
    U S STEEt MffiiNG COMPAWY
    LiC
    'll 1 SHTFL MINtMG rOMPA^V
    LLC
    U ~ StF-R DINING Ot'f^ANY,""
    ILC
    
    U S STTFLMiNiW. C*!P*SV, ' "
    CHK-OPCE f OAL COMPANY"," INC,
    
    
    
    TgRRY SAO± COAL COdWANY
    tu
    [
    teLftCK WQLMiiS«we COMPANY"
    i
    (SHAKE COAL COMPANY
    j|^ST«L GOAL-WEST WG^A,
    '( OASTAI f OAL VVtvf WSilA
    LLC
    TOAST AL COAL WEST VPQINIA
    LLC
    < DA^TAL ( "AL WEKT VfRCINJA
    
    
    «o*s*ALte*t wFSTVff!at^aA
    LiC
    'COASTAL COAL west VIMSINW
    Ittc
    f OJiSTALrDAJ vtfFKT Vtf^ifNIA
    LLG
    COASTAL COAL WfeSf WR6INIA
    ALC
    7S ^ftSTAL f OAL /JEST VWaNJA^
    iLC
    CO^'JTAL COAL JVLST VPSw'lA. "
    LL(
    CO^StAL GOAL WLST VBOJNiA]
    UC
    f A'ffAL CQAl- wS'-fOffiSiNSC
    UC
    
    
    (COASTAL COAL- WEST WSMSA"'
    LLC
    
    
    CAftSf A! COAL-WEST VJRQWV,
    iLIC
                                                                                                                                                                 U051BOO-
    
                                                                                                                                                                 LM)S!6"3
                                           |8%/,2001 14.IXSM  ,Ah
    
                                           8/7/2001 i&!yfoo  Ur
    
                                           11 d-2P01 10 1200  Dt
    .Hsamftaulwa1^ H»bwi«« Waf'ispdA Wf^Hj^isiapiiftffi
    
    LfVQ«jmjjifewfiitousa6yeais Hctsa-iiteie! *e8 1661eolcfeep
    ipf*^hus owftcf  iw "0  tswuGtur^ damage
                                                                                                                                                                                                           pKjtOner& wrth (taBpf 8«= to *
                                                                                                                                                                                                        1* W Traite o*tl oi IP- el iwc«ted
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ajfaca
                                                                                                                                                                                                      ji waatti&cimfisvBhws
                                                                                                                                                                                            oft^^spfle Off! and -ay maftw on w
                                                                                                                                                                                                      • nnSt^- !o sBfew
                                                                                                                                                                              ri'i'SdOi 10'&0^2  Sot««tonce craeKafl'iieat *^i^>8rty arrf has to^ water «(afl
    
                                                                                                                                                                               :0300i 11 twJTO  < mffl^ntOTa^^ftsiiiar^ityiiihfliMadwf'omltigrft'iiU-saaaae
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ELK Rl m f OAL U 'MPAMY WC
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           IVK^JNCOALt--ofe^AW~wc
                                                                                                                                                                                 2002111 -00  WQ9! W -WOO  'Mr? O*offies(i
                                                                                                                                                                                            ftsiftiM} of Eaafeffl Ensrgv *'srt is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       3 a !e gallon Dt aster ami Ehe
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       til" SfeMf
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        bej'flvhw
                                                                                                         f CHfOflMANCF CtiAl roMWiY"
    
                                                                                                         QRE6N VAI LEY COAL iViWSpANy
    
                                                                                                         RWERIftH; f-NFFKIY W
    
                                                                                                         'EAiSTtHN ENERGY-CORP
                                                                                                      the
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-717
                                                 Section A -  Organizations
    

    -------
    W0ft«7
    i 401 1<"1
    UM 1! >n
    U4H21 ~*H
    «— •
    uw.
    U402S39
    LMOaSSS"
    U4Q3S8&
    U492589
    U402SSS
    utt«e&
    LJ402S89 	 "
    US001S3
    USS&S84
    1 i i- 2no> 1? *' i") The i iteen "(a* i ifwl fessKm-s < n» tt w&« tsl-vh wl rifted a sti 'fige £ASr£ft& EftfRTV COfsP
    smtl
    1" 12001 0n\H <»3 Mi Gwas .stated Hisl water haa tamed ««*& of MaUt tm * 23> 1 BAYSTftRCOHCOMPAW INT
    jrid KMyi!<*g when true dt t et can iftio it
    1i2r-2001 ^'"'ao Milftraaf i»Wn«J hmm HFRND' NPROCi-SS««3
    t-OMPANY
    iO«K*ef^200t.
    "" laeoi j*" 11 00 Stfddsn fw* ol water In Dtw* C"ist< tspsrttt connection MShfunSng
    8p»tie!Un
    M KW i 14(MIOO W=Sh -sgimofliywKJMtiowe^f w(tl Cdof ftr«3( N FM Coal fta aank
    wita Buint tip we poiflfi and firpfef id * in July 2oQ^ She bu' en
    (having !rm i ("• la theft f»sKi«m69 Tfe»y tevst l«ft fifinWss wJ Itwr hou a
    piialff ai t&nea fs f^S N R ill plafliiln h, ssJvadL- ttoli mlnttig Inn
    IftiK." fBOWllil^
    ;1^2C(i!i o"00 Mr Slova <»S*9& Sialhi tow* iwa eteiaqcd tfom b i mtg 8)ai
    t U -1'ffii St «tee(s mJsa 'sSe
    Tftt-mfnpaHyaraa r^qufrelb/M^iHIORMn^pwiyx arvi leftrK irom
    COfiOTWJY
    fcASTERN ASSOC 1ATFD COAL
    CORP
    » VRTLE D Ci RP
    > YR7LE D C/iRP
    CRffcKSiGC £Nfc.RQY
    DEVELOPMCfJT t f* fANY
    CRIFK 0£FWPaY
    ft tVfcLOPMT HT CtlMPANY
    i* !?OQi is 16!X1 r nsipt.i)i Idfli Mate Ihst burning h^s bwo gtitf*g on aSwtielx eo^^ CRtFKStfS EN6RSY
    Hot'hkls^ Wrii* Kf* Hii^iJffa f feVfctOFJMtNT C CS^ANY
    11 t^TQOi «m-OQ C m0a«!lniit «4a1c thai a tor t stwidw) Hs IN* Manmtsmly i ufclti t nCFKSJPE F&FRCY
    «xt=i matBiMl t^c )fo«i a nead>? &t?eam itiei has Sfeen dredgy^i and DE^L(S*ME-NT C MPAMY
    HjStfiOOl 14 ^m The --jai iwtnfr M H-HrtiMss l» ran iteg tt*9 wholf Mw« WiB» (Just CREfK^!DFFN£Fte,Y
    tffi,VELOP!(S MI COfe^ANY
    )>1SM"1 i?Tot)Q Csniptaititwf ^aft that ulbet-ro Bffisidwti'ts draifietn Moirtil'K's
    a'iffiHisi ]S-(!0:oo T^!D^f*mMffemOSM. tijf&sfiw^Si^^ST^to3^^fe7 ^fl w"tntaiss^Mi o"l Gary.
    WSJS/SOOi 11;IO'60 iCaun^ PO^I very ctes^y.
    i ft' 1 0,'^jb't 14 .01 3)0 it^oati IB irsnt ^ htine to tfiisty and Faiie) Wog »a«*«d from Blade W17ffl001 lliOOSSO jDir! Bfl QtWilt^ K»iMi.
    W4l&OE&~yk'J£&'&b JMu^aistl (fct ffl nuiirty faad ft«m coal ttuuSss,
    SIACK WOLF MIMING COMPANY
    BLACK WOL? MtfjNG COMPANY
    Fl5-?OCa Ili50:00 fpisat tnwn SMCfe w'esK (T(^> go«) Mfet*. Curtate sS sloct^lle to ionaii and jfiLACK WOLF i*iB*3 COMPANY
    2*2Ste t&«0;M" ~" ' N^
    7,®e-200i 19:58.01 JMyw up to original complain! si fSecotmed water t-en*g hww LSte }**ARFOPSK COAi COMPAW, iNC
    a^'Ji'SOOl 15:M-a4 JHOU^ BC^TTWO DtWfYFfiOMCbAi^fflUCKTfiAfFtC. K*E |HOKTWIM3IT«
    ;TRUCKS NOT T^.HP»«3. V^WLD LBENCt: RY fUl t Mi PANEL t *JDFF1 RO *p ROAD IS 8^     COW
                                                                                                                                                                                          "FRY HA?AraXKJ«! CO**OfriCfri STHi.H3L BtlSCS W)1>l oHIDRFN1
                                                                                                                                                                                          Afif m JIWAfTOY                _ __               I            __
                                                                                                                                                                                          WlfSAKKMT ROAD KCRATKFD BY JUSTICE MIH£           IEASTFF4N ASSOCfATED GOAL
                                                                                                                                                                                          SLBSOTMGC VfRY COJ^TtRNEt;) A8GUT SAFL TV 8 USf Of    'COW
                                                                                                                                                                                          NOAD ALSUCOt«^fl^OABOUTHHS&Mil«RALR*aHTS
                                                                                                                                                                                          , WV ST&Tfe HT 5 K<^ Sgrtt.60 AOAtH AND Cf»ACK% hlAV6 RC    fASTCRW ASSOCiATCD COW-'
                                                                                                                                                                                          OE^NPO MAKING ROAD HAZARDOUS TO PUBLtC MH STfWART CORP
                                                                                                                                                                                          VFRV COh^-tRNCD ABOUT SAFt TY OF REESOFhiTS 4 CHILOPEN
                                                                                                                                                                                          MR STtWART flbCnjESTED GOPftS OF PtRMIT & OTt^R
                                                                                                                                                                                          RELATED DOCUMENTS
                                                                                                                                                                                          WeSinaunR M|.!iH96yM!nsr*LogS(tro3lC''[IHiaf!¥             MiNGO LORAN GOAL COMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                                 i 16-3" ?a  weu is DRY COULD SOMEONE CHEOC n FOR H
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         M84OO LOfaAN COAL "COMPANY"
                                                                                                                                                                                         1 !THEWipLl (IASGONE COKS*tFTFIY OHY FHPFl£ IS JLSST*S.fDiNiMIMOOLoeANG6"AL COMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                                          ]lt NOW HAS fltF« OOJitOD^Y FOR ABOUf TWO P(ONTHS HOW
                                                                                                                                                                                          At SO THPPf iS A MINE SfSAK 8EH9JO TMf HOUSP
    
                                                                                                                                                                                          "l ^^LAtNAWT ALLECES THAT (-tt IS PAfiT OWNffi Ot PEAft.
                                                                                                                                                                                          iTHQk^P&ON WA fFH WfLL WFLL WAS SJhW At® MS
                                                                                                                                                                                          THOMSON rOMPEWSATrO TOR LOSS COitfFLAiNANT At LEGES
                                                                                                                                                                                          W BAtSOOWPD<'B«3 TO MRS
                                                                                                                                                                                          COLEGPOVE 0£LBAf«TC»l M!WB*S PftOVfOEQ WATER FILTER
                                                                                                                                                                                          SYSTEM FOft THE RFSIOENCE ON RAT 69-01 W£i L WFKT
                                                                                                                                                                                          iOOWLtTHYDHY ClTf?ENCTHTATT£ODF!8AHraiJ AND
                                                                                                                                                                                          COMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                                         "
                                                                                                                                                                                          TREATMENr TANKS WSTALLtD NOW HFCHWK3 OftlNKflMfa
                                                                                                                                                                                          jWAltR Of-LBARTON PROW^ D WBI TRLATWEM HAS
                                                                                                                                                                                                 ^ TO f OUtiOATION Of TOMP HOUSE AHP f-BONT Of
                                                                                                                                                                                                         N HAS S6V£RM CHFSTIOS ABOUT
    
                                                                                                                                                                                          'EASTKY WAtW^O'R^^D'^DfWW^TlB^miTw'C.RFEK
                                                                                                                                                                                          (NTOHERPOOt ALSO YARD MAS NOT 86 EN REP WED
                                                                                                        'DFLB*HTCiN fcfflWING COMPANY
    
                                                                                                                       COMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                                          Ift'ATfcR TANKS «^F CfcfPTY PALLED EAST KY WATFR CO
                                                                                                                                                                                          iTttLES TODAY TO BRiNG WATEfi. NO WAT&R Oa.lS«F€P
                                                                                                                                                                                          WATtft IN WELL SS MUDDY LiVES LEFT HAf«3 FO1K OF DUNCAN DFLBARTON MWBlQ
                                                                                                                                                                                          mm crrfTFN HAS HAD ^AS^PLFS TAKEN IN TI £ pasr MR
                                                                                                                                                                                          VANCE STATCD 1C WONT BEt IEVE WH«T WE TbU HIM BUT   j
                                                                                                                                                                                          WANTS SASOTF ON RECORD
                                                                                                                                                                                          ^OILOW UP 12 IBOI BVJ&HNFLESHFK THIS co»*^ AWT WA&
                                                                                                                                                                                          MAOT 8Y ROLAND   _                              ,
                                                                                                                                                                                          WCU VSATFR WAS MUDOY flM) NOW HAS WENT DRY ROIAND  DELaAPWON MINIMS
                                                                                                                                                                                          .VANTt SR WCM THL SMfTiAL COWPLAINT FORROlftNU \ANCf
    
                                                                                                                                                                                          VoUOWUP 121601 8YJO(*IFLESHER Wf-Lt WATER WAS
                                                                                                                                                                                          WJftLAM.f!3H..Rgy!!^j^JSfejJB __ , __ ,.:::,,.:,^f^.
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-718
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    
    
    U501SS6
    
    US01S9S
    usoiise'
    »«.- -
    U601SSS
    USOISfiS
    usottts
    use 1888
    WANTS WATER TESTED. CREEK WAS ItfUGD'Y Y£ST0mft¥ i
    RIGHT FORK OF OOTEN FORK. WELL 2@ FEET DEEP, SOO0 j
    WATER AS GOOD AS BOTTLED WATER, HAND DOG WELL i
    JCREIEK AFFECTED AT LEAST A YEAR. WELL AT LEAST 85 YEARS !
    lOtD |
    JTURNED PUMP Of FFX>R 48 MINUTES, THEN HAD WATCR. WELL j
    !2SO FT. DEEP. LIVES LOWER SHEPPARTOWN RD., LEFT AW) 1
    *-W,'2G01 1130138 COMPANY Cut A PlQ&fc ON f HE HtLi. RK3HT FORK OF OOTEN JDSL8ABTON ySNiNS COMPANY
    pORK, PURE iWIJD THE LAST S TIMES IT RAINED, 1
    6/37/2001 11:48:58 JWELL IS ALMOST DRY - VERY Little WATER- WANTS DEP TO {0ELBARf0N MNiNQ'COMPANY"
    MAKE DETESTATION - DID M^BNQ IMPACT HER WELL? MS, ;
    [DEMPSEY CALLED AGAIN 6-»oi - WANTS AN ANSWER, HAS i
    JWICK SCHAER DECIDED? I
    {11-27-01 WELL WATER QUALITY (RED COLOR AND BtACK
    jPARTtCLES) AND QUANTITY |
    &W/200l" t4-bS49 WELL hOINQDRY THE LAST 3 OR 4 WEEKS, WATER J8 RED AND ]D£LBARf0N MSNING COS.1PANY
    SfcELlS BAD. WELL IS SO - 90 FEET DEEP, DRR-LED DEC, 1980.
    HAS WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM LOWFR 'SHEPPARTOWN
    POAD
    7 *; *01 12 jK! "> 8*BY BRhAKINa OUT WAhfTS WATFR TLS1 LD DRIVERS NOT JDBBARTON MS«i!K*O COMPANY
    ADOfNG ANYTHINQ IN TANKS NEV, ORI JFRS |
    7 ^ ^XJ1 tt '(' ro 2 TANKS IN PONNif BE ANKFNWiP S YARD fafcRVt 4 HOfiES; 	 DELBARTUN MIMfNG COfuFANY '
    lANKStMPTY SINCE NOON CAiiEDMlKE SSfTH AT 13t3HHS. i
    tNO WATER DELIVERED. j
    r/3/aobi 17-10:57 IALWAYS HAD sobo WATER - LAETT GbuR£ OF' WEEKS WATER" ""iffiieAWf^ wWiJfe'cb'f^ANY1" "
    HAS SLKWT DISCOLORATION. WELL S6 PT. DEEP. A80l!T 15 1
    YRS OLD ACROSS FOUfKANF <11S> FROM TCTOCT«E CO
    BACK ON HlH 4 HOUSCS IN
    "1$ AN¥" '
    'DRf HAPOLU WARD SPOKE W1THKR&SYON7 VS7 U
    < OMPLAINT (S CflANPF IN QUALffY NOT QUANT (FY i
    OSB1>«1 WANTSWATERRt TIMM) STOH WAS 24 NOW SO s
    FO!LO1iMIP 12S01 flYJOWFLE'iHeR QU^irTYOFWei
    7 13 W1 1r it) 19 WANTS WATfcR TCMED rp&T BY WiT KY WATTft PCUND DCLBARTONMWtNGtQWANY
    BACTgPiA 2 HOUSES ACROSS < REEK FROM UPPFR
    SHLF PAHOtOWN RO
    ?1C20010P(M ^ WATCR TANK AtMOST FWTY HA6 NOT KfrM FB LFD SIMf C DFia»RTOMM8yiNaC-)MPAfiY
    WfcO 71101 SAME TANK AS ANDREW AND JUDY TAYLOR
    X 16*^001 tJ*)**t 6! NO WATER H/WT^FNNLEDSttJCEWED 7 1101 NO 'D£LgAfttONM&HNs3n"*>fstfnANY
    WATER SINTE OWO THIfe ftORNtNd
    ? !? -KX31 1 10^41 RfSWf NT STATtD SPRING ftXKa O'i?) MAS BI:eNLOV(^X!, DEL8ARTON M8«NQ COMPANY
    RtCHAR^I WANTS WATER TESTED STATED SPRiNQ HAS
    BEEN PfiOVtplMG WATtH ^iCf Hfc WAS A t HILD
    FOLLOW UP 12 20 01 SY JOHNflESHfcR SPRSIGHAK86FN
    LO^ffJQ RECHARGE WANTS WATCH TLSTLD
    7 !& ^001 11 46 % RESB3ENT SftY-5 WAT? R HAS A 8AD ODOR WHILE ALSO PCI BARTON MINING COMPANY
    "IT&lWfCi TOiLFTIiATHTUB SUnf/^F^ ORAMQE THERF ARE ?
    TRA1ERS ON TS-HS Wfcl L * 'AMF9 S M!T2i GiLLMAN) SECOND
    PLACE OW RK3HT ABOVE ETTTY GILLMAN BEFORE KARA LANE
    TUHNOW.-
    rOLLCMfUP 12-28-91 BY JOHN FLESHER - W
    7*20/2001 1 1 :16;31 WANTS WATER CHECKED, SLACK PARTtCLES & BAD ODOR g«l tHtLSARTON MNNfl COfciPANY
    WELL WATER-
    JFOLLQW (.IP 12-10-Q1 8Y ,O*t FLESHER - WELL WATER HAS A
    BAD ODOR AND BL.ACK PARTICLES.
    7fK3/iOQ1 13.43,34 R£S&)&NT SAY^ WATEft HAS GASSY TASTE. KAfiY HATFiEiD DKLSARTON MSN^G COfc(PAT4Y
    TOIJ3HERTOCALLOEP,
    7J2*!S001 H)-35'.3S WATER HAD SULFUR SSffiiL - NOW HAS BLACK PARTICLES- NOT JDELBARTON MiNfNG COMPANY
    StAYffi«3 AT HOME. WATER NOT USED MUCH. WELL DRILLER i
    SAID TO ADO BLEACH TO KSJ, E.CQLt. WELL DRCLED 00 FT
    DEEP&J19&1. DAY STAR fiD. SRiCK HOUSE - 4TH UP FROM RT
    65 EXIT,
    T.^aooi'oS'g^iis iWAtfeft" GO t "REAL RED LASt'NfGHt"- NO" FCtfeR,"wSiL DRiii-ib t^USSRTOfi'MSifeiG "COHB^ANY
    J380 FT. t*£P IN 1999, NO ANSWER 7-25-01, 0910. KARA LANE
    IBESIDE ft^NNY 8, JENNIFER DEMPSEY,:
    FOLLOW UP- 12-19-Q1 SYJDKtJ FLESMER- WELL WATER
    TURNED RED; DRILLED WEii IN tSES 900 f£ET DEEP
    tsaisss
    ueoisse'
    U501^
    U601S3S
    USC1S«6
    UWIS^fl
    useless
    US01S&6
    	 I
    U5019M
    U501^6
    Cieis^
    usoS-sia 	
    Lffi0199S" "
    usStseo
    LS019S8
    usotsee
    L^Ot^SS
    tSotSSS
    Usoisse' "
    /A2001 0"44 14
    "28 '2001 100Q21
    j.'mwQ'i ii:oe:te
    7?26^X>1 11:33:37
    7/-30S001 11:3&09
    ^asstte3teaain<*M' - sttftsage jjmsli JMVBatoaptoisfftlditnBiiigwatej,
    WATER «AS AN O3OW SME APRIL OR MAY, H£ALTH DEPT
    SAYS NOT SUITABLE FOR DRINKING, EARLY MORNING MST
    TIME TO CONTACT RESIDENT. LEFT HAHD FORK OF iXINCAM
    TOW- O.AY Stt*tS. ffiEEW SHUTTERS. 8ES10S B1L
    OEMPSEY:
    11-S6-01 WEIL WATER QUALITY (ODOR AND PARTC
    WiSiOENT SAYS WATER HAS VERY BAD ODOR; MOTHER SAID
    GHLDREN GET SICK TO THER STOMACH WHEN 0RINKTO
    WATER..
    FOLLOW !.»= 12-19-2001 BY JOHN FtESHER - WELL WATER HAS A
    @&D ODOR: OOT SICK WHEN WANK IT.
    WELL */- 18 YRS. OLD, WHEN DRILLED WELL PRODtXIED 1«fl
    GPM; OA1LAS RUNYON SAMPLED WELL 3-4 YRS. ASG. CfTIZEN
    NOTED ONLY MMOR PROBLEM BUT WANTO3 At^NCY TO SNOW
    ASAP. 1 f& M!LS NORTH OF 8ELO ACBOSS FROM DAY STARR
    ROAD. WATER NOT REGORGING THE SAME - SEE
    RESIDENT SAYS WATER PRESSURE IS LOW; WELL NOT
    RECHARGING THE SAME WHEN USING A LOT OF WATER,
    ACROSS FROM DAY STAP ROAD ON HILL
    fr'Si/aooi i«-oi« fBouQHf HOOSK w RJFFE S. - MAY Ngeo pfte-siiesiOiCNCE
    ^SiJBVgY - PRIOR OWNER SLOAN. GHRlSTOmER - WANTS
    ^SURVEY M-DONE OUE TO REMODgLfNG
    7*31ja001 1S:45:48
    *3>'aOS1 1»;SO;S7
    8/i5*iS6i 'as'.'is'fsb
    &'1U»»1 H:tB;J7
    S/ia'2001 12:40:17
    B 16^091 104831
    S^AiJOOl 6ftr745
    8-W20Q1 13ff- 11
    WELL QOiHO SAD, LOW PRESSURE AT TWO REMTAi. TRAItERS
    ABOVE BETTY GiLMAN. t^lLEO 15-»>- YEARS ASO,-
    FOiLOW UP - ia-19-01 BY ^)HN FtEaHER - WELL WATER
    QUANTrrY AND QUAifTY (SLACK) AFFECTED BY MINING,
    RESIDENT IS CONCERNED ABOUT ODOR N WATER. ALSO HAS
    DI8CQIORATDM {ORAHSE) TO WATER. REQUESTED WATER
    SAMPLE,
    FOLLOW UP - 12-28.01 8Y JOHN RESHER - WEli WATER HAS AN
    OOOR AND ORANGE COLOR.
    W AWT S WAT Ifi TESTED. WELL PJK)fiL~£M MAY BE JUST
    BE0MN1NQ,
    WELL WATlft IS BAD - CANT DRINK ft - WANT WATgft TEST6&
    USE SA)^ WELL AS KENNETH WHITED.
    1S^?*t weu.WAT£RlSBADANOHAS<30TT0i WORSE-
    DEIBARTOT S*&« CCi^AMY
    'baiARf ON "MB«NS cof^AHY
    DEtBARTON MWS4G COMPANY
    DELBARTON MRItWQ COMPANY
    DELBARTON MINING COMPANY
    DEL0ARTOW MINiNQ COMPANY
    OELSARTOT MiNINQ COh^ANY
    Oe.BART<»t MINING CO^rANY
    I0R8ARTON mma COMPANY
    OCLBftRTON MINING COMPAMY
    CANT DlliNK THEIR WELL WATER" - SAME WELL IffiEfoBY BILLY & D6D3ARTOW ftilNiNQ COMPANY
    8FT f Y R'iNYON WELL PHOEOSY SLANO CREEK COAL j
    COMPANY FOR BATt HOUSE FOR Ol 027 MINE- '
    11WOI MRS 0ET1YRUNtONWHO SHARES THE WELL WfTH
    f»R WHfTFDCAt LED ON 1 1 5 01 SAYfMG THE WATER HAD
    GOTTEN
    WATER PS OBAPPtAfwa FR£^°HS WATER WfiLL TAKES 10 DEL8ARK* MINING C"MPAMY
    MINUTC& TO RCCHAR6E S 27 HOLLOW POOL LEVEL OEING Ofc
    WATERED
    WATFP arraiiQ LOW NOT ENOUGH TO BACKWA9H R TFR.S at BARTON S^^NQ COMPANY
    WATTR HAS BAD SULPHUR SMLLL Ofift-LbO 8 OR S YEARS AGO DELBARTON MINING CQKtf ANY
    PRQBtFMINLAST 1OR3MONTHS Lt\^S ^ RWE BR. A80VE J
    CHUPCH ON LEFT [
    8 2ft 3001 1 3 n-08 WATCH STOPPED PtWlNS IN HIS WELL - WAWTS TO KNOW
    HOW tO QFT OFt BARTON M1NI4O TO PROVIDE WATER, LfVfiS
    APPHOX 1 TO 1 IfflMfiESFflOMRT 119ONRT 65 TOWARD
    DfcLBAHTQN
    f^LSARTON UMiMfNSCaMPAMY
    9-5 2001 14 W 34 'BLACK PART ICL£6 fN THg WATER IN SACK OF COJjtMOOE; lt)ElSARTON Mtt^^lG COWAMY
    IAUTOMATSC WASHER TEARS UP FROM BLACK WATER: GARY j
    iHATFtEiDTOLDHERTOCAliDEP. PAULifffi ETTERB OWNS
    fWElL2Tft«l£R8GNGN£Wa.L RT 6S AT CA^IEY CHURCH Of j
    ICHRIST, STH DR^WAY TOWARD E^LBARTON, 3 TRAISRS >
    &6/2001 16;9055
    9^10*2001 19-ee;5t
    9? iTJsoo'i 085ess
    BESiOENT WANTSWATEftCHeGKtD. LOWER SWEPPARDTOWN SDELSARTON fellNINQ COWANY
    Effft • (KENNETH HALL, FATHER) i
    SoKffiTHW SHOOK SEVEnAt. HOMES ^ OOTEN FOfik" 7:88 P.M
    ON 9*01. SHOOK PICTURES OFFTHE WALtANDCAWSED
    CRAC'KS »J THE WALL. I'MY &£. THE ftUSY M»JE HAD A ROOF
    FALL'
    KtfXWSI CRACKS (N W*tL & CONCBKTE PORCH,.
    1 t*J?^t MBS, RATLIFF MENTiOf^O SOt& OF HER P
    MAY BE A BLAST OT ROOF FALL SlOOK CElltNG FANS AND
    GOS.«fTER AF?>ROX, M<0 P.M. 94J-01.
    WtBARTON ItjifNINra COMPANY
    OELBART Otil M~«i|INa COfcW'ANY
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-719
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    US01WS
    U501SBS
    USOi996
    jsmsse
    USOIW
    LiSQi&es
    uwiSi 	
    US0189S
    U501S06
    U5019M
    WREGU6WLY COWS MOyg TO WV. BAD SMELL; SAW! COOK }
    •;WfTH THS WATER. UPPER END OF KAftA LANE; OWNS SEVCRAL !
    (ACRES COULD SELL LOTS SOT NOW tSFtOUNDWATER IS |
    DESTROYED; CAN CONTACT ROSERTSHELTON RE. SAMPLING
    't?
    ft'ii'aOQI 14 3D 46 HAS HEARD TVAT COMPANY IS PUMPffNG r>UT THE 2? Mtf IE 'DPI BARTON MNifG COMPANY
    &?iaaoei 1^*003 MR OOTFN HAS t RILING TH IES TOWING LDOSI AND «*nw"MAVF
    FAU EN fhj THt BAUC OF THE HOUSE AND HAD &QML WATER
    1 [NF DAMAGE HE REPARED SUSPFCTED CAUSE SUBEJDFNCF
    AND A 8LA*-T ON S 15-01
    ft'iassoi 11*>064 wviafha dwi&oc! t" anoftyliim Owen HstiteW is well OVMSM- ngM
    a! m >iiih ol dullest* torfc Std JKHWM (fown
    iiJIifiOOi 10 1 im QUANTITY Of WU L WATfR (S DFOREAblNG i I- At H BED STOPS
    UP NOW AND IT DtONT USFU TO Rf-SIOkNT SAB &*& D^TSON
    WANTED TO L£ f S^COfft FAKE A WATER SAMPLi 8UT NOT
    PURE WHO Hf WAS 1 At K!«G ABOUT 1ST HOUSTON LFFT UP
    HB t tN fWK BR
    a^lSOOl 10:13^7 [WATER WELL REPLACEMENT, MRS. BISHOP CALLED 10-4-01 RE. "
    'NOT HEARST FROfe! DELBARTON MfNING
    Ho-36-01 QUANTSTY AND QIA*l.rrY OF WELL WATER
    DESJREASIIM0, LEACH BE.D NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.
    & 26 2001 iatiiJ 'ii"'*FILMbY(VMTfeRYNCbM!Ai)6fc& SHOWER COAL COMPANY
    SAhlTlfDIN le^JS nfttLLEtJtMFT DFFP SA^E WLLLFOR03
    YPS ORf/DRF SAMf FXIT HFF fit 119 AS PAT CAVIS
    10 2001f"0010 nSAN0C!N WATER OUAUtYQUAMfHY PARTICLES !N" WATER"""
    AND WRY OOD SMELL.
    1011-01 QUANTiTYANOQlMLITYOFWELi, WATER HAS
    DSdlN""? ABOUT
    WATER R6.PLACFMENT POt K. Y WD OTHER PH^SrAL AND
    10172001 18 K 1? WATeftQMALfTY(3feTT!HQ WORSE, RgDA^ffi HAS ODOR
    KM? <>QQ1 1H' 3 1 LfVfcS ON C.ILLMAN DRIVE HAD TWO WE! LS THAT ARE NOW
    DRY OWN& 3TORL ON OILMAN DFHVE ANDtEA^fc^ (T. LIVES iN
    MOUSC ON UPPER SIDE OF STORE H \DBEEN HOOKED UP ON
    SiSTEfVS WELL WHO DOES NOT UVE THERE
    iti-'i&asiei OS;45^6 fHfS IS TO CORRECT A M®f ftl® ON THt MR 35 DATED 7-SS6-01
    JAT 1W0 AND AN INVESTIGATION DATE OF 1? ! 1-431 GNTHEMR-
    |3S ATTACHS^ENT t STATED tHAT THE NEAREST MINING WAS
    180Q FEET EAST OF THE DAVIS HOME WHEN fT SHOULD HAVE
    8At0 1800 FEET WEST,
    tMaiao&f M-0637 HAS CmCKS^ONDllKOCKS AND DOORS Af^ OFFaet. HAD
    STRONG VIBRATIONS ON «MN» AMD BELIEFS ROCKFALL
    FROti.1 PlLUM»i«G SECTION WAS CAUSE.
    W23/2001 1 1 ;21:01 HAS ifitAeK PAiStlCLES *i WELL AND THINKS ff MI&Mt Bfi
    'CA' '^ED BY MINiNQ.-
    112f01 HAS BLACK PARTICLES iN WELL AMD THINKS IT fcHGHT
    RF CA< ^O BY MINiNO.
    tO«;'2001 10;00-S2 RESIDLMT COH.1PLAIICD OF SUBSiDENCC CRACKS ON
    &DFW^ILK AND CH89SHEY RUME. MR DE8OARD TOLD ME THAT
    SSTWALK HAS MEN THERE M^HOXftlATELY 30 YEAFtS AM)
    NtVfcR CftACKED. 1C ALSO STATED HE BUILT CHIfittCY ABOUT
    J 15 YKARS AGO AND NEVgH HAD ANY PROBLEMS WffH FLLWE.
    10,j ^001 Cd 54^6 CHLORINE IN THt- CITY WATf-H B BURNING "HER SKB4 AND
    EATING HOLES IN THE CLOTHES
    If 3t aX!1 OJ && tttLL^ATERISBAD HASGOlTfeN "WORSE /NO WOUin 1 IKE ff
    TESTED
    f tf-LBAFtTON MINtNQ COMPANY
    DELBARF'"*) KiNtNQ COMPANY
    Off BARTON HINSJG COMPANY
    DELBAHTON M S^NG COMPANY"
    DElBARf C$t ^NlNQ Coyp^JilY
    DELBARTON MW&iiG' COMPANY"
    DgLBARTON IMW& COMPANY
    D£LBA?vrc»i M&ilNQiSoEiPANY
    _ . „ „, 	 	 .„„„ .
    DEL§ARTON MJHBffi COMPANY
    DGLBARTON MB^HNQ COI^ANY
    DELBART'ON MIMING CO WANY" "
    DELBARTON ^I^WS COJ^ANY
    OELBARTON MWINS CO'tfcAHY
    OELBARTON MtN^ia COK^ANY
    DFt BART ONlM*iSJa COWANY""""
                                                                                                                                                                                          ..
                                                                                                                                                                                   {K5LLOWUP 12-28-01 BY JOHNFLESHgR- Wgi.L WATKRHftS A
                                                                                                                                                                                   {BAD OOOR AW BLftCK PARTICLES. COMPLAINT PHONED IN BY
                                                                                                                                                                                   ;NEIQHSQRJAfJf41£D£!-*PS£Y. MRS.DEM
                                                                                                                                                                                          .
                                                                                                                                                                                   IFOU.OW OP 12-2841 BY JOHN FLESHER - WELL WATCR HAS A
                                                                                                                                                                                   JBAO OOO« AND BL«K PARTiCLSS COMPLAINT PHONED !H BY
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       W MIMfNG COMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                DElSARTOf i MiNINS COMPANY
                                                                                                                                                                                   FOUNDATION TRACKED iN FRONT OF HOUfe£ {( M^RBLOCK)
                                                                                                                                                                                   NOTICLD AEK5U1 AWLEKAGO MAYBF CASKCDBY HWD
                                                                                                                                                                                   SHAKINS S-fl 91 AT 8 00 P M
                                                                                                                                                                                   1O30 01 DAMA^: TO HOUSfe PO^BLE CAUSfc ROCK f-ALLS
    
                                                                                                                                                                      fljWOOl f fSfO  Mgi|INO HAS TURNED WEU, WATCR FKO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                OF! BARTON i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                t
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                -OfcLRARTCW MH1INO CO~MPANY
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                DELSAR1ON MB^SNQ COMf ANY
                                         II^^COI 129550  WELL HAS WFNTDRY ^ J WEEK'S AQG ^
                                                       BFFORC HAS A WELL ON VACANT f*
                                         !              ROAD AND WOULD LIKE fT CHECKED
                                         111620011239-02 WfelL WATER QUALITY MAD A BAD ODQD AW SLACK
                                         i              PARTtCLfS
                                         i1126?oaim%^7 WHLWATenQUALITYAWD OUAMflT)'
    
                                         ^y^^YVipms^'THS'SWCORW                                         MtMINu COMPANY
                                         i              •* 13 01  S 8^C AND AN IN^STIGATIC^J DATE OF 1?-6-01 ON 1 ML
                                         s              MH 3S ATI ACHMCNT i STftTCO THAT MiH^iQ WAS
                                         !              APPPOX^ATFLf *V»0 FEFT FAST OF THE HSNKLE HOME WHEN {
                                         i     ^        {t SE TO COME MONTHLY 10 SAMPLE  ( OBK cw FK MINIMG t DJ^PAN^
                                                       HiSWFH  COI^^NY MAS NOT SAMPLED FOR LAST TWO     '
                                                       KONTHS
                                              !^ 10 f -^  SUSSSM-Nf-F CRACK'J ON MATURAL GHO1 IEO 'UJRFi*GF ABOVf 'PSFfr RiDGt- COAL C O
                                                       (P»«. RO3E COAL TO C
                                                                                                                                                                                               .toe ;
                                                                                                                                                                                                             W tn Cafc^rl Cr g
    MTIWVF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-720
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                    Recommendations for Pre-Mine Assessment of Selenium Hazards
                               Associated With Coal Mining in West Virginia
                                                    prepared by
                                               A. Dennis Lenity, Ph.D.
                                         Senior Scientist in Aquatic Toxicology
                                                   January 5, 2004
                                Selenium gained recognition among research scientists, regulatory authorities, and
                          fisheries managers in the late 1970's when the landmark pollution episode took place at Betews
                          1 Ae, North Carolina. Selenium released in the waste from a coal-fired power plant entered the
                          lake, killed the fish community, and caused residual impacts for many years after selenium
                          inputs were stopped (Cumbie and Van Horn 1978: Lemly I985a, )997a, 2002a). The primary
                          lessons learned from Belews Lake were:  (1) Kven small increases in waicrborne selenium can
                          lead to devastating effects on aquatic life, and (2) Once selenium bioaccumulation in the aquatic
                          food chain begins it is too late to intervene — pre-pollution assessment and management are key
                          to preventing impacts. The lessons from Belews l.ake were instrumental in the development of
                          USEPA's current national freshwater criterion for selenium (5 ug/L fmicrograrns per liter]).
                          Since the Belews 1 Ac episode, a tremendous amount of research on the toxicology,
                          environmental cycling, and hazard assessment of selenium has taken place (e.g..  Frankenberger
                          and Bngberg  1998, t*emly 2Q02b).  in addition to learning about its toxic potential, much
                          information has been gained on the sources of selenium and how it reaches the aquatic
                          environment, particularly with respect to coal mining and the coal industry (I^rniy 1985b, 2fXS4,
                          Dreher and Knkelman 1992, Vance et al. 1998).
                                                     Need for Pre-Mlne Assessment
                                The lessons from Belews Late, supported by over two decades of research findings from
                          many other locations throughout North America (iemly 1997b. 1999,20021); Skompa 199Sa,
                          Hamilton 2004), underscores the need to take a preventive approach to selenium pollution rather
                          than attempting to deal with it after contamination has taken place. With respect to coal mining
                          this .means pre-mine assessment. Failure to adopt this approach can only worsen the selenium
                          pollution and associated ecological risks that have emerged in West Virginia. Selenium-related
                          violations of the federal  Clean Water Act need not occur if careful pre-mine assessment is used
                          to guide mine permit decisions. Clearly, much attention is focused on management and
                          regulatory authorities in the state, and it is imperative that environmentally sound actions be
                          taken in order to stem the escalating threat of widespread selenium pollution.  Using pre-mine
                          evaluation-can safeguard natural resources by allowing site-specific risk assessment and risk
                          management to take place.  This is the prudent, environmentally  responsible course of action.
                                              Background on Selenium
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-721
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                 Adopting this approach will benefit the state and the mining industry by demonstrating that all
                 activities are being developed and implemented with the goal of preventing selenium pollution,
                 thereby minimizing water quality issues that may lead to litigation by federal agencies and
                 conservation groups.
                                                Recommended Procedure
                       Geological assessment is the first step to understanding the environmental risk of
                 selenium at prospective coal mines.  It is essential to determine selenium concentrations of coal
                 and overburden that ait; to be moved because once these materials are exposed to air and
                 precipitation they can leach substantial quantities of selenium (e.g., Dtvis and Boegly 1981.
                 Beaton et al. 1982). which begins the mobilization process and threat to aquatic life. Because
                 selenium concentrations vary widely in coal and waste rock at a mine site (e.g., Heaton and
                 Wagner 198.1. Uesborough et al. 1999). a thorough representation of the geographic area and
                 depth of disturbance must be made. This entails making a minimum of one core drilling per 5
                 acres, extending into the coal bed that is to  be extracted. Two samples (about 450 grams each)
                 are taken from  each core: one consisting of overburden material and one of the coal itself,  iiach
                 sample is evaluated using a passive leaching test (see Heaton et al. 1982, Desborotigh et al.
                 1999).  The first step is to crush the coarse sample with a hammer to produce approximately pea-
                 size or smaller material. The resultant material is mixed and some is put into a beaker with
                 deionfaed water (pH 5.0-6.0) in a ratio of 1  pan sample to 20 parts water (use 5-20 grams of
                 sample and 100-400 milliliters of water). l£l stand for 48 hours, decani and filter (0.45
                 micrometer mesh) the liquid, acidify it to pH <2.0, and analyze the liquid for selenium
                 concentration using a method with a detection limit <1 u,g/L (part-per-billion).   The results of
                 these tests will  generate a spatial profile of selenium mobility at the prospective mine site and
                 allow a screening-level evaluation of hazards to aquatic life that an be used to guide subsequent
                 assessment and regulatory decisions.
                                           Evaluating Selenium Concentrations
                       The traditional approach to evaluate waterborne selenium concentrations is to compare
                 them to the USEPA national freshwater criterion (5 u.g/L). Concentrations exceeding the
                 criterion should be viewed as posing unacceptable risk to aquatic life because of the likelihood
                           of btoacewmttation in the food chain. However, there is a growing body of scientific
                           information which indicates that toxic impacts to aquatic life can occur when selenium levels
                           reach 1 u,g/U particularly if the setentnm is predominantly in the selenitt form (which is the case
                           for coal mine selenium), and the contaminated water enters a wetland, pond, reservoir, or other
                           impoundment (Frankenberger and Hngberg 1998, Skorupa 1998a, Hamilton and Lemly 1999,
                           li'tnly 20026). Because of these findings, a value of 2 ng /I. has been recommended by several
                           selenium experts as the concentration limit necessary to protect fish and wildlife (Peterson and
                           Nebcker 1992, Maierand Knight 1994, Skorupa 19981), Hamilton and Lcmly 1999,I-emly
                           20021), Hamilton 2004), and USEPA has begun a review/revision process for their national
                           freshwater criterion (USHPA 1998, Hamilton 2003).  Moreover, based on broad experience
                           dealing with a variety of selenium contamination issues, including coal mining wastes, the U.S.
                           Fish and Wildlife Service and a number of state water quality agencies have adopted a value of 2
                           u.g/1. as their management or regulatory standard (see Engbcrg ct al. 1998, Skorupa  1998D,
                           Hamilton and I jemly 1999). I recommend that 2 (Ag /L he adopted as the maximum  acceptable
                           concentration of selenium in wasiewtter, drainage, and leachate associated with coal mining
                           activities in West Virginia.
                                                         Comprehensive Assessment
                                  By examining the results of the leach tests and applying a 2 pg Se/L water quality
                           objective, field sites whose disturbance by mining would pose  a hazard to aquatic life can be
                           quickly identified. If clear dangers are evident — i.e., leachate selenium concentrations exceed
                           2 u.g/L — then it is desirable to examine the operational characteristics of the proposed mine in
                           the context of a 5-step comprehensive assessment that includes provisions for altering mine
                           operations, establishing TMDLs for discharges and. in one scenario, not permitting the proposed
                           mine to be developed at all (see page 5).  This approach will allow site-specific hazard
                           evaluation based on local hydrology and biological conditions, and provide a precise Gne-tuning
                           of the screening-level assessment generated by the leach tests.  The methods used for
                           hydrological, biological, and hazard assessment are techniques that have been field tested and
                           published in the peer-reviewed literature (Lemly 2002h). Technical guidance is available for
                           those unfamiliar with specific components of the procedure (email contact: dlemly&vtedu).
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-722
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                 Comprehensive assessment will provide the information necessary for policy makers to reach
                 environmentally sound, scientifically defensible decisions on mine permit applications.
                                          Selenium contenl of coal and overburden
                                                          V
                                                     Leachate test
                                                          V
                                             Selenium mobility characterization
                                                 Waste disposal methods
                                                          V
                                                 Waste volume projection
                                                          ?
                                               Daily selenium toad projection
                                                          ?
                                            :i KYllROLQCiiCAL ASSESSMENT
                                                          ?
                                       Delineate and characterize Hydrological Unit (HU)
                                                          ?
                                          Estimate selenium retention capacity of HU
                                                          ^
                                             Projected selenium concentrations
                                                 Aquatic life present in HU
                                                          V
                                                  Sensitivity to selenium
                                                          V
                                                     Priority species
                                                          V
                                                S. HAZARD ASSESSMENT
                                                          V
                                   Determine hazard level ol projected selenium concentrations
                              High, moderate, or tow hazard
                                                                    Minimal or no hazard
                              Determine allowable sefeniym load (TMDL)    Mining is permissible
                                           7
                              Identify mine operations needed to meet load
                                           7
                       Evaluate feasibility of mine trt meeting environmental goals
                                 Environmental goats met
                                        v
                                 Mining is permissible
    Goafs not met
          7
    Mining is not permissible
                                                                References
                           Cumhie, P.M., ami S.L, Van Horn.  1978,  Selenium accumulation associated with fish mortality
                                 and reproductive failure. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern
                                 Association of Fish md Wildlife Agencies 32: 612-624.
                           Davis, KC, and WJ. Bocgly, Jr. 1981. Coal pile ieachate quality. Journal of the
                                 Environmental Engineering &ivmon, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
                                 Engineers \ff7: $99-411.
                           Dcftborough, G., ll. DeWttt, J. lones, A. Meier, and G. Meeker.  1999. Preliminary
                                 Mineralogies! and Chemical Stitdies Related fo the Potential Mobility of Selenium ami
                                 Associated Elements in Ph&sphoria Formation Strata, Southeastern Idaho. U.S.
                                 Geological Survey Open Pile Report 99-129.  USGS. Denver, CO.
                           Dreher, G.B., and R.0. Finkelmart.  1992.  Selenium mobilisation in a surface coal mine. Powder
                                 River Basin, Wyoming, U.S.A. Envimrwttentai Geofogy and Water Science 19: 155-167.
                           Engherg, R.A.. D.W. Wescot M, Delamore, and D.D. Holz. 1998. Federal and state
                                 perspectives on ^regulation and remediation oHtrigallon-induced selenium problems.
                                 Chapter! (pages 1-25) i& W.T. Fmnkenberger, Ir., and R.A. Engherg, editors.
                                 Environmental Chemistry of Selenium.  Marcel Defcker, Inc., New York, NY.
                           Frankenherger,  W.T., Ir., and R.A. Engherg. 1998,  Environmental Chemistry of Selenium*
                                 Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY.
                           Hamilton. S.J., and A.D. licmly,  1999.  Water-sediment controversy in setting environmental
                                 standards for selenium. Ec&t&xic&fagy and Environmental Safety 44: 227-235.
                           Hamilton. SJ. 2003. Revtew of fCsidue-b*edttBlk«ri^!!)«aiU^
                           Hamilton, SJ. 2004. Selenium toxicity in the aquatic food chain. Science of the Total
                                 Environment (in press).
                           Heaton. R.C., J.M. Williams, J.P ficrtino. L.E Wangen, A.M. Nyitray, M.M. Jones, P.L Wanek,
                                 and P. Wagner.  1982. Leaching Behaviors of High-Sulfor Coal Wastes From Two
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-723
                          Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                      Appalachian Coat Preparation Plants. Technical Report LA-9356-MS. Los Alamos
                      National laboratory, 1.0s Alamos, NM
                Heaton, R.C.. and P. Wagner.  1983. Trace Element Characterization of Coal Preparation
                      Waste*. Technics! Report LA-9626.  Los Alamos National laboratory. Los Alamos,
                      NM.
                Ijtanly. A.D.  1985a.  Toxicology of selenium in a freshwater reservoir:  Implications for
                      environmental hazard evaluation and safely. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
                      10: 314-338.
                lirnly, A.D.  1985h.  Hcotogical basis for regulating aquatic emissions from the power industry:
                      The case with selenium. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 5: 465-486.
                Lemly, A.D,  1997a.  Iicosysiem recovery following selenium contamination in a freshwater
                      reservoir.  Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 36: 275-281.
                I-emly, A.D.  1997b.  Environmental implications of excessive selenium. Bioniedical ami
                      Environmental Sciences 10:415-435.
                l£m!y, A.D.  1999.  Selenium impacts on fish: An insidious time bomb. Human and Ecological
                      Risk Assessment 5: 1139-1151.
                l^mly. A.D.  2002a,  Symptoms and implications of selenium toxicity in fish: The Belews Lake
                      case example. Aquatic Toxicology 57: 39-49.
                Lemly, A.D.  2002b.  Selenium Assessment in Aquatic Ecosystems:  A Guide for Hazard
                      Evaluation and Water Quality Criteria. Springer-Verlag Publishers, New York, NY,
                l£mly, A.D.  2004.  Aquatic selenium pollutioicB«fl6>Sa|8ii»MifiHBnt»ta&l^ &$tey (in press).
                                Kflgnerg, editors. Environmental Chemistry of Selenium.  Marcel Dekker, Inc.. New
                                York, NY,
                          Skorapa, J.P.  199gb. Selenium.  Pages 139-184 in P.L. Martin and D.li. Ursen, editors.
                                Guidelines for interpretation (ffthe Biological Effects of Selected Constituent.'! in Bwfcf,
                                Water, and Sediment.  National Irrigation Water Quality Program Information Report No.
                                .3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver. CO.
                          Vance, G.E., R.B. See. and K.J. Rcddy. 1998. Sclentte sorption by coal mine backfill material
                                in the presence of organic solutes.  Chapter 15 (pages 259-280} in W.T. Frankenberger,
                                Jr., and R.A, Bngberg, editors. Environmental Chemistry of Selenium. Marcel Pekker,
                                Inc., New York. NY.
                          USEPA  (US Environmental Protection Agency).  1998. Report on the Peer Consultation
                                Workshop oh Selenium Aquatic Toxicity and Bwacciumtlation. Publication EPA-822-R-
                                98-007. USEPA, Washington. IX',
                Maier. K.J., and A.W. Knight. 1994. Ecotoxicology of selenium in freshwater systems.
                       Reiiews in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 134: 31 -48.
                Peterson, J.A., and A.V. Nebeker. 1992. Estimation of watefhorne selenium concentrations that
                       are toxidty thresholds for wildiife. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
                       Toxicology 23: 154-162.
                Skorupa, J.P.  1998a, Selenium poisoning of fish and wildlife in nature: I wessons from twelve
                       real-world examples.  Chapter 18 (pages 315-354) in W.T. iTankenbergcr, St., and R.A,
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-724
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    Carol Stoddard, The Garden Club of America
                                                               Jean Sullivan, Redbud Family Health Center
                - ..... Poma-dalhy D America
                             1 4 £%t 60th Street
                             New York. NY 10022
                         < ? xmh lamcspace prefix * o ns =
                Mr. John Forrm
                U,S.EPA(3EA30)
                1 650 A nil Street
                Philadelphia. PA 13103
    
                Pear Mr. Forren:
    
                The mcimbors of die Cmsavalton arid National Affairs Committees of The Garden Club of America write to
                e^)r<^s thdr dlsaj^xsiot merit at the draft Environmental Impact Smtermmt corornlng the effects of
                motintairHop mining,
    
                Our committees visited West Virginia five years ajp and witnessed at chse rangD the effects of motmtaintop
                mining - vw krtowthal il lias caused destrucHon CJT degradatai of over seven hittKircd miles of stftwfte, a
                ckm v!olafk)ij of tNiCUwi WMtr Ad. And thocksi ruction tonilnuts.
    
                bisit^K1! of titling a h?i)f to thiit cjpv'HSiating vratltai, fhecurcont acfrnhiLstraticsn wostsis It, fjy<^imifif«inga   ;
                SsLfffaro mining ruJt1? that makes i( HJega! for mining aclivitk-s to disturb firess wilhin i(JO fe^ of slrearas, unless i
                il can te provtf i that these sirfssms v^li not tao hamwxi                                        i
    
                We lm|3lore)DU to invtsli^jti'-M^ne aHn? Kttlws to th!% a>nllrjucd aVsti-ufiitsn. Pftias« do Wiat you can to
                proU.*f the nfUtjraJ resc3uras in Apf *ilaf;hia, «spB::iafly by restricting loss tx«h of ibrt^t arxl strearm,         !
    
                Tte Garctai Citib of Amcsica fountfcdln 1930, Is comprised of 195clutistn 40sl.aios, md te ^.iSDximifldy
                1 7,CXX3 members, Ansotig cnff ixsifXBss, is "To rtstts^e, imj.rove md px^eci ihe c^uaiity c^1 (he envtrairneit
                througl'i px^anis of conscsvat-toi. dvic impravanani asd aiucsticjrs.
    
                Sincerely yours,
                Carol S, Stocktord
                Martw»W..Hm
                Chairnuui
                NaUoral Affaire
                January 16, 2004
                                     ri C 672^3846
                                                                  SAW E. SULLIVAN. MX).
                                                                  K. MANY JOAN eftH»SHOVS^ Cf*NP
                                                                  S. KATHARrNe A. OOMONOB CPMP
                                                                                                                                                                            August 8,  i2003
                                  Mr. John Fotren
                                  USEPA - (3i330)  ,. '      :•
                                  1650 Arch Street  •  '  •
                                  Philadelphia,  Pft •:. 19103
    Mr. Forrsn;
    
    We are  writing on behalf of our beautiful mountians with their
    unparalleled hardwood forests.  We would alfiie like to protect
    our streams  fsom the horrid mountain top removal which has
    been desecrating our srsa by filling in  valleys with grsvsl.
    Not only  that, but we will *oon be a sterile gravel bed, with
    no uplifting scenery, great loss of plants arad! no decent homes
    for birds and animals.
    
    We don't  need any laore of these grassy tops.  Wa have too many
    which have not found any wofchwhile use.   It is most frightening
    to fly  ov0r  the Appalachians now and see gravel pit after gravel
    pit.  Tharsf  ia. no raasonacoal m&ning cannot be conducted without
    protecting our stream beds and it soon will b« all over, ** seams
    are exhausted,  laia will have no attractions left fcs1 tourists here
    when the  mountain 'Sides has been completely scraped off.,Also,
    mining  interferes with our residents yards,  gardens, harass, water
    supplies  ahd graveyards in a serious way.
    
    Please  help  us!
                                                                             J8»n Sullivan, M.O.
                                                                             Sr. K. Joan Sripshover
                                                                             Sr. KatHg^ine Donahue
                                                                                                                                                                          ' B8*ty inker
                                                                                                                                                                           Dorina Flaldis
                                                                                                           1-9
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
               A-725
                                                                 Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    Mike Tidwell, Chesapeake Climate Action Network
                 	Forwarded by David KidetfR.VUSla'A/US on OI/OK/2004 1130 AM	
    
                             MwtidwelW aol.com
                                          To:    R3 Mountaintop(4EPA
                             01/06/2«)4 06:05     cc:
                             P^             Subject: DEIS for mountaintop mining is completely
                 Hawed/commonls enclosed
                 (Embedded image moved io file: pic13985.jpg)
                 January 6th. 2004
    
                 Mike Tidwell
                 Director
                 Chesapeake Climate Action Network
                 P.O. Box 11138
                 Takoma Park, Md. 20912
    
                 John Forren
                 U.S. EPA (3HAM)
                 1650 Arch Street
                 Philadelphia. PA 19103
    
                 Dear Mr. 1'orren,
    
                 1 am writing on behalf of CCAN's 5,000 Maryland supporters to urge »
                 re-write of the motmtamlop mining DEIS because of major defects in the
                 DELS. I urge the immediate termination of the issuance of new
                 mounlaintop mining permits until an HIS is completed and adopted, as
                 required by NEPA.
    
                 The BIS process has been usurped and its scientific underpinnings
                 destroyed by Interior Deputy Secretary Oriles order to remove all
                 environmental alternatives from the DHIS. There is no other federally
                 permitted land use occurring in the U.S.  with such devastating
                 consequences as the massive and permanent impacts from the projected
                 loss of over 380.000 acres of high-quality forest to mountain top
                 removal and valley fill coal mining in Tennessee, West Virginia.
                 Virginia, and Kentucky. This forest destruction and concomitant valley
                 till is the greatest federally permitted land use alteration occurring
                 in the United States. The projected destruction is detailed in  the draft
                 E1S and would occur over the next ten years. The impact on avian
                 species, other wildlife and fish, and the entire ecosystem at risk is
                 enormous.
    4-2
    1-9
    The Army Corps of Engineers has continued to issac mountain top
    removal/valley fill Clean Water Act permits for mountain top coal
    mining, despite the failure to complete an RTS.  In Tennessee alone,
    permits by the Army COB have been issued for the removal and fill of"
    over 5.000 acres of mountain tops in the last year.
    
    We believe that NEPA requires such a moratorium on permits as the
    environmental impacts are so massive from the projected removal of
    380,000 acres of mature deciduous forest on  mountain tops and ihe
    placement of fill in stream valleys. Further, the Clean Water Act
    dictates individual permits should be required for such major actions
    and thus, the current use of nationwide permits is illegal.
    
    The DEIS is so defective that it fails to suhstantivcly discuss the
    significant impacts on the entire suite of forest-dependent birds within
    the HIS study area e.g.. Cerulean Warbler,  Louisiana Waterthmsh.
    Worm-eating Warbler, Kentucky Warhier, Wood Thrush, and  Yellow-throated
    Vireo. All of these bird species are also classified as Birds of
    Conservation Concern by the U. S.  Fish and Wildlife Service within the
    Appalachian Bird Conservation Region, which overlaps the area considered
    in the draft HIS. The destruction of the 380,000 acres will result in a
    loss of 137,836 Cerulean Warblers (ESA listing petition pending) in the
    ft-exl decade,
    
    The U.S. Hsh and Wildlife Service's September 20, 2002 memo dearly
    supports our conclusion that the draft BIS is fatally flawed. The FWS
    warned in the memo that publication of the draft BIS as written, "will
    further damage the credibility of the agencies involved." That
    iater-agency memo cites the proposed actions offering "only meager
    environmental benefits" and criiicixes the draft BIS because it  did not
    consider any options that would actually limit the area mined and the
    streams buried by valley fills, "There is no difference between (the
    alternatives]," the Fish and Wildlife officials said. "The reader Is
    left wondering what genuine actions, if any, the agencies are actually
    proposing." "Die draft EIS erroneously only offers alternatives  that
    would streamline the permitting process for approval of new
    mountaimop-removal permits, lite alternatives, including the preferred
    alternative, offer no environmental  protections and the lack of arty such
    environmentally sound options destroys the NEPA R1S process.
    
    The FWS memo argued for "at least one alternative to restrict, or
    otherwise constrain, most valley fills to ephemeral stream reaches.,.As
    we have stated repeatedly, it is the service's position  that the three
    'action' alternatives, as currently written, cannot be interpreted as
    ensuring any improved environmental protection ... let alone protection
    that can be quantified or even estimated in advance."
                                                                                                                            4-2
                                                                                                                            7-3-2
                                                                                                                            4-2
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                A-726
                                                                 Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                   United Mineworkers of America
              I urge that the permitting of mountain top removal/valley fill cease
              pending the re-writing of the DEIS and the completion of the BIS
              process. This is necessary to prevent this ecological disaster.
    
              Sincerely,
              Mike TkiweU
              301-920-1633
              mwtidweli@aot.com
              www.chesapeakeclimate.org
                                 Statement of United Mine Workers of America
                                                       on
                                             Momitaintop Removal
    
    
                           Since several reports have appeared in the media over the years that
    
                      incompletely or inaccurately indicate the position of the UMWA with regard
    
                      to mountaintop removal mining, I believe it would be helpM for me to
    
                      briefly outline our position. The UMWA believes that strong protection for
    
                      our environment is essential, As we have pointed out many times, our
    
                      membership lives in the communities in which mining takes place and
    
                      believes strongly that we have a duty to future generations to protect that
    
                      environment. At the same time, we make ao apologies for seeking to
    
                      promote the jobs avaikble in the mining and related industries.  After all,
    
                      these jobs average more than $50,000 per year plus benefits including retiree
    
                      health care and pensions.  West Virginia is already 49th in the per capita
    
                      income. We surely do not want to drive ourselves into an even more
    
                      negative position.
    
                           Unfortunately, the debate has often been between two extreme
    
                      positions - one calling for the abolition of coal mining and the other decrying
    
                      any type of restrictions on mining companies as they damage peoples' houses
                                                                                                                                                                                    11-1-2
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-727
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
              and degrade local streams. We do not agree with either of these extreme
    
    
    
              views.
    
    
    
    
                    Some critics have suggested that the UMWA is only interested in the
    
    
    
    
              protection of our members* jobs when they work on mountaintop removal
    
    
    
    
              sites.  Make no mistake, (hat is important to us. As this statement of policy
    
    
    
    
              makes clear, however, we believe that this criticism is unfounded since we
    
    
    
    
              also'believe in strong environmental and community protections. We do
    
    
    
    
              believe that jobs provided in coal mining are worth fighting for and
    
    
    
    
              preserving. This is particularly true in our economy in which service sector
    
    
    
    
              jobs are often very low paying and without benefits. We are proud of our
    
    
    
    
              support for such jobs.
    
    
    
    
                    At the same time, we support strong regulatory  efforts to protect the
    
    
    
    
              water resources of our communities and we also believe that families living
    
    
    
    
              in these communities should be protected against blasting debris and the
    
    
    
    
              degradation of their communities. We believe that coal companies should be
    
    
    
    
              held to a high standard of environmental protection and that the state and
    
    
    
    
              federal officials entrusted with that enforcement have on many occasions not
    
    
    
    
              sufficiently protected our communities.
                           The UMWA strongly believes that coal companies should not be
    
    
    
    
                      permitted to destroy local communities in the process of mountaintop
    
    
    
    
                      removal mining, including by blasting. Community residents with homes
    
    
    
    
                      and farms should be protected from the consequences of such damage.
    
    
    
    
                      Under current law, a homeowner can pursue a damage claim in circuit court.
    
    
    
    
                      The practical problem is the cost of hiring attorneys and the litigation costs in
    
    
    
                      hiring expertrwitnesses.	- -    	
    
    
    
    
                           The UWMA believes that there should be additional legal protections
    
    
    
    
                      to ensure that blasting damage can be easily and completely compensated by
    
    
    
    
                      coal companies. We suggest a statutory change so that blasting law would be
    
    
    
    
                      made similar to a provision in state oil and gas law. Under that law, any
    
    
    
    
                      damage to water supplies caused within 1,000 feet of a gas  well is presumed
    
    
    
    
                      to result from the drilling and operation of the gas well. We likewise suggest
    
    
    
    
                      that with regard to any property within one mile radius of a blast, there
    
    
    
    
                      should be a reputable presumption that the blast caused any property damage.
    
    
    
    
                      This provision, coupled with the present law that a community member may
    
    
    
    
                      require the company to do a pre-blasting survey, should make the payment of
    
    
    
    
                      appropriate damages far more practical. This should lead, as it does in the oil
    
    
    
                                                       3
                          10-2-2
                          1-6-1
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-728
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
              and gas area, to the quick resolution of claims and .a more fair protection of
    
    
    
              community rights.
    
    
    
    
                    We also believe that the many sites throughout West Virginia with
    
    
    
    
              historical significance, such as the historic portions of Blair Mountain and the
    
    
    
    
              Stanley family farm on Kayford Mountain, must be preserved and thus
    
    
    
    
              should be off limits for mining.
    
    
    
    
                    The coal industry remains "a mainstay of the Mountain State
    
    
    
              economy."  Coal and coal burning utilities account for nearly 60% of the
    
    
    
    
              state's business tax revenue, and state business taxes paid by coal companies
    
    
    
    
              rose more than 35% between 1985 and 1996, at a time when the price of a ton
    
    
    
    
              of West Virginia coal dropped by 26%, West Virginia coal companies
    
    
    
    
              employ more than 14,000 miners directly, and using economic multipliers
    
    
    
    
              employed by the federal government, the industry accounts for more than
    
    
    
    
              40,000 additional jobs. In much of southern West Virginia and in portions of
    
    
    
    
              northern West Virginia, the impact is particularly pronounced. In Boone
    
    
    
    
              County, for example, almost half of the workforce is employed in the coal
    
    
    
    
              industry. In the coal counties of this state, over 10% of all jobs are directly
    
    
    
    
              linked to coal mining. Thus, it is not only in the interests of our membership,
    
    
    
                                               4
    10-2-2
    11-4-5
    bat in the broader interests of the citizenry of this state that these issues be
    
    
    
    resolved in an equitable and timely manner.  This Union has a proud history
    
    
    
    of working not only in the interests of its own members, but on behalf of all
    
    
    
    working people and the communities they live in.  We fully intend to uphold
    
    
    
    that tradition.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
             A-729
                                                    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    Charles Wakild, Progress Energy
                        Progress Energy
                       Mr. John Forren
                       U. S. EPA (3BS30)
                       1650 Arch Street
                       Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
                       Via email at moutttaintop.r3@epa.g
                              RE:   Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
                                    Mouittaintop Minmg/Vallcy Fills in Appajaehia
                                    EPA9-03-R-OOOU
                       Dear Mr. Forren:
                               Energy Service Company, LLC is submitting the following comments on behalf
                       of Progress Fuels Corporation, Progress Fuels Corporation currently owns and operates
                       one surface and seven underground coal mines in eastern Kentucky and western Virginia,
                       with average annual production of approximately 2.6 million tons, that would be
                       impacted by the EIS and any proposed regulatory alternates. In addition, Progress
                       Fuels owns and operates five coal terminals in West Virginia and Kentucky that would
                       also be affected by the final document and sny subsequent regulatory changes.
    
                       Progress Fuels supports the stated purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
                       "to consider developing agency policies, guidance, and coordinated agency decision-
                       making processes to minimise, to the maximum extent practicable, the adverse
                       environmental effects" of moimtainiop raining arid valley fills, Progress Fuels also
                       appreciates the agencies' scknowledgemeni the economic vahje that coal mining brings
                       to the Appalachia region and the country,  it is this value which requires all of us, in
                       partnership, to consider ail factors (environmental, economic, and administrative) when
                       considering implementing new or amended programmatic actions.  We must recognize
                       the nation's need for reliable energy sources and how  ruining of the Appalaehia region's
                       coal is an integral component of fulfilling (his need. Clearly a great deal of effort has
                       been expended on this document, and progress made toward resolution of many
                       identified issues related to surface mining and related  valley fills. We commend the
                       agency for likewise identifying several deficiencies in the environmental impact studies
                       and acknowledging the need to answer outstanding questions before regulatory programs
                       changes arc implemented,
                                 General
    
                                 Progress Fuels supports Action Alternative 3 as described in the draft report. It is clear
                                 that the timeliness of the permitting process can be improved by streamlining of the
                                 application preparation effort, and uniform and consistent application of design criteria
                                 and mitigation and other compensatory measures.  Under this alternative, the federal
                                 agencies would develop a coordinated permit application and review process based on
                                 requirements of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Aci (SMCRA) permit.
                                 The Corps of Engineers, using the CWA section 404 nationwide permit program, would
                                 base authorizations  on the SMCRA agency review of surface coal mining activities,
                                 States would be encouraged to assume 404 permitting activities for surface mining
                                 through a Slate Programmatic Generai Permit.  The 404 individual permit process only
                                 would be initiated if information in the application is inadequate (data collection,
                                 mitigation, alternatives analysis).
                                 While the draft report acknowledges the value and benefits of the coal industry in this
                                 region, U does not adequately evaluate the value Appalachian coal brings in light of
                                 increasingly complex environmental regulation. This region's coal supplies the fuel for a
                                 significant amount of the nation's energy supply. Much of the coa) provided by surface
                                 mines is iow^r in sulfur and higher in heal content than other alternatives, and is therefore
                                 a vita! part of environmentally viable energy strategy. It may also be Ute source of choice
                                 aa new mercury standards come into effect. Although Powder River Basin coal may be
                                 lower in mercury, other constituents may interfere with the ability of emission controls to
                                 reach lower mercury emission levels. These issues are currently being evaluated in the
                                 scientific literature, but it is for these current and future reasons we must preserve the
                                 ability to economically mine Appalachian coal,  In order for the industry to provide this
                                 valuable resource, it needs clearly defined rules consistently applied so they can plan and
                                 invest in economic operations,
    
                                 Tn that soil and rock must be moved to create a level area, and some fill placed in tbe only
                                 economically available areas^ which may include streams, mining is not unlike many
                                 other economic development activities, including road construction. In many areas in
                                 this region, significant comrnerctEl, residential, and industrial development is only
                                 possible because the prior creation of level areas by surface mining,
                                 Aquatic Resources ftmwt
    
                                 The studies of water quality downstream of valley fills inappropriately conclude thai
                                 valley fills consistently cause or contribute to levels of some parameters (hat exceed
                                 water quality standards or criteria.  The report correctly acknowledges thai the
                                 referenced studies, due to study design, resources, or implementation, did not adequately
                                 investigate and account for other factors that affect water quality, such as other
                                 dischargers (including unpermitted domestic wastes), local geology and topography,
                               1-4
                               11-9-2
                               5-5-2
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-730
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                  Jason Wandling, West Virginia Chapter of the National Lawyers  Guild
                      distance from the fills, age ot the tills, and others  Additional studies are necessary' prior
                      to making such a conclusion to account for all relevant factors upe of 4re«im and  oig,imsm$ also  will dr&tuttcaHv aflect the to\ie efiecH  It is
                      important that organisms lound in  the examined environment be used to assess toxic
                      effects states usual!> use a \ er> I untied variety of ioxirity reference organisms and these
                      may not include an\ found HI frst  or second order headwater streams usually
                      dou nstream of \ alley fill'; For these reasom, a simple comparison to w ater quahtv
                      standards is inadequate De&ign standards tor vallev fills must be based on true
                      environmental impact and consideration of cost telative to benefit  Additional work is
                      needed to support this issue prior lo determination of an> negative selenium
                      environmental impact
    
                      ! he report found that in ge«eial the Hood frequency and s,everii> downstream \vt,re no
                      w.orj>e than before the filK \veru um&tructed  That is due to the careful design and
                      construction of mine fills with due consideration of hvdroiogic characteristic*  Most
                      recent examples of flooding downstream of mines used by opponents of surface mines
                      are anecdotal in nature unscientific, and do not account lor unusually hea\> rainfall
                      events that ha\e occurred in recent vean
    
                      Others
                                                                                                                                              Fon*ard
    
                                                                Ql/05/200-4  11:17
    To:        R3 MountaintopftEPA
    cc:
    Subject:  re:   MTR EIS  Comment
                                        To Whom It ^5ay  Concern:
    
                                        Please find attached the comment  of the Charleston,  West Virginia,
                                        chapter
                                        of the National Lawyers  Guild re:   Mountaintop Removal Mining EXS.
    
                                        Sincerely,
                                        3.   Handling
                                               The Charleston, West Virginia, chapter of the National I^awyera Guild (WVNIX1)1 urges
                                        this I'anel to rejcci every Action AltLmaitve outlined in the Draft l^ogrammaMe Iitivtmnmenial
                                        Impact Statement  fDrafi MIS).   We ask that you instead actopi a policy that would  more
                                        accurate)) reflect ihc true goals of the Clean Water Act, the National Unvfronmtinial Policy Act,
                                        and the very will  of the people  you air  hound io serve  by barring all mouniamtop removal
                                        mining (MTH).
                                               WVNI  was  to consider  new rules  that  would  'rttinirttue  the potential for adverse'
                                        impacts from  moimiaintop removal  But once the Bush  administration took office. Deputy
                                        Interior Secretary  Steven  Griles  — a former mining lobbyist — changed the  focus toward
                                        streamlining the permtt process for coal operations."  Charleston Gazette, July 25. 2003, This
                                        Draft BIS, then, is nothing  more than a perversion of a good faith settlement entered into as part
                                        of the Bra^g v. Robertson litigation.
                                               In fact, and to our great surprise, this Panel proposes Action Alternatives /«A strict than
                                        regulations already in place. It is a slap in the fate of the people of the coalfields to he asked to
                                        accept a lesser standard when, as  Judge Hadcn  wrote in 1999,  "The Director  [of the West
                                        Virginia Department of Fnvtronmenlal Protection| and his agents consistently admit that he fyc|
                                                                                                                                              ! The Ntdionai Lauyer-. Guild LS art association dedicated U) fhe fteoJ lor basic change in the struciure of our
                                                                                                                                              political and economic s>stetn We seek to unite the lawyers, taw siudcnn, JegaS workers,, and jmlhome lawmen of
                                                                                                                                              Amtaica m .ifi orgam^iion that fiincttons .is m effective potmcai and s.tn:iat lorcc HI the service n! the people, to the
                                                                                                                                              erf.1 ifiat hun'tin ff.gft/r fhu!l he tffttrdft! «t outre mcr^d than prtp?ri\ mtetf'Hf
                                         1-5
                                         1-10
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                 A-731
               Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                  made none of the required findings, on through six. for butter zone variances when authorizing
                  valley fills."  At 647.  This Panel's reasoning mirrors that of the recent West Virginia legislature
                  and soon-to-be-former Governor Wise regarding overweight coal trucks: if someone is breaking
                  the tew we should make  their activity legal.  Unless, of course,  first-time, non-violent drug
                  offenders are at issue.  In that case mandatory minimum jail sentences are imposed.3
                         The second reason  WVNLG disapproves of this Panel's Drat EIS is because it swallows
                  hook, line,  and sinker the coal industry's propaganda concerning the economics of  MTR.
                  Instead of making an investigation, this Panels'  Draft HIS simply parrots the West Virginia Coal
                  Association's line.   For example, a recent West Virginia  Geological  and Economic Survey
                  (WVC5ES) report stated;
    
                         "If the practice of mountaintop removal mining  is disallowed  or curtailed, the
                         production from these operations will not be replaced with  underground  mining
                         production in the short and very likely not in the long term.  As mentioned above,
                         coal  beds in the target area interval [the  Kanawha Formation and/or Block '/ones
                         five, six, and seven] are frequently split into numerous benches separated  by
                         inorganic partings of highly variable thickness. Only some  of these benches are
                         economically  mineable by  underground methods.    In mountaintop removal
                         mining, many,  if not all of the  coal benches are recovered, representing  a more
                         efficient  recovery of the resource."
    
                  "A Geological Overview of Mountaintop Removal Mining in West Virginia," published by the
                  WVGES page 2.
                         Put into  layman's terms (as so little of  this exercise in appeasement has been), coal in
                  southern West Virginia has become too expensive to mine in any reasonable manner. Therefore,
                  the industry reasons, coalfield  residents should  simply shut  up and endure an ever-diminishing
                  tjuality of life, including, among other things, constant blasting from nearby mines, incalculable
                  amounts of coal dust in  their homes, and irreversible environmental damage in  their very
                  backyards. The cost of cheap, American energy (according  to Vice President Dick Cheney and
                  his industry-controlled Energy  Task Force) is a  native population debased for the sake of  others
                  living well afield from the source of energy production.   What moral system  demands such
                  sacrifice from an already disadvantaged population?''
    1-10
                  ' To ill effect.  See, for example, United States Attorney General John AsherolTs new push to monitor and
                  investigate federal jiKlges who impose lighter sentences thun those established by mandatory minimum sentencing
                  guidelines for first-time offenders,
    
                  3 Actually, the history of the Untied States is replete wilh such examples, irom the callous disregard for the citizenry
                  of Michigan (abandoned by an auto manufacturing industry that preferred cheap foreign  labor and nonexistent
                  environments! regulations over healthy communities here at home; so much for the current, voguish patriotism), the
                  well-documented hint still disregarded plight of the American Native India*) (who inhabited the Appalachians before
                  their near extermination- and ultimate forced removal); and. in a very relevant example, the Appalachian settlers wtao
                  were displaced by the rampant forest fires a«d floods created by the S^rst Appalachian timber bourn in the preceding
                  century (today's second  wave of logging contributes to today's environmental and social), among other examples.
                  The question is begged: where does American industry stop its ravenous drive for profit while it very knowingly
                  lays waste to American eitr/ens and culture? At wha! poini will industry reflect and consider the effects of its
                  insatiable greed?  Never, is the WVNLG's answer, because the legal fiction of the "corporation" only recognises
                  capital gain, in its BIOS! brute sense, and only slops when a powerful eiimfnry demands consideration. Your writers
                  draw thai line at ii5is  crisis* and this Pane! is obligated to recognize, via the social contract r>y which  most of ys
    1-9
           The  coal  industry's adoption  of  such  tenM  as  "economical  recovery"  balie  its
    underpinning motivation; the need to make a lot of money and die tack of concern about who
    suffers  for  its egregious profit.4 For  that reason alone,  this  Panel should  punish the coal
    industry's injurious avarice hy ending MTR altogether.
           Despite the conventional wisdom  that all of southern  West Virginia's economy depends
    solely on the energy industry." coal mining has not. for  a  very long  time now. provided much
    true  sustenance for the citizens of the coalfields  in which the method is  practiced.  A great
    number of the ever-shrinking population of coal miners come from areas in Kentucky and Ohio,
    often driving great distances  to  find  employment in West Virginia  mines or  setting only
    temporary residence in the coalfields.  Furthermore, the secondary businesses which  depend on
    coal  mining revenue are, despite the most optimistic government and industry estimates to the
    contrary, spread far and few between,  A drive through any coalfield community will quickly
    dissuade any neutrai observer otherwise.
           WVNLG  objects  for  a third reason;   the Draft BIS  will  encourage  further lawless
    behavior in the coal industry.  It cares  little for ANY law, not just technical stream  buffer
    regulations.  For  example, Don Blankenship, president of Massey  Energy, recently testified
    before a West Virginia Legislature subcommittee charged  with  investigating coal truck  weight
    limits. When confronted  with the lamentable new  law allowing coal truck to run up to 120,000
    pounds  (up  from the rarely enforced standard of 80,000 pounds), Blankenship showed  typical
    disregard for the safety of coalfield residents, saying "The truth  of the matter is, the industry has
    been allowed through common law, if you will, to haui 140 f thousand pounds) to 160 [thousand
    pounds I.*6
           If this  Panel  approves  any  new  permitting  process under  the proposed  Action
    Alternatives, WVNLG predicts, that it will  not he long before Blankenship or West Virginia
                                          abide, to recognize thai tipping point.
    
                                          4 This vulgar drive has not fiiways tiees so deified.  Albert O. Hirschrrtan, of Princeton University and editor of 'lite
                                          PasxiaRs and the totef$$tst a survey of the rise of commercial capitalism from the Middle Ages to today and most
                                          reading especially  for those who  consider  contemporary commercial Just  an  a priori  virtue,  mused it*  his
                                          introduction: "How did commercial, hanking,  and similar money-making pursutis become honorable at some point
                                          in the modern age after having stood condemned or despised as greed, love of lucre, and avarice for centuries past?"
                                          Iwiroduetiof! !o The Passions and fh$ Interests, page 3 {Princeton, 1977).
    
                                          s Surely, If coal industry executive were truly as concerned about free market economies, they would be forced to
                                          recognize thai if secoat&ry economies were negatively impacted by the siiddesi end (and unlikely, given this Panel's
                                          politicised findings) of MTR then the "marker would demand thsst those businesses expire yr thrive, with or without
                                          the aid of coal dollars in the coalfield cities.
    
                                          s Biaiikemhtp's logic fails entirety. Whatever his conception of the "common law," it certainly hears m> relation to
                                          the body  of judidal opinion that  makes up  a great deal  of American law.  Interestingly, Blankenship makes
                                          reference  to the American common law when its  purpose suits  him.   Otherwise, any  use of the  tort system to
                                          effectuate pnWic  policy constitutes "frivolous Htigattofj."  For example, in the coal industry's opposition brief to
                                          tow-suits filed against various coal companies,  including Massey Energy and its subsidiaries, for damages cause
                                                                                                                                        1-9
    MTIWVF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                 A-732
                                                                      Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                Coal Association Ptexfdcni Bill Raney suggests "WeVe breaking the law anyway so why dont
                we change the law again  to reflect our current practices?"  Such brazen and stultifying logic
                could easily be played out  in any number of arenas. For instance "Well, I kill people now so the
                penal code forbidding such conduct should reflect the ultimate realities of my habit and ease,"
                How patently abnurd! Unfortunately, this panel has adopted, wholesale, such spoiled logic at the
                spurning ol a corrupt and deceitful administration.
                       The residents of the coalfield communities are forced to resign themselves to something
                of the ethic em bodied in this Charles Sirnic poem:
    
                "Cameo Appearance"
    
                I had a small,  fionspeaking part
                In a bloody epic.  1 was one of the
                Bombed anil fleeing humanity.
                In the distance our great leader
                Crowed like a rooster from a balcony.
                Or was it a great actor
                Impersonating our great leader?
    
                That's me there, i said to ihe kiddies.
                I'm sqtiee/ed between the man
                With two bandaged hands  raised
                And the old woman with her mouth open
                As if she were showing us  a tooth
    
                That hurl badly. The hundred times
                I rewound the tape, not once
                Could they catch sight of me
                In thai huge gray crowd.
                That was like any other fray crowd,
    
                Trot off to bed, I said finally.
                I know 1 was there. One take
                Is all they had time for.
                We ran, and the planes graced our hair.
                And then they were no more
                As we stood daxed in the burning city.
                But of course, they didn't film that.
    
                       If only this  Panel could at least pretend that coalfield residents were not so insignificant
                in the face of the coal industry's all-consuming, avaricious capitalism.
                       Accordingly, the Charleston* West Virginia, Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild urges
                this panel go hack to the table, and realistically address the destruction of Appalachian caused by
                mountaiatop removal mining and strictly enforce the long-standing provisions and policies of the
                Clean Wafer  Act,  the  Nationa! Environmental Policy Act  and  basic compassion and utilize
                common sense by bringing MTR to a hall.
                                      Respectfully Submitted,
                                      Jason Eric Wandling
                                      Treasurer. Charleston, West Virginia. Chapter of the National lawyers Guild
    1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                A-733
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    Tony Whitaker, Hazard/Perry County Chamber of Commerce
                                      Gerald Winegrad, American Bird Conservancy, et al.
           HAZARD/PERRY COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
                                                                        Haz«(t,KY 41701
                                                                        |666)«-2659
    
    July 22, 2003
    
    
    Department for Surface Mining
    #2 Hudson Hollow
    FrariWort, Kentucky 40801
    
    To Whom It May Concern:
    
    
          'As President of trie Hazard/Perry County Chamber tif Commerce and Chairman
    of the HazardfPerry County Industrial Board, I  would  like  to Include  my letter  of
    endorsement in support of mourrtatntop removal and continued hollow filled mining in
    Eastern Kentucky.
          The  tevel  sites  created by mourttnihtop removal promotes our economy  in
    numerous capacities.  These sites can be used fur new Industry, housing, and various
    business opportunities, as well as a new golf course.
          ! would appreciate your consideration In this matter.
    
    
    Sincerely,
               TonyVWiikker,
               President/Chairman
               Hazard/Perry County
               Chamber of Commerce and Industrial ioard
                                                                                             1-11
                                                                                             10-3-5
                                                                                                                             January 2,2004
    
                                                                                                                             JotaFotren
                                                                                                                             O.S. EPA (3EA30), 1650 An* Street
                                                                                                                             Philadelphia, PA 19 KB
    
                                                                                                                             Dear Mr. Fonen,
                                                                         .REC'D
                           We write on behalf of die 50 uirfeisigaed pwips, representing millions ofAmericans,
                           eancenuBg the Drttt Progmmmatic Ewimaaseatit fapaet Staanatt OB Mbanssn Top
                           Miniagf'VaUey Ml (MTMWF) in the Appalachian region of the eastea United States.
                           We aie extremely Iroubled over tfieti?jTr)fill impacts that moUBBimop/valk^ fill mming
                           has had and could continue to have on a wide army Of aquatic and terrestrial organisms
                           In addition to the ditect effects of habitat loss and degradation at mine sites and areas
                           immediatei y adjacent, the drastic alteration oflarge landforms over such an extensive
                           region could very well have negative arid long-lasting effects on ecosystem processes at
                           considerable distances from the aie.^ more directly disttirbed'Fhese concerns are not
                           adequately addressed in the draft BtS. Howerer, despite ow sedow concerns regarding
                           the jjotentiaJ for disn^jtnjg aeoloifioJd processes and biodivasiiy in general, these
                           canaiiezitsareqjecififcgaydijectedtoissueslegatdit^nrigiatCBy hMs. Tteimpattsto
                           fistest-asaeiated iiM speetes of eonserxatiaj eoneeni also SIB not adeqoatdy or property
                           addressed in this dtaft EIS.
    
                           I. The DEIS Ignores the High Priority Assigned through Congress by Wildlife
                           Agencies to the Conservation of Mature Forest Bird Species.
    
                           "Hie figures from the draft EIS on cumulative impacts of mining activity in the study ana
                           suggest a Bwww a»d permanent impact on the sate «ite of Partners fa Hi$* priority
                           JtBttw forasHjirfs wShitt tteHS study awsa («&, Cerulean Wetter, Louisiftra
                           Waterfcrash, Worm^attng WaliJer. Keamdby Warbler, Wood Thnsh, YeHow-tbxwtted
                           Vino, Acadian Elywfcher) due to a jtnqjcBted toss of over 380,000 aems (149^22
                           hectares) of MgfcqiialitS' ferest»Tnfijni8l»theiieat«flyea«.*njB is in addition to that
                           same amount having been lost in tbe previous tsn years-All of tlsese bird species arc also
                           clasKfled as Birds of CJoaaewatJoaCoBcait by fte U, S. VA aa(J WBffife Seraee
                           (USFWS 2002) uittiin the Appalachian Bird Conservation Region, which overlap the
                           area considered in the draft EIS. This list is mandated by Congress under I9S8
                           amendments to die Pish and Wild! ife Conservation Act and denotes species that without
                                                                                                                             Endangered Species Act. We consider this level of habitat loss to constitute a significant
                                                                                                                             negative impact for these high priority mature forest birds, and especially for the
                                                                                                                             Ceralean Warbler, the forest species of highest concern in this area. We are struck by the
                                                                                                                             failure of the draft BIS to address this extremely important and significant environmental
                                                                                                                             impact
    
                                                                                                                             While we don't love reliable estimates of the densities of most of these priority species in
                                                                                                                             the region, we do have them fer Ceratega Warbles. This is ft* forast-breeding bW
                                                                                                                             species we are most concerned with because it has suffered drastic population declines
                                                                                                                                                                                                      7-3-2
                                                                                                    8-2-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-734
                                                                                                                                                                    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                        over the last several decides and the core of its breeding range coincides very closely
                        with the EIS study area (Figure 1). This species h«s been petitioned for listing undo' the
                        Endangered Species Act and is also on fta USFWS' National List of Birds of
                        Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002).
    
                        II.  The DEIS Ignores Available Scientific Data Showing Higher Bird
                        Densities and Higher Potential Losses from Mining Impacts.
    
                        Recent research by Drs. Weakland and Wood (2002) at West Virginia University found
                        the average density of Cerulean Warblers territories in intact forest near mined areas in
                        West Virginia was 0.46 pars/hectare (la). Assuming each territory provides habitat for a
                        pair of birds, this equates to 0.92 individuals/ha. With the projected loss of over 149,822
                        ha to future raining in the tea ten yeas, this will resultrn * loss of 137,836 Cerulean
                        Warblers ia the next decade. Or. Charles Nicholson (TVA 2002) reported a somewhat
                        higher average density of 0.64 pairs of Cerulean Warblers per ha«t his study sites within
                        the draft EIS study area in eastern Tennessee.' If his density estimate is more
                        representative of the density over the study area, then even more cerulean would have
                        been impacted k the last decade and the same number would be impacted in Has next
                        Either estimate represents no unacceptable loss.
    
                        Partners fn Flight (PIP), a science-based initiative dedicated to the conservation of
                        landbirds in the western hemisphere, estimates the global population of Cerulean
                        Warblers, based on relative abundance estimates derived ftom 1990s Breeding Bird
                        Survey data, to be roughly 560,000 individuals with 80% of the population breeding in
                        the Appalachian region which encompasses the study area (Rich et al. 2004). Applying
                        similar methods, BBS survey data indicate that the average breeding density of Cerulean
                        Warblers across the Horthem Cumberland Plateau physiographic area daringfte 1990s
                        was 0.065 pairs/acre (Rich et al. 2004. Appendix B, Rosenberg and Blancher in press).
                        These numbers indicate that roughly 9% of the world's cerufeans were lost as a result of
                        mining permitted during the 1992 to 2002 period and another 9% will he lost between
                        2003 and 2012 should the level of mining the draft EIS projects in the next decade come
                        to fruition, m addition, we  fear that in a region where Cerulean Waiblers presently occur
                        in such high densities, the breeding habitat could already be saturated and the individuals
                        displaced by mines wouldn't be able to find new areas of high-qualify breeding habitat to
                        colonize. If this is the case, the reproductive potential of those pairs also will be
                        compromised and the ability of the population to recover will be reduced as a result
                        It is important to note that these estimates of Cerulean Waibler population loss
                        substantially underestimate the actual impact of rsotmtaintop mining on this species. By
                        definition, rnountaintop mining removes forest habitat on mountain and ridfe tops.
                        Cerulean WaiWers prefer ridgetops within large blocks of mature forest (Weakland and
                        Wood 2002) la addition, Drs. Weakland and Wood (2002) found significantly reduced
                        densities of breeding Cerulean Warblers in forest fragmented by mining and in forest
                        adjacent to mine edges. We find it disturbing and unacceptable that Dr. Weakland and
                        Dr. Wood's research was act included in the draft EIS document when we know that it
                        was made available to those who were involved in its development
    8-2-5
    ID. The DEB Ftlb to Address Teefciwlety Changes flat will Alter Projection* of
    Future Forest IMS
    
    We believe that the draft ESS projection that an iddrdetal 3.4% of forest will be lost
    between 2002 and 2012 may significantly underestimate the impact of mining on
    hardwood forests. Not only do ftese figures fail to include an estimate of the eumutatfve
    toss of cove forests S»M valley fill operations, they also do not take toto consideration
    the anticipated increase in future demand for Appalachi an coal due to the planned
    construction of flue gas destdfittization units (scrubbers) at existing coal-fired generating
    plants in the stutfy area (TVA 2002). For example, me draft EIS projects that Tennessee
    will issue permits cawing the loss of 9,154 acres of forest in 2003 through 2012, when
    over 5,000 acres of surface mining permits have already been approved between
    December 2002 and October 2003 (SiddeB 2003).
    
    TV. The 0gIS Fails to Identity and Analyze Effective Mitigation Measures to
    Reduce Bird Losses
    
    The only ajitigslion offered in the draft EIS for the destruction of large areas of
    biologically diverse hardwood forest habitat by mining operations is a suggestion that the
    denuded areas could be reforested attar operations cease. WWe recent research indicates
    that some forest communities may be twsttbBshed on reclaimed mine sites (HoE et «1,
    2001), the draft BIS concedes thtt initiatives to improve the establishment of forests on
    reclaimed mine sites have only recently begun and "that it would be preaiaton3 to attempt
    to evaluate the success of these eflbits at this time" In additioa, the draft EIS states that
    "m post-mined sites win likely lack the requirements of slope, aspect and soil moisture
    seeded fbr cove-hardwood ffoi^t corarnuitities, it is unlikely that these particular
    communities can be re-established through reclamation". It will take many decades
    before these experimental forests mature sufficiently to assess whether they will provide
    suitable breeding habitat for Cerulean Warblers or any other interior forest-breeding birds
    of concern. Even if reforestation was determined to be the preferred raitigatioii ftr
    Cerulean Warbler habitat toss, the development of relorestatte BMPs (Action 13)  would
    be voluntary and a state or federal legislative change (Action 14) could take years. The
    suggestion that reforestation is a panacea to mitigate the negative effects of tnining on
    interior finest habitat within the fereseeabte fctiire is therefore wrong and misleading.
    Furthermore, we find it extremely inappropriate that the draft BIS suggasts tbatatnfaing
    company could be ofifered an eoosotnic incentive, through the stle of carbon credits, for
    planting trees to replace the forest that they themselves destroyed during mining
    activities.
    
    We also find it inappropriate to consider replacing font habitat with grassland habitat
    for "rare™ eastern grassland species even ftouga ffiese species have declined dramatically
    as a group in recent decades. Their recovery and habitat restoration efforts should be
    targeted towards ecosystems and landscapes where they occatrad historically, not on
    eastern mouataintops, where grassland habitat was rare, and currently supports high
    quality- finest habitats.
                                                                                                                               7-5-3
                                                                                                                                7-3-3
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                 A-735
                                                                Section A  - Organizations
    

    -------
                 V. The DEIS Fails to Identify and Analyze RcasonaMe Alternatives to Avoid Bird
                 Losses
    
                 We find the draft BIS' ikilure to provide an alternative proposal that woiild provide better
                 regulation of mountain top mining to protect the environment unacceptable and
                 inappropriate. We believe that taken together, these two major flaws are final and require
                 the re-issuance of the draft EIS. These fetal flaws mean the draft ETS finite to comply
                 withNEPA. The draft EIS needs to be eared by an EIS flat appropriately addresses both
                 the concerns over priority bird species mentioned herein and that offers a solid
                 environmentally sound alternative.
    
                 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's September 2002 (USFWS 9/20/02) memo clearly
                 supports our conclusion that the draft BIS is fatally flawed. The FWS warned in the
                 memo that publication of fiie draft EIS as written, "will further damage the credibility of
                 the agencies involved." That inter-agency memo cities the proposed actions offering
                 "only meager environmental benefits™ and criticizes the draft HS because it did not
                 consider any options that would aemaily limit the area mined and the streams buried by
                 valley fills. "There is no difference between [the alternatives]," the Fish and Wildlife
                 officials said. "The reader is left woaderiflg what genuine actions, if any, the agencies are
                 actually proposing." The draft BIS erroneously only offers alternatives that would
                 streamline the permitting process for approval of aew mouatamtop-removal permits. The
                 alternatives, including the prefensd alternative, offer no environmental protections and
                 the lack of any such environmentally sound options destroys the NEPA EIS process.
    
                 The FWS memo argued for "at least one alternative to restrict, or otherwise constrain,
                 most valley fills to ephemeral stream reaehes.,.As we have sated repeatedly, it is the
                 service's position that the three 'action' alternatives, as correctly written, cannot be
                 interpreted as ensuring any improved environmental protection... let alone protection that
                 can be quantified or even estimated ia advance."
    
                 VI. Because the DEIS ft Fatally Defective, It Should Be Revised aad Reissued for
                 Public Comment and Permit Issuance Should Cease.
    
                 We do not find that the three "action" alternatives offered would improve environmental
                 protection in any measurable way. We propose that a moratorium be placed on new
                 mouiitaintop mining permits until a new draft EIS is written to provide for the avoidance
                 of key Cerulean Warbler habitat and significant environmental protection for the
                 Louisiana Waterthrush, Worm-eating Warbler, Kentucky Warbler, Wood Thrush,
                 Yellow-throated Vireo, Acadian Flycatcher and other Pff priority species and FWS Birds
                 of Conservation  Concern. This moratorium should continue until a final BIS is adopted
                 with an environmentally acceptable alternative
    
                 We believe that NEPA requires such a moratorium as the environmental impacts are so
                 great and the federal government has failed to complete an BIS as required, even after 5
                 years have passed since litigation was initially filed on this issue. Settlement  of the
                 litigation was to  result in an HS and better measures to protect the environment. The
                 draft EIS clearly indicates that mis is not occurring. Also, the Clean Water Act dictates
    4-2
                                      individual permits should be required for such -major actions and thus, the current use of
                                      nationwide permits is illegal
    
                                      We conclude that mini ng is a short-term benefit to local economies and once the coal is
                                      extracted, the industry will leave the region. However, if lite scenic vistas and natural
                                      heritage of the ares are preserved, an economy buoyed by recreation and tourism would
                                      provide added value for generations to come.
    
                                      We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Draft Environmental Impact
                                      Statement
                                      RespectMy Submitted on Behalf of all the Undersigned Individuals and Organizations,
                                                                                    4-2
    
    
                                                                                    11-7-2
    Gerald W.Wi:
    PoMey
    American Bird Conservancy
    P.O. Box 249
    The PWSS.VA 20198
    540-253-5780
    gww@abcbirds.org
    
    Caroline Kennedy, Director of Special
    Projects
    Defenders of Wildlife
    1130 if Street, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20036-4602
    202-682-9400, eaensioa 107
                                       Will Gateway, Executive Director
                                       Tennessee Environmental Council
                                       One Vantage Way, Suite D-103
                                       Nashville, TO 37228
                                       615-248-6500
                                       www.tectn.org
    
                                       Hap Chambers, President
                                       Kentucky Ornithological Society
                                       33 Wfldwood Drive
                                       Murray, KY4207J
                                       270-753-9636
                                                                           /Mefinda Welton, Conservation Chair
                                                                             Tennessee Ornithological Society
                                                                             5241 Old Harding Road
                                                                             Franklin, TN 37064
                                                                             615-799-8095
                                                                             weHonmj@etrthMnk.net
    Bette Statoan, PkD., Wildlife Scientist
    The Humane Society of the United States
    21001 Street, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20037
    301-258-3147
    bst3Utain@hsas.org
                                           Janet Font, Co-Director
                                           Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
                                           P.O. Box 6753
                                           Hunttagtoa, WV 25773-6753
                                           304-522-0246
                                           ohvec@ohvec.org
    
                                           Teta, Kate, President
                                           Virginia Society of Ornifliology
                                           7083 Caffee Creek Lane
                                           Gloucester, VA 23061
                                           teta@viiBS.edu
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                A-736
                                                             Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                 Daniel BOOM, President
                 Teanesse® Conservation Voters
                 2021 21" Avenae South, Suite 104
                 Nashville, IN 37212
                 615-269-9090
    
                 Julia Bonds, Community Outreach
                 Coordinator
                 Coal River Mountain Watch
                 P.O. Box 651
                 Whitesville, West Virginia 25209
                 onnw@ citynet.net
    
                 John R, Cw»on, PkD., Director
                 Conservation  Science Institute
                 1447 Stoatjr Bottom Road
                 Front Royal, VA 22630
                 jcannon@hBmtecli.coni
    
                 Perrii de Jong, Coordinator
                 Kentucky Heartwood
                 P.O. Box 555
                 Lexington, KY 40588
                 859-253-269?
                 kyheartwood@alftel.Bet
    
                 Stephen Smith, Executive Director
                 Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
                 117 Gay Street
                 Knoxville, TN 37902
                 865-637-6055
                 www.cleaneaergy.org
                 William J.L. Sladen, Director
                 Environmental Studies at Airlis
                 7078 Aitiie Road
                 W«ranton,VA20187
                            )I.con»
                 Carol Lambert, Conservation Chair
                 Georgia Ornithological Society
                 4608 Westtempton Drive
                 Tucker, GA 30084
                 lambertseweU@Bundspring.cotn
    Reverend Walter SstA
    Cnmtefand CounSaas tat Peace & Justice
    P.O. Box 154
    Pleasant Ml, TO 38578
    931-277-5239
    
    Reverend Charles Lord
    Obed Watershed Association
    P.O. Box 464
    Pleasant Hill, TO 38578
    931-277-3714
    Doug Murray, Director
    Tennessee Forest Watch
    278 Log Home Road
    LaRdlette.lN 37766
    423-562-5934
    
    Edwird E. Chut, Jr., President
    Wil
    -------
                Jay Hester, Executive Director
                Hoostoa Aixhsboa Society
                440Wfl«heaer
                Houston, Texas 77079
                jhestertghoBstonamtaboaoig
    
                Troy Bttei, Director of Conservation and
                Stewardship
                New Jersey Audobon Society
    Cheryi Strong, WttefaW Progwin Dtawtor
    San Praaeisco Bay Bird Oijservatory
    P.O. Box 247
    AlvisoCA 95002
                1 1 H»rdserabble Road
                Beraarfsvlte, New Jersey 07924
                908-766-5787, extension 17
                Malcolm C. Coulter, Co-Chtir
                SpeeMist Group on Storks, Ibises and
                Spoonbills
                POBox
                480 Chocorua, New Hampshire 03817
                (603)323-9342
                CoulterMC@aol.com
    
                David F. DeSante, PhJD., Executive
                Hie Institute for Bird Popototiois
                1 1435 State Route One, Suite 23
                P.O. Box 1346
                Point Reyes Station, CA 94956-1346
                415-663-2052
                John W. Fitepstriek, PhX>., Director
                Cornell Laboratory of OiBithology
                159 SapsoBkar Woods Rd
                Ithwa, New York 14850
                jwf7jScomell.edu
    Ray Startridge, President
    Amos W. Butler AudobOB Society
    P.O. Box 80024 Indianapolis, IN 46280
    317-767-4S90
    Clarke Kahlo, Program Director
    Protect Oar Rivers Now!
    4454 Washington Boulevard
    ludianapolig, la 46205
    (317)283-6283
    Timothy Male, PhD., Senior Ecologist
    Environmental Defense
    1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20009
    202-387-3500 ext.3313
    Andy MaHer, Oitsc tar
    Ameriean Forest Alliance
    387SSCR50W
    Ftoli IN 47454
    aBdy@btoeriver.aet
    Ceeffia M. Riley, Execufive Director
    Gulf Coast Bird Observatory
                                                                                                                                                                   979-480-0999
                                                                                                                                                                   crfley@fcbo.org
                Linda E. Leddy, President
                Manomet Center for Consersation Sciences
                81 Sage Point Road
                Mmomet, MA 02345-1770
                neddy@manotBet.org
    B«ft Jraks, Prraident and CEO
    Kme
    1840 Wilson Boulevard, State 204
    Arlington, VA 22201
    703-522-5070
    bjenfes@miecoBS«rvstioaorg
    
    Ktren EtterHale, Exseentive Secretary
    Madison Audubon Society
    222 S Hamilton St, Soile 1
    Madison, WJ 53703-3201
    608/255-BJRD (2473)
    Taber D. Allison, Ph. D. Vice President,
    Conservation Science
    Massachusetts A udubon Society
    208 South Great Road
    Lincoln, MA 01773
    (781)259-2145
    E. A. Schrefter, Ph.D, Comervation Ctair
    Association Of Field Ofnittelogists
    BirdDept.MRClK
    Ssiithsosian JJMitatiOB
    Washington, D. C. 20560
    703 76M726
    SchreiberE@aol.com
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                        A-738
                                                         Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                       Recovery of Native Plant Communities after Mining
                   REFERENCES:
    
                   Boll, K, D., C. E. Zipper and J. A. Burger. 2001. Recovery of native plant communities
                   after mining, Virginia Cooperative Extension Publ. 460-140. [Online version available at
                   -*ttp://www.Bxtvteda/pub»'mines/46(>-140/460-140.tenl>]
    
                   Rich T. D. et al. 2004 in pies. PIP North American Landbird Conservation Plan. To be
                   published by Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. [Online draft available at
                   http://maTOAir^.cnraell.edu.'r>ifCatieMav/Pn:_Fhal_ Draft, pdfl
    
                   Rosenberg, K. V., S. E. Barker, and R. W. Robrbaogh. 2000. An atlas of Cerulean
                   Warbler populations: Final report to the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December MOO.
                   [Online version available at |
    
                   Rosenberg, K. V. and P. J.  Blanoher. In press. Setting numerical population objectives for
                   priority landbird species. Pg. xx-xx in Proceeding of the 31*1 International Partners in
                   Fli^Jt Conference. C. J, Ralph and T. D. Rich Editors. USDA Forest Service flea. Tech.
                   Rep. PFW-GTR-xxx, Albany, CA.
    
                   Siddeli D. 2003 Recent Tennessee Permits. Supervisor, Technical Group, Office of
                   Surftce Mjning, Knoxville, TN.
    
                   Tennessee Valley Authority. 2002. Braden Mountain surface mine; Campbell and Scott
                   Counties, Tennessee. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville.
    
                   0.8. Fish Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of
                   Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99pp. [Online version available at
                   US. FISH WILDLIFE SERVICE. 9/20/02. Coj«iB«soNBRAWMTM/VFBlSoFCtMnm
                   IV (AUBHATIVBS),
    
                   USOS. 2003. TwNOKrHAMBMCAHBS8i0B!oBaa>SURwy RESULTS ANDAHAWSK,
                   1965 - 2002. . CBHMAN WAMMS.
                   EEL ABVB ABUNDANCE MAT [AVAILABLE ONLINE AT
                   WBAKLAND, C. A. A»P. B. WOOD.
                   MKROHAB1TAT AMD LAHBSCAW-L8VHL HAHIW CBASACTBOSBCS IN SOUBffiRNWBST
                   V»a»rwm«HLAtiOKTOMC>t3>rr/UNTWi«nNnra/VAia^y FILLS. FINAL PROJECT REPORT
                   SOBMirnSD TO OSOS BIOLOGICAL RfSOURCBS DlMMM, S«emS-AT-RBK PROGRAM.
                   {AVAILABLE ONLINE AT HTIP://WWW.FPKESmY.CAF.1imj.SPU»WOOnfe']
                            Author Karen D. HolU Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Studies,
                            University of Califijnria; Carl E, Zipper, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist,
                            Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences; and James A. Burger, Professor of Forestry,
                            Virginia Tech
    
                            Publication Number 460-140, April 2001 Virginia Cooperative Extension
    
                            Introduction
                            Coal surface mining and mine reclamation have had a significant impact on the landscape
                            throughout th£ Appalachian region, including southwestern Virgiaia's coalfields. This
                            fact is recognized by ihe Surface Mining Control aad Reehiaation Act (SMCRA), which
                            states that raining operations shall establish "a diverse, effective, and permanent
                            vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety and native to the area... and capable of
                            self-regeneration and plant Succession..." [Section 51S(b)19], ualess introduced species
                            are necessary to achieve the post-mining land use. Restoring the native hardwood forest
                            is the most direct and comprehensive way of meeting this premise of SMCRA in
                            Appalachian landscapes. Re-establishment of this self-sustaining ecosystem on reclaimed
                            mines can aid in maintaining native wildlife populations while providing other valuable
                            ecosystem services, such as erosion control, carbon sequestration, wood production,
                            water-quality improvement, sad watershed protection. Re-establishment of native
                            haidwood-fotest ecosystems also contributes to the natural beauty of the Appalachian
                            region.
    
                            This publication summarizes research on the impacts of reclamation practices on re-
                            establishment of native Appalachian forest ecosystems, and describes practices flat may
                            be used during reclamation to encourage re-establishment of native hardwood forest plant
                            communities.
    
                            Appalachian Forest Ecosystems
    
                            The mixed mesophytic hardwood forest of the central Appalachians is one of the most
                            diverse temperate ecosystems. These forests served as refuge fcr moist-forest species
                            during drier glacial epochs and, therefore, are home for a large mmber of species. The
                            forests oftea host up to 25 ttes species ifi a given area, along with a diverse understory of
                            ferns, fungi, and herbaceous plants. Cotraaoa tree species, such as oaks (Qaercus spp.),
                            maple (Acer spp.), hickory (Caiya spp.), and tuBp poplar (Urtodandron tulipifera), not
                            only provide tetritet far a wide range of bird, amphibian, and wildlife species, but are
                            also commercially vatambte. These forests pky an important role in maintaining the water
                            quality is nearby streams meiudmg southwest Virginia's. Clinch - Powell river system
                            which hosts numerous endemic species of smssels, fish, and crayfish, and is among the
                            most diverse temperate fteshwtler ecosystems. Large areas of Appalachian forest have
                            been cleared for agriculture and other human uses. Continuous tracts of forest are
                            important for conservation of anteai and pkrtt species.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-739
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                    Changing Reclamation Practices over Time:
                    Prior to SMCRA, Mia* reclamation practices were variable and often resulted in exposed
                    Wghwalls, unstable outslopes, and low ground cover. During the earliest surface mining,
                    very little reclamation was performed. Between 1972 and 1977 in Virginia, most mined
                    areas were seeded with grasses, clovers, and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia); eastern
                    white pine (Ptais strobus) was often planted along the top of the outslope in an effort to
                    disguisehide the exposed highwalls. With the passage of the Surface Mining Control and
                    Reclamation Act (SMCRA) in 1977, reclamation practices were mandated and
                    standardized, SMCRA required flfeat the approximate original contour of the mined area
                    be restored, and that reclaimed areas be seeded with herbaceous vegetation to minimise
                    erosion and to achieve the 90% ground cover after five years. Many post-SMCRA mined
                    areas throughout the Appalachians were reclaimed to hayland - pasture postmining land
                    uses; reclamation practices on the« areas ineteded use of aggressive groundcover
                    vegetation such as Kentucky 31 tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) and sericea lespedeza
                    (Lespedeza cumeata). Many of these areas, however, were not tised for production of hay
                    or pasture, allowing natural ecosystem succession processes to take place. During the late
                    1980s and early 1990s, reclamation of mined areas to unmanaged-forest postattaing land
                    use became more common, especially in Virginia. These areas were often seeded with the
                    same aggressive groundcovers that are effective ia creating hayland - pasture, such as
                    Kentucky 31 tall fescue and sericea lespedeza. Black locust was often seeded with
                    herbaceous grpundcover, and eastern white pine was planted as two-year old seedlings. In
                    the mid- and late-1990s, some mining operators began using less competitive  ground
                    covers, as described by Burger and Torbert (1993), and a wider range of planted tree
                    species, including hardwoods, to produce forested areas.
    
                    Because success of reclamattion is normally judged after five years, reclamation efforts
                    often focus 0a short-term results and bond release. When the mining is conducted on a
                    pre-SMCRA abandoned mine site, the liability period can be as short as two years. After
                    final bond release, most post-joining lands receive little management and go through
                    succession, the process by which species slowly replace one another as the community
                    develops toward a relatively stable species composition called climax vegetation.
    
                    There 5s an increasing interest in restoring Appalachian forest ecosystems after mining.
                    Yet, there have been few studies monitoring long-term vegetation recovery on coal
                    surface mined lands reclaimed in the Appalachian region using different reclamation
                    practices. Holl surveyed the trees, shrubs, and  herbs on 15 reclaimed mine sites and five
                    tramined hardwood sites in Wise County, Virginia, daring the summers of 1992-1993 and
                    again in summer 1999 (Holl and Cairns 1994;  Holl 2000). A summary of that research is
                    presented bsjow, along with a description of reclamation practices that may be used to
                    aid recovery of the native hardwood forest plant community.
                            Research Summary
    
                            Study Sites
                            Twenty 0.6-acre plots were surveyed during summer 1992/1993 and summer 1999. These
                            included:
                            *      5 sites reclaimed 1980-1987
                            *      5 sites reclaimed 1972-1977
                            '      5 sites reclaimed 1967-1972
                            *      5 unmined hardwood forest sites ("reference sites")
                            The majority of the sites are located oa or near the Powell River Project Education
                            Center. The other sites are located near the town of Appalachia. All sites are on steep
                            south-facing slopes, ranging in elevation torn 2300 to 3030 ft. Vegetation was sampled
                            in three layers: herb (up to 2.5 feet tall); shrub (2.5 - 8.2 feet tall); and tree (taller than 8.2
                            feet). Sampling techniques followed those outlined in Holl and Cairns (1994). Cover and
                            number of species were measured in both years and compared.
                            Summary of Research Results:
                            Herbaceous layer
                            la the 1992-93 surveys, herbaceous groundcover was greater than 80% in sites reclaimed
                            after '972 (Figure I A). Herbaceous cover dropped substantially between 1992-93 and
                            1999 on the 1980-87 reclamation sites due to shading by white pine, and on flw 1972-77
                            reclamation sites due to shading toy red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet birch (Betula lenla),
                            and other trees. The shift in herbaceous cover to iree cover -was interpreted as resulting
                            from the absence or decline of species that compete with small tree seedlings for light
                            and nutrients, such as sericea lespedeza, orchard grass, and Kentucky 31 fescue, and the
                            redoced density of early-successions! species such as aster and goldenrod species (Aster
                            spp., Erigeron spp., Hieracium spp., and Solidago spp.). Herbaceous groundcover on the
                            1967-72 sites was intermediate (about 60%) and changed little between the sampling
                            periods.
    
                            During the time period between the two vegetation samples, the number of naturally-
                            colonizing herb species on the 1972-77 and 1980-87 reclamation sites declined, while the
                            number of species growing in the oldest reclaimed sites remained higher (Figure IB). The
                            decrease in species growing on the 1972-77 and 19X0-87 reclamation sites is surprising
                            as specie! numbers usually increase early in the forest development process. A number of
                            forest herbs such as wild geranium (Geranium znaculatum), snakeroot (Sanicula
                            canadensis), and gate (Gala aphylla) are found on the oldest reclaimed sites but not on
                            those reclaimed more recently. The lower number of natttally colonizing herb species on
                            the 1972-77 and the 19SO-87 reclaimed mine sites may be due to the more aggressive
                            ground covers commonly planted by mining operators during (hose periods, and the
                            invasion of sericea lespedeza from other reclaimed mine sites into planted covers.
                            Another possible explanation could be the larger scale of mining, which resulted in
                            increased distances to seed sources.
    MTM/VF Draft PEtS Public Comment Compendium
    A-740
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                   Trees
                   The largest increase in tree basal area between sampling periods occurred on the 1980-87
                   reclamation sites as they were planted primarily with eastern white pine, a fasfr*gfowing
                   species (Figure 2Ai. Tree basal area also increased on Die other reclaimed sites due to
                   colonization and growth of hardwood species. The number of free and shrub species
                   present increased on the most recently reelaimed-sites (Hgvge 2B) with common
                   colonizing species including red maple, soarwood (Oxydendron arboreum), and tulip
                   poplar (Liriodendron tulipiiera). Interestingly, the number of woody species on the oldest
                   reclaimed sites remained well below the hardwood sites and did not increase (Figure 2B),
                   raising the question of how long it will take before the Ml suite of tree species is
                   established.
    
                   Overall species composition
                   A total of 102 native species naturally colonized reclaimed ruins sites, indicating that
                   reclaimed mines host a wide diversity of plant species. A full species listing will be made
                   available in the internet version of this publication. Most (75%) of the native tree and
                   shrub species and 65% of the native herbaceous species found in surveys of forest sites
                   were also found on reclaimed mined sites (Tables 1 and 2). Moreover, a large iramber of
                   herbaceous species, primarily early-successiona!, were found on reclaimed mine sites but
                   not in the forest While most common forest species were present on the reclaimed sites,
                   some species, such 'as the herbs trilium (Trilhim grandiflorum), wintergreen (Ganlthaia
                   procumbens), and beiiwort (Uvularia pudict), and the trees Prasier's r&agnolia (Magnolia
                   irasieri) and serviceberry (Ameiaachier arborea) were not Ifounel on any of the reclaimed
                   mines. These species may or may not establish themselves eventually on the mined sites,
                   depending on the extent to which soil properties may have been altered by the mining and
                   reclamation practices.
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-741
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                               Table 1. -Common species observed ry Herbs
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    ity Arabs
    X
    X
    
    X
    
    X
    X
    
    X
    
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X '
    X
    
    
    
    X
    
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    errfory
    
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    
    X
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-742
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                Table 1. -Number of native, unpiantcd, herbaceous and weedy (shrob and tree)
                species fouBd only oa reclaimed sites, forest sites, or both In surveys by
                Hall (2000) in summer 1992/1993 and 1999.
                            2, Provide S@edS@t&'c@sffir
                                                                                                                                                                             n by P&r> Species.
    
    Sites where found
    Reclaimed only
    Forest only
    Reclaimed and forest
    Total
    Number of native, unpiantcd species
    Herbaceous
    39
    17
    31
    87
    Woody
    
    
    5
    9
    27
    41
                Reclamation Practices to Encourage Recovery of Native Forested Ecosystems
                The study discussed above is one of a few recent studies documenting long-term forest
                recovery on reclaimed mine sites in the southeastern United States (Thompson and others
                1984; Wade and Thompson 1993; Wade and Tritton 1997; Rodrigue and Burger 2000),
                These studies clearly show that older reclaimed mine sites host a large percentage of the
                plant species found in the surrounding forest, and may even host some rare species
                (Wade and Thompson 1993). Together, these studies show that choice of species used for
                reclamation appears to influence the plant species naturally colonizing reclaimed mines,
                as well as the rate at which those species colonize. These results suggest practices that
                will encourage native forest recovery oa reclaimed coal surface mines.
    
                The following procedures are based on the study reviewed above, other research
                conducted by Virginia Tech researchers sponsored by Powell River Project, and related
                scientific literature. These procedures can be used to aid rapid re-establishment of forest
                ecosystems on reclaimed mine areas that are similar in character to native hardwood
                forests, where such re-establishment is consistent wKh the post-mining land use
                objective,
    
                1. Establish a Soil Medium that is Suitable/or Forest Species.
    
                In order for mine reforestation to be successful, it is essential that the surface material
                have chemical and physical properties that are suitable for forest species, that surface
                materials have sufficient depth for rooting of forest species (at least 4 feet is
                recommended), and that the material be placed on the surface without excessive
                compaction by mining machinery such as dozers and haulers.
    
                Prior Powell River Project publications describe these procedures in detail. VCE
                Publication 460-121 (Daniels and Zipper 1997) reviews general processes and procedures
                of soil reconstruction. VCE publication 460-123 (Burger and Torbert 1993) provides
                guidelines  for mine reforestation, including soil reconstruction. VCE publication 460-136
                (Torbert and others 1996) provides former detail on spoil selection and placement for
                mine reforestation.
                            Given that most species found in the native hardwood forests are not used typically in
                            teclamation plantings, seed dispersal is essential to re-establishttie&t of native hardwood
                            forest plant communities. The majority of Hie species observed on the older mine sites
                            were not planted by the mining operators, which leads to the conclusion that seeds of
                            many plant species will disperse effectively on reclaimed alines if seed sources are
                            accessible. Mechanisms for seed dispersal include wind, animals, and soil redistribution
                            by the mining process.
    
                            Generally speaking, maintenance of native forest close to the reclamation area will
                            encourage recolonizatioti by forest species. On portions of large-area permits that are far-
                            removed from forested areas, plant species that rely on wind or animals for dispersal may
                            not colonize as readily. When possible, retaining native forest to serve as seed sources
                            adjacent to the mitiing areas, or even as remnants witMn fee mining area where the
                            mining plan allows, will encourage more rapid recolonization. On some re-mimng sites,
                            areas enclosed by the permit cannot be mined due to the extent of previous mining;
                            leaving such areas hi forest cover with minimal disturbance will encourage recolonizatioo
                            of the mined areas by forest species.
    
                            Forest soils harbor many seeds. Use of salvaged soil from the surface of forested areas in
                            reclamation will encourage re-establishment of the forest species. In cases where a
                            nearby area of forest is about to be mined, the soil seed bank might be spread on areas
                            that are in the process of being reclaimed. Wade (1994) found that spreading topsoil from
                            nearby forests on reclaimed mines introduced a large number of species, including 5 tree
                            species, 7 shrubs, 14 grasses, and 53 ferbs. In cases where complete topsoil replacement
                            is impractical, use of some topsoil in the reclamation area will provide some seed
                            sources, and more rapid recolonfaation by forest species than will no re-use of surface
                            soil at all. Whenever possible, topsoil should be moved directly from the mining ares to
                            the reclamation area. Topsoil storage prior to respreadmg will cause seeds to lose
                            viability. The longer the storage period, the greater the loss of seed viability that should
                            be expected.
    
                            3. Use Less-Competitive Ground Cover Species
    
                            The main reclamation concern of mine operators is meeting SMCRA standards. SMCRA
                            requires operators to plant vegetation that will minimize erosion, and return the  land to a
                            productive use. But aggressive grasses and legumes slow or prevent establishment of a
                            number of overstory and understory species characteristic of the native Appalachian
                            hardwood forest Moreover, extensive research by Burger and Torbert (reviewed in VCE
                            Publication 460-123) shows that certain ground cover species, such as Kentucky-3 1 tall
                            fescue, sericea lespedeza, and red, white, and sweet clover (Trifolium spp.), hinder
                            establishment of planted seedlings; general observation indicates that these species
                            discourage invasion by woody species "volunteers" from the surrounding forest, as well.
                            It may be that as these ground cover species die back over time more species will
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-743
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                    colonize these sites, but Holll4s research demonstrates that planted grasses often provide
                    dense cover for 15 years or more-
    
                    Research by Burger and colleagues has demonstrated tot less-competitive groundeovsrs,
                    such, as the annual grasses foxtail millet (S«tatk italica) and annual rye (Secale cereale),
                    the perennial grasses perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and redtop (Agrostis gigantea),
                    and the legume species kobe lespedeza (Lespedeza striata var. Kobe) and birdsfoot trefoil
                    (Lotus cornieulatus) do control erosion effectively, after the first year. The oldest
                    reclaimed sites surveyed, where there is no evidence of having been seeded in sericea
                    lespedeza., hosted the most diverse forest species assemblages. This result suggests that
                    planting with less aggressive species will allow a more rapid recovery of the native
                    ecosystem than what has been observed on sites where reclamation plantings are
                    dominated with aggressive ground cover species. Also, ground cover seeding and
                    nitrogen fertilization rates should be kept low to allow for the colonization of other plant
                    species.
    
                    Very little research has been conducted on the capability of groundcover species other
                    than common forages to establish successfully and control erosion on reclaimed mine
                    sites, or on the effect of such species on the rate of forest ecosystem ^establishment.
                    Preliminary research suffiests, for example, that some annual wildflower species such as
                    black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta), cornflower (Centaurea cyanos), and lance-leaved
                    coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolate) establish  when seeded on disturbed sites (Heckman and
                    others 1995). Research on the use of native grasses on disturbed roadsides shows that
                    such species can be established on highway cuts with surface characteristics similar to
                    surface mines, but the timing of seed application and weather conditions during
                    establishment influence seeding success, and erosion control during establishment is a
                    concern (Booze-Daniels and others 1999).
    
                    4. Plcmt a variety of woody species.
    
                    In recent years, many Hjiaed acres replanted for forest post-mining land use in
                    southwestern Virginia have  been planted with a near monoculture of eastern white pine.
                    White pine is widely planted because it is well adapted to acidic soils and grows quickly
                    to meet the 5-year bond release requirement The rapid Motnass accumulation is
                    compatible with timber production as a post-misMg land use objective* where markets
                    for white pine are present. However, Holl's research demonstrated that the understory of
                    dense white-pine plantings have very low species diversity, relative to native
                    Appalachian hardwood forests. Herbaceous ground cover in sites planted densely with
                    white pine dropped from 80 to 20 percent over the 1993 -1999 period as the trees
                    matured.
    
                    There is increasing interest in diversifying planted trees because of the commercial value
                    of hardwoods. Such di vetsification wUl have beneficial effects on -wildlife communities
                    by providing a greater variety of canopy architecture and food sources (Raifall and Vogel
                    1978; Fowler and Turner 1981) and allowing for establishment of native herbaceous
                    species. For example, bird diversify on reclaimed mines has been shown to be strongly
                            related to the structural diversity of vegetation (Karr 196S). A number of hardwood tree
                            species that are commercially viable can be used successfiilly in laiae reclamation
                            (Rodrigue and Burger 2000; Torbert and Burger 2000). Although these species may grow
                            more slowly than eastern white pine, they can be expected to provide significant income
                            over the long-term because of the higher value of their wood (Burger and others 1998). A
                            large number of tree species, including many species of oak, pine, and maple, as well as
                            alder, dogwood, and walnut, are available from the Virginia Department of Forestry.
                            Good, reputable tree planters who are familiar with planting hardwoods in viable
                            silviculture! mixtures should be used to help ensure reforestation success.
                            Conclusion
                            Under SMCRA, current reclamation practices address short-term concerns required by
                            law, including erosion control, acid mine drainage control where acidic strata are present,
                            and post-mining laud use establishment Maximizing iong-temi ecological and ecoaomic
                            value oa these sites requires balancing short- and long-term needs. Research shows that
                            reclaimed Mines are capable of supporting fbrest ecosystems with levels of plant diversity
                            that approach those of natural forests. The research reviewed above showed plant
                            communities on mine sites reclaimed within, the past 30 years developed into ecosystems
                            that resemble the native hardwood forests. Although all species in surrounding forests
                            were not found on the mined sites, the reclairaed-miae forests are still very young relative
                            to the native hardwood forests which had developed over much longer time periods.
    
                            Research has shown that reclamation practices have a dramatic influence on the rate of
                            forested ecosystem recovery on unmaaaged reclaimed mine sites, and on their long-term
                            productivity and economic value. Practices that encourage ecosystem recovery are
                            compatible with and complementary to those that may be used to establish commercially
                            viable, productive hardwood forests on reclaimed mine sites.
                            Acknowledgments
                            This project was supported by funds from the Powell River Project and the University of
                            California, Santa Cruz. Jonathan Beals-N«smith and Vanessa Muftey assisted with field
                            research. This and other Powell River Project publications are available on the internet
                            through the Virginia Cooperative Extension web site http://www,ext,vt.edu/re»urces/, or
                            through the Powell River Project web site IsRtiJMt. 
    -------
                  Brenner, F. 1, M. Werner, and J. Pike. 1984. Ecosystem development and natural
                  succession in surface coal mine reclamation. Minerals and the Environment 6:10-22.
    
                  Burger, J.A., D.L. Keltiag, and C.E. Zipper. 1998. Maximizing the value of forests on
                  reclaimed mined land. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 460-138.
                  http://www.eitt.vt.edti/piibs/mine5/460-138/460-138.html
    
                  Burger, J. A. and J. L. Torbert. 1992. Restoring Forest on surface-mined land. Virginia
                  Cooperative Extension Publication 460-123. http://wmv,ext vt.edu/pubVinines/460-
                  123/460-123 .html
    
                  Daniels, W.L., and C.B. Zipper. 1997. Creation and management of productive minesoils.
                  Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 460-121.
                  http://www.extM.edu/Bubs/mines/460-121/460-121 ,ntmi
    
                  Fowler, D. K_ and L. J. Turner. 1981. Surface Mine Reclamation for Wildlife: a model
                  reclamation plan for Southern Appalachia. Fish and Wildlife Service/OBS-81/09. U.S.
                  Dept. of the Interior.
    
                  Holl, K. D. and J, Cairns, Jr. 1994. Vegetational community development on reclaimed
                  coal surface mines in Virginia. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 121: 327-337.
    
                  Holl, K, D. 2000. The effect of coal surface mine revegetation practices on long-term
                  vegetation recovery. Pages 56-61 in 2000 Powell River Project Research and Education
                  Program Reports. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
    
                  Kan, X R. 1968. Habitat and avian diversity on strip-mined land in east-central Illinois.
                  Condor 70:348-357.
    
                  Raifall, B. L. and. W. O. Vogel. 1978. A Guide for Vegetating Surface-mined Land for
                  Wildlife in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia. Fish and Wildlife Service/OBS-78/84.
                  U.S. Dept. of the Interior.
    
                  Rodrigue, J. A. and J. A. Burger. 2000. Forest productivity and woody species diversity
                  on pre-SMCRA mined land. Pages 35-55 in 2000 Powell River Project Research and
                  Education Program Reports.
    
                  Thompson, R. L., W. G. Vogel, and D. D. Taylor. 1984. Vegetation and flora of a coal
                  surface-mined area in Laurel County, Kentucky. Castanea 49:111-126.
    
                  Torbert, J.L., and XA. Burger. 2000. Forest land reclamation, p. 371-399, in: R,
                  Barnhisle, W. Daniels, and R. Darmody (eds). Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed
                  Lands. American Society of Agronomy Monograph 41.1082 p.
                          Torbert, J.L., 3 A. Burger, and ,T.E. Johnson, 1996. Commercial forestry as a post-mining
                          land use. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 460-136.
                          httprf/www.ext,vt.edti/pub$/rnmes/4$Q-136/460-136.htigil
    
                          Wade, G. L. and R. L. Thompson. 1993. Species richness on five partially reclaimed
                          Kentucky surface mines. Paper presented at American Society for Surface Mining and
                          Reclamation 307-314.
    
                          Wade, G. L. 1994. Grass competition and establishment of native species from forest soil
                          seed banks. Landscape and Urban Planning 17:135-149.
    
                          Wade, G. L. and L. M. Tritton. 1997. Evaluating biodiversity of mineral lands. Paper
                          presented at National Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining and
                          Reclamation 336-343.
                                                        12
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-745
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                                            1*5.:
                            This is a pre-print draft subject to farther editing and
                            review. The final version will include photo credits, a
                                  Table of Contents, and complete appendices.
                                                                                                                                                                -DMFT-
                                                                                                                                                           Partriersln Flight
                                                                                                                                             NorthAmertcan Landbird Conservation Plan
                                                                                                                                                              Septemher20CB
                                                                                                                                                                 Atttfivn
                                                  www.PartnerstnFligHt.org
    
                                                       PubllsMhy
    
                                              CORNELL LAB o/ORNITHOLOGY
                 Signed and approved by
                 US - chair of Pff Council
                 Canada - Partners in Flight Canada National Working Group
                 Madco - NA8CI Committee
                 Seek Qn*r:M<:m*il*BI*»lrt de 1« BWIwrsidal (National Commission
    for the Conservation and Use of Biodiversity)
    •W Studies Canada
    Bird Studies Canada
    National Audubon Society
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Canadian Wildlife Service
    U.S. Hah and Wildlife Service
    Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
    Canadian Wildlife Service
    NABCl-Canada
    Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory
    American Btrf Conservancy
    Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
    0aya Lakes loint Venture
    Canadian Wildlife Service
    US. H«h and Wildlife Service
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-746
                   Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
     I
                                      Peat 1;: JW-Con tiheritalPlan'
                               INTRODUCTION
    
                         JDevetoptuertt tffttrfners in Ftigftt
    
                Birds are perhaps the most highly valued and actively
                appreciated component of Morth America^ biological.
                diversity. Approximately 1,200 species, representing
                nearly 15% of the weald's known bitd species, inhabit
                Canada, the United States, asd Mexico, Approximately
                two-thirds of these, including warblers, thrushes,
                sparrows, Snehes, httminlngbinJs, flycatchers, raptors
                and other groups, occupy principally terrestrial habitats.
                These "lamibirds* are the focus of this document
    
                tandbirds are an important component of the economy,
                providing untold bilUons in dollars of ecosystem services
                each year. Through their consumption of past insects,
                pollination of plants, dispersal of native seeds, and
                other services, birds contribute to the maintenance
                of ecosystems that fcfeo support human life. Natare-
                based recreation, a high proportion of which involves
                observing birds, is the fastest growing segmeni of the
                tourism industry, increasing approximately 309S annually
                since 1987. In 1996 in the US, atone, 160 million people
                (77% of the population) spent $29.2 billion to observe,
                photograph or feed wildlife.
    
                While birds are valuable to humans in many ways,
                declines in numerous landbird populations are creating
                serious concern for their Uttures. Some specks are
                in sufficient trouble to merit immediate conservation
                action. Others remain widespread !mt deserve attention
                to prevent continued decreases. Because landbird
                habitats are directly affected by human ase of the land,
                the health of all North American species Is in our
                hands. We therefore have a stewardship responsibility
                for maintaining healthy populations of still-common
                species and not simply for pr^wmtinf extinctions. We
                must never ibrg&t that by far the most abundant bird in
                North America—the Passenger Pigeon-~was driven to
                extinction from a population size of 3-5 billion in fewer
                than 100 years (Blocksteln 2002).
    
                The causes of population  declines in birds are
                numerous, but the loss, modification, degradation, and
                fragmentation of habitat almost always play a major role.
                Threats to habitats come  primarily from uncontrolled
                urban and suburban development and from intensified
                land-use practices in agricultural and forested regions.
                Birds are a vital element of every terrestrial habitat
     in North America. Conserving habitat fbr birds wlU
     therefore contribute to meeting the needs of otJ*ar
     wildlife and entire ecosystems.
    
     Recognition that a cooperative, non-adversarial
     conservation approach was required to address bird and
     habitat Issues at a continental scale led to ibrmatlon
     in 1990 of Partners in £Hght/Carapaftetos en Vudte/
     Parteaalres d'Unvol. This voluntary, non-advocacy,
     international coalition was originally dedicated to
     nswarslng' declines of Neotropical migratory songbirds,
     but soon expanded its mission So include all kmdbirds.
     Partners include lederal, state, provincial and territorial
     government agencies, non-governmental organizations,
     numerous universities, concerned individuals, and
     private industry in Canada, the U.S., Mexico and beyond.
    
     The Partners in Fttght mission Is expressed through
     three related concepts:
    
      *  ftslpitig species at risk. Species exhibiting warning
        signs today must be conserved belbre t;Key
        become Impeiifed,  Allowing specie? to become
        threatened or endangered results in long-term and
        costly racwery efforts whose success often, is not
        guaranteed. Species that have attained endangered
        or threatened status must not only be protected
        from extinction, but must be recovered.
    
      *  Keepingcommon birds common. NaKve birds,
        both resident and migratory, must be retained in
    £ae& sprfr^g, Efcrejws tfbtodwetix>he.k to HSgfe Isktttei, Texas
    t& observe the &QK$tira migration. Direing 20&f, inths
                              Direing 2
                              ks U.S. &
                      vffies. spending $38.4 billion,
         healthy numbers throughout their natural
         ranges. We haves responsibility to bo
         good stewards of spedes that represent the
         integrity of North America's diverse and
         unique ecosystems.
    
      «   Voluntary partnerships for birds, habitats
         and people. A central premise of PIP is
         that the resources of public and private
         organizations throughout the Americas
         most be combined, coordinated, and
         increased in order to achieve success
         in conserving bird populations in this
         hemisphere.  The |>ower of Fifties in
         the synergy that builds when dfveme,
         committed partners who care about birds
         work together for a common goal.
    
           Pttr/ttnteattrfStttj»ettftMs Plan
    
    Purpose
    
    This Plan provides a continental perspective
    on North American laudbird conservation,         ,
    presenting geographic, species, and habitat
    priorities.  An international approach is
    essential because most species breed, migrate,      *
    and winter in more than one country, such that
    Canada, the U.S. and Mexico share many of the
    same birds at different times of year. Migratory
    birds are an International resource that requires
    conservation planning at a continental scale - a different
    approach than what may be suitable for more sedentary
    wildlife.
    Our audience includes decision-makers, land-managers
    and scientists at nations! and international levels, who
    collectively have the ability to meet PIFs ambitious goals
    for Sandbirds.
    
    Based on a comprehensive continental assessment of
    448 native laadbird species, we establish population
    ob|ectives artd recommended actions for Species
    of Continental Importance. These objectives and
    recommendations will facilitate the integration of
    landbird conservation actions with those described
    In other continental- and nations!-scale plans for
    birds. These include the North American Waterfowl
    Management Plan (North American Waterfowl
    Management Han Committee 1998), Canadian and U.S.
    Shorebird Conservation Plans (Donaldson ee «L 2000,
    Brown 6t at, 2001), and Waterbird Conservation for the
    Americas (Kushlan «t at 2002),
    
    We consider two types of landbirds to be of high
                                                                                                                                                                                         What the PtF North American Landbird Conservation Pi&n does:
    Summarises die conservation status af bneBrfrds across Horth
    America Illustrating broad patterns based 
    -------
                                       For the purpose of this document, "North America"
                                       includes Canada, ths continental U.S., and Mexico.
                                       Howewr, this version of the Plan is limited to hndbirds
                                       that regularly breed in UK continental US. and Canada.
                                       Nonetheless, Mexican scientists provided important
                                       ideas ind strategies for this plan at well as considerable
                                       d»ta on the status in Mexico of many species included
                                       here.
    
                                       Under the guidance of the Mexican National NABCI
                                       Committee, a working group was established in 2002
                                       to develop the species assessment process for all bird
                                       species present in that country (approximately 1400
                                       species). Mexico is following the HF methodology,
                                       and the rlrst conservation status assessment for all
                                       Mexican tpechs is expected by tta end of 1003. Thus,
                                       we are preparing for a smooth integration of about 450
                                       Mexican landMrd species in future Iterations of this Plan.
                                       Spedes assessment also has taken place lor portions
                                       of the Caribbean, and partners are coordinating bird
              The PIF Continental Plan considers 448 tandbirdspedes native la the United States and Canada from the
              fallowing 4S families. Colored text showsadditionalfamileswilhlandblrdsnativeto Mexico thatwill be treated
              in Mure versions of the Plan.
              variable across North America to be treated only at a
              continental scale. Implementation of on-the-ground.
              bird conservation strategies must take place at state*
              provincial, and local levels, guided by regional and
              continental pfenning. Over the last seven years, flf has
              engaged in a comprehensive plarining effort, resulting in
              several dozen regional bird conservition plans covering
              all states or physiographic areas In the US. (Pashtey et al
              2000, www.PartnerslnFlight.org). Similar regional efforts
              are underway in Canada and Mexico. These regional and
              state Pff plans (Append!)! C) identify priority species and
              habitats, set goals and objectives, discuss local teles and
              opportunities, and outline strategies for local or regional
              partners to Implement bird conservation objectives.
              Part II of this Kan summarizes the salient issues faced
              by North American landbirds, reflecting the recurring
              messages of the regional plans.
    
              Scops
              .(MgfltgjSj^iirjdae. T
              .coiM.m.bida£.
               Psittacidae
               Cucylidae
              IVtonfclae
               StiioMae
              TVo^onldafe
              Momottdae
              AlcedinldM
              Hcldae
              FymMidai5:|||
              IMlH!.°^j3E'^-l^
              JxSfiS^te-
              Cotingidae
                                           t allies
     Ousil & aifies
                                       sJSrmae,Turkgy$
                               .P_QVEKS,&,Plg60g
                                fsrrots
                               Bam Owls
                               True Owls
                               Potaos
                               Mwmots
                               Pufftjifjfe
                               Batbets SToucsns
                               Woodpeckers Sallies
    Jsiftg^fe, ,i.g |ftc^isfsr& ijjtgs._
                               Amshffkes, Antwfens, Anttsfrds & allies
                               ^wtjm^es^&Ag^KI—
    _g^tctigra,BicaFCfs»i
                                                                                                                                              iiach-^H'oitBi) SfMmxw
    
                                                                                                                                                                   itofcffeijffdB _
                                                                                                                                                                   Ai^!apfeaW»faw
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                 A-748
                                                                            Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                     APPENDIX B. METHODS USED TO
                    ESTIMATE POPULATION SIZES AND
                                  PEHCENTS
    
                Estimates of global population size wars needed for
                etch species of l»ndb(rd covered by this Plan for several
                 •  To score the Peculation Size lactor (PS) in our
                   species assessment. For this purpose, we needed
                   order of magnitude resolution on population sizes,
                   using to the extent possible a single methodology to
                   give comparable estimates across a! species
    
                 •  To provide estimates of 'current" population she
                   for eacMandbird species. This gives an impression
                   of the size  to estimate population size of landbirds
    in the arctic (BCR 3) portion of Canada, as follows:
    
     1) Total hndbitd density wss calculated from BBC
        data for e»ch of three terrestrial ecozones that make
        up BCR 3 in Canada (Arctic Cordillera, Northern
        Arctic and Southern Arctic).
    
     2} Total landbird density was split among three classes
        of landbirds - those likely to be detected st long
        distances (raptors, ravens), those st Intttmedtate
        distances (birds of open country) and the rest (birds
        of woods and scrub).
    
     3) Relative abundance of each landbird species was
        csfailatta from Checklist data for each of the
        ecoiones and ehsses of birds above. Checklist
        data were first screened to remove lists in which
        aU bird species were not recorded, or the observer
        self-identified as "Mr" at species Identification, or
        month was not June or July. Counts per specie were
        averaged across years within site before further
        analysis.
    
     4) The ratto of BBC density to checklist abundance
        (density conversion lactor) was calculated for each
        ecozone and class of imdhW. The two northern
        ecotones were collapsed into one due to lack of
        difference in conversion factors.
    
     5} Density conversion factors were applied to checklist
        abundance data to provide density estimates of each
        landbird species at 649 sites across the arctic (those
        in BCR 3 in Canada),
    
     6) Bird densities from checklist sites were averaged
        within each of 30 Arctic ecorcgions, then multiplied
        by site Of region to convert to a population estimate
        for that ecotef ion.  Estimates for unsampled
        acoregioris were derived as area-weighted averages
        from all sampled ecoregions in  the same terrestrial
        ecozone. Population  estimates were then summed
        across ecoregions to provide a total population
        estimate for each laftdbird species in the arctic.
    
               Estimating gfalvtl jHtpHta Ifam:
    
    For species breeding entirely within the U.S. arid Canada,
    our estimate of global population size was a simple sum
    of the above two estimates (BBS-based estimate plus
    arctic Canada estimate).
    
    For species with broader breeding distributions, but
    still at least 10% of range In the US. »nd Canada, we
    extrapolated global population size on the basis of
    proportion ofbreeding range outside of the U.S. and
    Canada. Proportions of breeding range were estimated
    from range maps.
    
    For species with more than 90% of breeding range
    outside the US. >nd Canada, we estimated global
    population size to order of magnitude (as for PS scores)
    based on range size and s  comparison to population sizes
    of other landbird species that were judged to have similar
    relative abundance.
    
    Exceptions to »h« methods presented »ix>ve:
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                                                            A-749
                                                                         Section A  - Organizations
    

    -------
           We accepted independent estimates of population size lor
           some landbireE species that have been surveyed by other
           methods more appropriate and specific so the species, for
           which continental-scale estimates were available or could
           be estimated at a kvel of accuracy deemed to be superior
           to our standard estimates,
    
           Some assumptions in estimating population sizos:
    
           !?or a variety of reasons, the population, estimates
           presented here are rough estimates, and wiH need fco be
           Improved over time, especially for use at smaller scales.
           Without attempting &> be comprehensive, a few main
           assumptions of the approach are mentioned hare (see
           Sosenberg and Blaneher, la pott).
    
           Habitats are sampled to proportion to their occurrence
           in the regional landscape Although BBS Is designed, to
           provide a random sample of the landscape, limitations of
           a road-based survey mean that the landscape sampled Is
           a bias©! representatibn of available habitat - for example
           species characteristic of h%h elevation habitats are likely
           to be tmdersampled by BBS simply because roads tend
           to follow valley bottoms in mountains^ regions. In
           northern BCRs» there is a geographic bias, with most BBS
           data available from the soothers portions of those BC&s.
           Checklist and Breeding Bird Census sites are determined
           by individual scientists and volunteers, so are not a
           random sample of arctic regions, We have not aceotmlecE
           for habitat bias in our continental estimates, In part
           because it will differ from region to region, and because
           the magnitude of bias has not yet been estimated in many
           regions or at a continental scale. Correction for habitat
           bias should be considered when using the methods
           described above at smaller scales,
    
           Birds present but not detected during BBS counts
           are accounted for by one or more of the three density
           corrections applied above (pair, detection area, and time
           of day corrections): Species that have a pesak of detection
           outside of the BBS sampling window (eg., early-^^tson
           breeders, most nocturnal species) are likely to have been
           underestimated  Pair corrections may result in pver-
           estimatlon of population site, If a high proportion of
           counts involve either both members of a pair, or unmated
           birds.
    
           Checklist / BBC-derived estimates from arctic Canada
           are comparable to BBS estimates:  There are no BBS
           data from BCR3 in Canada to test this assumption,
           However, checkii$t/B&C-derived landbird density was
          79birds/krn2 in the Canadian arctic, versus a BBS-
           derived 127 birds/kml in the BC& 3 portion of Alaska,
          This difference is in the expected direction, because the
     Canadian arctic has a ksgar proportion of High Arctic
     where landbird density Is typically km.
    
     Breeding density within the US. and Canada is similar to
     density elsewhere in the breeding raaga  Extrapolation
     of population size estimates to global population rely on
     this assumption, though it does not affect US./Casasda
     population estimates, nor population; objectives for the
     US. and Canada.
    
     How accurate are the population estimates? :
    
     Measures of precision for population estimates? am not
     presented in this !%n. Although we have measured
     variance associated with seme of the parameters, others
     have yet to be estimated. Conversion of BBS relative
     abundance to estimated density depends on several
     adjustment factors, each of which carries associated
     variance,  A high proportion of undetected birds, habttat
     bias and incorrect assignment of detection distance
     category haw potential for krge effects on estimates.
     Nevertheless, comparison with atlas-derived population
     estimates suggests that population sizes are still well
     within the correct order of magnitude for landlords'
     regularly encountered on ESS routes (Rosenberg and
     Blaneher, in press). Additional comparisons will be
     useful for refining the estimates and independent
     estimates are sought for all species.
    
     Estimates of percent of global p&ptilation :
    
     JEstteiates of the percent of gpfobal population within
     BORs and biomes were needed so assign SCRs to
     Avifauna! Biomes, to identify Stewardship Species in
     those bismes, to construct maps weighted by proportion
     of population ia Avifauna! Biomes, and to provide an
     indication of degree of regional responsibility for Watch
     List and other species.
    
     Breeding season
     For the breeding season, estimates of proportion of
     global population were calculated by tlividmg regional
     population estimates by global population estimates,
    Winter p
    For resident species, we assumed percent of global
    population was the same as In the breeding season.
    For moratory species, we based our estimates for the
    US. and Canada on Christmas Bird Count (CBC) date,
    calculated as follows:
    
     I) For each CSC coant circle surveyed between 1990/
        £i and 1997/98, birds observed per 100 party-hrs
        were calculated and then averaged across years to
        give a single effof t-sd/usted count per species per
        count circle,
    
     2) BEfert-^djustsd counts were averaged across all CBC
        count clreks in each geO'folitical polygon defined
        by the intersection of a BCS and a province / state /
        territory. These average effort-adjusted counts were
        then multiplied by area of the geo-political polygon
        lo yield an abundance index for «ach species i n the
        polygon.
    
     5) Abundance Indices were summed across polygons
        within BCSs to give an abundance index fot each
        BCR. Wheres geo-political polygon was not sampled
        by CBC sites, an area-weighted average from other
        polygons In the same SCE was assigned. Most geo-
        political polygons wltiKout CBC count circles were
        in the boreal test or «t$lc, wheos relatively few
        landbird species spend the winter.
    
     4) lucent of US. and Canada winte-popalation wa«
        then calculated for each SCR by dividing BCS
        abundance Indices {ftxwn step 3) by the sum of all
        BCR indices across the US. and Canada.
    
     5) Percent of global winter population was estimated in
        the same manner as summer population estimates,
        using proportion of winter range to estimate
        proportion of global rang® in the U.S. and Canada.
    
    Som o assu mptions in estimating perce nt of
    population:
    
    Habitat bias is consistent across the survey area: Because
    estimates of percent are relative measures, they are much
    less affected by habitat bias and density corrections
    than are population estimates, as long as biases are
    relatively consistent across the survey area. Thus percent
    of population based on CBC circles can be reasonably
    accurate despite strong potential for bias In the non-
    random placement of circles.
    
    Differences In effort among CBC counts can be
    standardized by dividing by party-hour;  In fact, species
    will respond differently to different types of effort (party-
    hour, party-mile, feeder counts, nocturnal effort). Also,
    response to increasing effort is likely to be non-linear,
    eventually becoming asymptotic However, estimates of
    percent of winter population by BCR or avlfaunal bionte
    were relatively Insensitive to these issues. Comparison
    of percents of winter population were similar whether
    calculated without any effewt correction, correcting
    with party-miles, or using party-hours to correct effort-
    Only for a  few northern species were there important
    differences depending on which method of error
    correctiort was used.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                               A-750
                                                                            Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                                                    --if «-"*.->
                                                                                                                                                            Contents
                                            AN ATLAS OF
                       CERULEAN WARBLER POPULATIONS
                                              KSFW; 1997-2000 Breeding Seasons
                                        CcfrmllLab afOfMthehgn Ittuca, NY 14&SO
    
                                                  December, 2000
                          CEWAP populations throughout the Cerulean Warbler's range, 1997-2000
                      Map 1 Cerulean Warbler populations, as tfoctmmted by CBWAP, m USFWS rvgtons 3, 4, and 5
                      DfrROBUCTKW	,	:	 3  •
                        Need EOT Project		ZZ.ZIZ3
                      •  fn$Kt Owls	,	_.,.  _ „	i	        	3
                      MBmODS	_	Z.Z	',	ZZ	4
                      RBsuas			II1IZIZZZZZZZZIZZZZZZIZIIZ s
                        Range-wide Summary .,.......„	,	,.„	.,....„	,	,	5     '~"  -
                 '^r!>'-f^%ioialSiiicrimri^ ::....	:..:;.srau..;.i..:;.::.:.:r...r.r,:.-3.::..:	  	9    -3r ',-• -
                 '•?: —*MM£USFBfSRegi!>ii3	„.;.	j,	„	ZZI, 9     '.  ' -i
                      - ••- s-USFWS Rcgkm'4			jo
                          USFWS Regioa 5	_	n     ••...  ;
                        State Summaries ..*._...,	 33
                          AWama-	_	„	13
                          Arkansas...,,.,.,,...,.....,,,.......,,"......,,	„.....,	,	m.™.		m	 13
                          Coaaectkut„,.„„....	,					 15
                          Delaware.	,„...	,.,„„„	16
                          Georgia	„	_	,	17
                          nifaoa	, 	17
                          Indiana	.....,,,.,	,	19
                          Iowa	,.	...21
                          Kansas	21
                          Kentucky	„	_	„..	22
                          Massachusetts	.,	 23
                          Maryland	24
                          Michigan			„	25     	
                          Minnesota	..,.,.....„	.,,..„„„„..,,.,.„.....„„„,.„.„.._	..„..._...„„„....,_„.. 26
                          Missouri	A	 28
                          Netaska	,	_„							 30     	
                          New Jersey..	..,....„...„...„....,	 30
                          New York	32
                          North Carolina	,	„„	35
                          Ohio	  37
                          Ponasylvafiii >„..„,..„„,«-.„..„...„„....,„.„,.,,.,.„.,„	„....,.	,.,,,.,„,,..,,,),.,,,.„.......,,,...,,	 38
                          Rhode Maud	..,...,	40
                          Sai*D«to»		..,.__	-...,.-	_—	 40
                          Temessee	...40
                          Vustoia	42
                          Vermont	„..,.	........™...	44
                          Wisconsin	.,	.„.,.,...	.45
                          West Virginia	,	46
                      DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS	-	50
                        Habitat and Area Rajhwasnts	,—	,	—	51
                        Moollormg and Research Heeds			52
                      ACKNOWLEDGMENTS	53
                      LITERATURE CITED	„	54
                      APPENDIX	   	 56
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-751
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                        INTRODUCTION
                                                                                                                                                                                   METHODS
                        The Cerulean Warbler Atlas Project (CEWAF) was a
                      four-year study designed to detemsiae the populaHon
                      statoa, habitat, md area recpiiremeats of Cerulean
                      Warblers (Detutm-lca eenilea), a high-priority Neotro-
                      pical migratory bird, wjtfhin USFWS Regions 3,4, and
                      5. This study employed volunteer birders as weH as
                      professional biologists, and was administered through
                      the Partners in Flight (PEF) regional and state working
                      groups, 0SFWS contacts, and the Cornell Lab of
                      Ornithology's network of citizen-scientists. This
                      CBWAJ? Final Report summarizes and reports data
                      submitted by each participating state and region Seom
                      the 1997 to 2000 breeding seasons.
    
                                  Need For Project
                        The Cerulean, Warbler k among the highest priority
                      iandbirds for CDaservatkia ia the United States. It tanks
                      as extremely high priority on the national Wisfcblist
                      based on Partners in Flight: prioritizatioa scores, and it
                     ranks second 10 terms of immediate conservation
                     concern in the PIF Northeast regioa (Rosenberg and
                     Wells 1995, 2000). These priority tankags are ba^ed
                     on a small total population siae and a significant
                     declining Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) fcread throughout
                     its range (-4.2% per year since 1966). Cerulean Warblers
                     are declining  across much of their North American
                     breeding range and are now liEsted as a species of concern
                     in 13 states, threatened ia 2 states, and endangered in 1
                     state. They are also federally listed as "vulnerable" in
                     Canada, In portions of the Northeast, however, Ceralean
                     Warblers are thought to be expanding their rnngo and
                     population size. la the Midwest and Southeast—ss well
                     as areas in the Hortheast such as New England, New
                     York and New Jersey—this species  Is not adequately
                     sampled by the BBS because of low overall density. There-
                     fore, its distribution in these areas remains poorly ksown
                     and accurate population tstmds have not been estimated,
                       Because of severe declines throughout the Ceralean's
                     range, fee USFWS has recently completed a Status As-
                     sessment of Cerulean Warblers (Hamel 2000), for pos-
                     sible listing under the Endangered Species Act Hamel
                     (2000) provides & compilation of historical records and
                     contemporary anecdotes about the status of this bird;
                     however, the report is limited by die lack of reeeat pub-
                     lished information on this species from most states. In
                     particular., conservation ptoaiag for regional popula-
                     tions is hampered by poor knowledge of present-day
                     breeding locations, as well as by a lack of local data
                     regarding habitat affinities, area requirements, or threats,
                     In October 2000, a petition was filed to list fee Cer-
                     ulean Warbler as ^federally threatened. In light of the
     Status Assessment and the petition, updated data con-
     cerning the Cerulean's status, population numbers, and
     critical breeding sites are of utmost importance. CBWAP
     attempted to fill these knowledge gaps by coordinating
     the efforts of professional biologists and experienced
     birders through, a simple protocol designed to survey
     and study Cerulean Warblers throuj^sout each region.
    
                   Project Goals
       The original goals of CEWA?, as stated m £be Scope
     of Work to toe USFWS, were as follows:
     *  Identify important populations of Cerulean Warblers
       in each stale, and detenaine the status of these popu-
       latioas—^bow maay pairs? Are they reproducing suc-
       cessfully? Are there local threats to the popalatioa?
       Are populations expanding or declining?
     •  Determine the range of acceptable habitats aad area
       requirements in each regioa—measure habitat stoic-
       rare, landscape characteristics of sites, nest-site char-
       acteristics, estimate den$M&$ 131 diSbrent forest-types,
       attempt to estimate productivity,
    
     •  Identify suites of bird  and plant species associated
       with Cerulean Warblers
     *  Set population and habitat goals for the Northeast
       region and sub-regiaa units,  as part of the regional
       PIF planning prt
    *  Produce a "how-to" manual of habitat management
       strategies for areas having (or potentially support-
       ing) Cerulean Warblers
       This atlas of Cerulean Warbler populations addresses
    die first portion of these ambitious goals- In this report
    we identify specific locations of present-day breeding
    populations ia each region aad state and attempt to esti-
    mate population sizes based on data collected by over
    20Q field collaborators. We also provide summaries of
    the habitat types and dominant tree species present at
    sites occupied by breeding Cerulean Warblers. Addi-
    tional analyses of CBWA? data using G1S may eluci-
    date patterns of habitat use at the landscape and regional
    scales. The results of this afias wiH be incorporated into
    PIF laitdbitd conservation plans; is particular, lists of
    specific sites for management or acquisition, as well as
    local data on habitats used, will aid in setting regional
    population objectives for this species. Oar mtentioa is
    to publish a completed version of this atlas, along with
    the most up-to-date summary of conservation and
    management guidelines, based on CEWAP and Other
      CEWAP took advantage of the expertise of actrve
    birders aad professional biologists by employing net-
    works of volunteers. Tfee Lab of Ornithology faired field
    assistants in 1997,1998, and 1999 to cover areas thought
    to be poteatiajily important breeding areas for ceruleans,
    These specific arms within states ware systematically
    searched; however, coverage of entire states was often
    still Incomplete.
      Field protocols consisted primarily of surveying
    known sites (determined through state atlas workers,
    other birders, and published literature) to determine
    numbers of pairs, breeding status of population, and
    conservation status of site. In addition, participants sur-
    veyed as many new or potential sites an possible, to iden-
    tify new breeding sites and determine status  (as in the
    first project goal), At a small subset of sites with large
    or important populations, additional data on nesting and
    foraging, as well as productivity and threats to popula-
    tions, was available through collaborating researchers.
      Because of oar reliance on volunteers and unsuper-
    vised Seld assistants, and the large differences  in ter-
    rain and habitats surveyed, there was much variation in
    actual survey methods employed in the field. A major-
    ity of data came front variations on the "area-search"
    method, where observers moved through potential habi-
    tats noting presence aad numbers of singing male Cer-
    ulean Warblers. Variations ranged from systematic sur-
    veys along all  navigable waterways by canoe  in the
    Montezuma Wetlands Complex of NY (Bill Evans), to
    driving slowly along rural roads in northern NJ (lohn
    Betizinger), to hiMngthe Appalachian Trail in Virginia and
    North Carolina, to floating stretches of several rivets in
    Missouri,  to systematically driving and hiking through
    forested regions and conducting point counts wherever
    ceruksans were detected (Davi4 Baehlef), to spot-check-
    ing isolated woodlots. Field surveys often used recorded
    Ceralean Warbler vocalizations (M needed) to elicit re-
    sponses from territorial males, approximate territorial
    boundaries (especially in linear habitats), and determine
    pairing mrus (females often respond K> tapes within Snetr
    territories). After visits to & site were completed, ob-
    servers were asked to attempt an estimate of the total
    breeding jjofmlstlori of Cerulean Warblers at that site,
       In addition to  these CEWA1* surveys, we received
    several datasets with point^ount locations for Cerulean
    Warblers, often detected during more genera! bird sur-
    veys. In these cases, it is often impossible to know how
    much available habitat was covered or what proportion
    of a regional population of Cerulean  Wsrblers was
    sampled—these are retained in om Atlas as minimum
    estimates for these areas, Irt a few states we relied on
    additional surveys conducted prior to CEWAP or as part
    of independent research efforts. Finally, some holes in
    our Atlas were filled by gleaning miscellaneous records
    from birdlag e-mail lists, recently published Breeding
    Bird Atlases, or by hounding certain birders and state
    biologists irntH they told as what they knew.
       We instructed participants  to define  & "site" as any
    contiguous patch of similar and suitable habitat sur-
    roundixl by a different habitat type. Because of Sic great
    variation in survey methods and types  of data we re-
    ceived, the actual designation of sites  in otir database is
    highly inconsistent. These range from  specific locations
    of individual Ceralean Warblers within a larger contigu-
    ous area, to politically defined State Park or Wildlife
    Management A«sa boundaries, to entire river valleys
    witft their adjacent slopes. In all cases; however, a "site"
    represents a unique latitude emd longitude provided by
    a participant and entered into our database. Although
    this variation leads to diMculties in interpreting num-
    bers or proportions of sites occupied in various regions
    or states, tsis flexibility in our protocols enabled us to
    receive the maximum amount of data from the widsst
    group of volunteers and collaborators.
       All sites were located on topographic maps, and data
    on habitat, landscape characteristics, and land owner-
    ship were noted on simple data forms.  Specifically, field
    observers recorded site location, latitude and longitude,
    elevation, history of disturbance, general habitat type
    (riparian, swamp forest, dry slope, etc.), three or more
    dominant tree species, and canopy height. This infor-
    mation was compiled and entered into a GIS database
    by Lab of Ornithology biologists.
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                                                           A-752
                                                                                   Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                         RESULTS
                            Range-wide Summary
                      A total of 280 CSWftP participants and caliaJxjia-
                                                   Arl a.s are ass nine d to represent number of territorial
                                                       s or breeding pairs. An additional 355 sites were
                                                       ;ttedwMi mo bkdsfeaad; in ^aecal abfiervecsoaly
    29 paid field assi sUmts hired over the 3-year period  reported positive sightings, and these do not represent
    .(Table 1; me also Appendix 1 for complete Ust of  rradom samples of avaikbls areas or habitats. Note too,
    CBWAP|^rtidp3nts),Theimmofdata'B^modvadao-  ifi,Mwslt^"r^ediiiS£M^^miMividsiaIpomt-looa-
    txjiioied.fof 7,669 CerakaaWarfilefia at 1,033 51^ ia • .tii^s tof^ole river valleys, so feese data provide only
    2S steles, pteOatajio.vliftmllysHw^rtswei^ of slag-  arou^miiiiati^iiofiiiaflberofdilfersiitareasthatsiip-
    iaf jmles; t&erefee atimbers reported tbroiigfaoiit &|s  port C^mlean Warbler p
    IhftfeX,
    .£&&
    *
    Alabama
    Arkansas
    CoaaecScat
    District of Columbia
    Delaware
    Georgia
    Iowa
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    MIoMgsD
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    H^jmska
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    New York
    . North Cm>BQ8
    Ohio
    Oldahoa^
    Ontario
    IPeansylvania
    Rhode island
    South Carolina
    South D:ik.ota
    Teofw^see
    \%giak
    VemiOBt
    Wiscg maic Ccmlenn.-; ;ind sccour,te
    -------
    Ibble 2. Areas Jst®portteg th& target Gindsan fParblerpop&latiow feSQpaim), rmgewid& fhe&e localtom my
    represent primary arms jet- JutwKpGpmlatifrn m&ntMNg. &® j&*/e mmmorfesfor mem $pgc$$i; fa&eiti&ns 0ml
    information on these &r@ss.
    #Biri!s State
    430
    
    325
    300+
    238
    202
    " 200
    200+
    - 177-
    167
    150+
    142
    138
    
    ' 137
    121
    114
    108
    100+
    100
    95
    94
    90
    78
    
    78
    75+
    73
    71
    69
    65
    63
    60
    S€
    54
    50+
    
    50+
    50
    50
    SO
    
    TO
    
    •NY
    IL
    TN
    • IN
    ON
    n.
    M
    NY
    IL
    TN
    NY
    
    MO
    AR
    MO
    VA
    IL
    MI
    NY
    wv
    NJ.PA
    wv
    
    wv
    KY
    TN
    WI
    PA
    WV
    NY
    NC
    OH
    TN
    n.
    
    IL
    NJ
    WV
    WV
    
    Arm
    Royal Blue WiMife Management Area,
    Cumberland Pl&teau
    Monteasaa Wetlands Copies
    KaskasJd& River
    Center Hill Lake Area, Edgar Bvfss State Park -
    Jelferson Proving Orotind
    Bedford/Qseea*s 0rjiversi$y Biological Station
    Hlmois Ozarks, Saawaee National Forest
    KaJamazooMver,Allegfcaa Stale Game Atea
    AUegfeany State Park: and viciBlly
    Cave/Cedar Creek
    Frozen Head State Park
    Iroqnois NWR, Oak Qreaanl WMA,
    Toaowanda Indian JKaservatjoa
    Eleven Point RJver
    Ozaik HttioMl forest
    Upper Cmreat River
    Blue Ridge Fazkway, Sheimidosh HatidrMl Park
    P» Msnpette State Fade, Big Riven
    Port Caster aod vicini^'
    Ga !en WUdlife Management Area
    New River Gorge — Garden Ground Mountain Area
    Delaware River Valley
    Kanawha State Forest
    ^
    Gmyaadoae Mountain and vicinity
    Daaiel Boose National Forest
    CMckastw National WildUft Refiigs
    Lower ^nsconsirt River draiaages
    Jeaniap Envfesamerttal Ceatcr, Moraine State Park
    Louis Wetzel WMA
    Salmon Creek
    Blue Ridge Parkwty, Pisglo National Forest
    Shawnee State Park artd Forest
    Meeman Shelby S^lte Park, Mississippi Delta region
    Mississqspi Palisades State Park aad viciai^
    
    KockBiver
    Kittatimy Mountains
    Beech Fo* State Park
    North Bead State Park End Rail Ttsi,
    Mouarwood Park
    ffakilal Type
    Mesic slopes, cove &fe£^
    
    'Kiparkn, forested wetland
    Mixed floodplain
    Mesic slope, dry slope
     ,
    Bear Mountain State Park *
    Wuerloo TowBsarj — Hwett Fork
    Chratliam Wildlife Management Area •
    Lower Wisconsin River
    Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area,
    Breoksville Reservation — Cleveland Metroparks
    Peter's Mountain and State Game Lands
    NaJolira Trace Psrkway, National Park
    Murphy Preserve
    Castleton Island Stt« Park
    Hamburg Mountain and vicinity
    Mill Creek Rd.
    White River
    Wytiiaing State Park
    Brady's Ran County .Park
    Coopers Rock State Forest
    Brown County State Park
    Forbe's State Forest and vicinity
    Canoe Lake — Hahn Property
    Ritchie Mines WMA
    St Joseph River
    Illinois River \&lley
    Cache River
    Marpfty-Hanreban Park Reserve and County Park
    Letchworth Stale Park
    West Point Military Reservation
    Duff Park and Boyce Park
    len Mile Creek and vicinity
    Clinch Ranger District, JeSerson National Forest
    Lake LaOnnge
    IltibilotTypt
    Riparian, dry slope
    Dry uplsnd forest
    Riparian
    Dry slopes
    R^arian, mesic slope
    Mesic slope, dry slope
    ::iUparian
    l^ry slope, bottomland
    Dry slope, mesic slope
    Dry slope, mesic slope
    Riparian, mesic slope
    RIpariM, dty slope
    
    Dry slope, lake margin
    Dry slope, mesic slope
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Moist cove forest, dry slope, riparian
    Riparian, river island
    Dry slope, lake margin
    Dry slope
    Ripaiian
    Dry slope, mesic slope
    Dry slope
    Mesic slope, dry ridgetop
    Upland, lake margin, riparian
    Dry slope
    UJiland
    0ry slope
    Riparian
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Cottonwood-oak floodplain forest
    Mixed floodplairt forest
    Riparian, mesic slope
    Ripaiian
    r?
    Dry slope, riparian
    Riparian, dry slope
    Dry slope, cove forest
    Mesic slope
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    m
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-754
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                      Regional Summaries
                   USFws Region 3
                      Witbm USFWS Sfigiaa 3, CBWAPpmttcipante found
                   a total of i ,745 Cerulean Warbkars at swughly 439 sites.
                   This does not include data Horn Illinois, pmvifded by
                   Scott Robinson, which accounted ibr an additional
                   1,000-3,000 bkds in thai state. CBWAJP coverage was
                   Batchy throughout ih& nsgtoe, with fee most concentrated
                   efforts is southern Michigan, sGtJtaaastern Missoari, and
                   southern Indiana. A scattering of Cerulean populations
                   were located along the Mississippi ISivef and its major
                   tributaries in the ^par Mittwesf, «ad m the Ohio Itiver
                   drainage along &e southern boundary of the region, The
                   largest single populations in the region arc believed to
                   b« located is EUkioIs along the KaskfisMa Rive* and Il-
                   linois Ossarks region  (SOO* pairs), Jefferson Proving
                   Graand  m southern Indiana (2QCM- pairs), Kaiamazso
                   River and Port Ouster aitsas la JN&ofalgan (275+ pairs),
                   and along the Seven ?oint and Upper Cummt BJvars
                   in Missouri (250 pairs)- Coverage was poorest ia south-
                   ern Ohio and elsewhere In Indiana and Missouri, where
                   undoubtedly  maay other
                   populations exist (Map 2.)
                                                                                                                                                        Region 3—Tract size
              Region 3—HaWtats (N«42$)
           L Habitat classt/lcatfons at sites with Cerulean
    Wmrblers In VSFWS R$$em 3 Numbers t/tmtMdual
    Cerulean Warblers recorded In each habitat type are
    noted above the bars.  "$f" eqt&ds numbw t>f occupied
    $&G$ vtith kabif&t data reported by CISWAP/xartiC
          I a distinctly bimodal
    habitat  distribution  with
    roughly the same numbers of
    birds found  occupying bot-
    tomland and upland habitats
    Among the 426 specific sites
    with habitat data, roughly
    40% were in riparian bottom-
    land forest, accounting for
    48S of the Ceruleaas found
    (not counting Illinois) An ad-
    ditional 305  of sites were ia
    dry tip land  forest and 225
    were ia aaesic uplands* sc-
    eounting fbr 21% and ?8% of
    the birds found, respectively
    (Figure 1)
       For 164. sites to Region 3,
    participants provided data «a
    the extent of available habitat
    at sites where Cerulean War-
    blers occurred. Although  a
    quantitative analysis of fbrest
    patch size 1$ not possible with
    these data we believe that
    they provide a reasonable
    sample of the range of tract
    si?es us-ed  in  the  region
    RoughJy 41% of occupied
                                                       CEiVAP populations in USFWS Re
                                                                                            '^^spr USf!WSMsgt0tt 3.
                                                                                 V
                                                                                                                            Figure 2. Numbers of QGcapi&cl sites aad forest
                                                                                                                            sizes for site® In USFWS K@ghn 3. Nmtfor?
                                                                                                                            uai Centt@an Warblers recorded in each traGt~$&e class
                                                                                                                            are noted above the bars
                                                                           sites were described &s 1,000
                                                                           acres or greater, accounting
                                                                           for 65% of all birds found
                                                                           (Figure 2). An additional 265
                                                                           birds were found Jo 70 tracts
                                                                           between 200 and 1,000 acres,
                                                                           iind fewer than 10%«f die birds
                                                                           ware in patches s 100 seres
                                                                           USFWS Region 4
                                                                              In the Southeast region,
                                                                           CEWAP paitieipants and c&l~
                                                                           laboratory foam! % total of
                                                                           1,560 Cerulean WatbJers at
                                                                           633 specific sites (Map 3).
                                                                           Coverage   was   patchy
                                                                           throughout the  region, rang-
                                                                           ing from intensive surveys of
                                                                           several key areas in Tenses-
                                                                           see to scattered observations
                                                                           from many other areas. The
                                                                           biggest holes in atlas coverage
                                                                           were b eastern KeaftKky. The
                                                                           largest Cerulean population in
                                                                           the region is undoubtedly in
                                                                           the Cumberland Mountains
                                                                           and Plateau tress of Tennes-
                                                                           see and probably Kentucky
                                                                           Additional significant popula-
                                                                           tions were located In the Blue
                                                                           Ridge of North Carolina, the
                                                                           Gzarks of Arkansas, and in
    
                                                                             to
          Tennessee. Small populations were documented
    at the edge of the species* range in northern Georgia,
    northern Alab&ma, asd the coastal plain of North Caro-
    liaa (Roanok* ktver). Ko recent breeding records could
    be obtained in Mississippi South Carolina, 
    -------
                            Region 4—Habitats (N-5SO)
                                                                           Region 4—Tract size
                                                                                                                                               Region 5—Habitats (N=80Q)
                                             f^parlati   Swamp
                                            SottomJand  femsstaml
                                             tores*  la«e margin
                                 cto$$yix&ti0m ettsiiuss with Gsntlmm
                                   Mt&t type sirs
    n&ted above the b&r$~ "N" &gual$ mmbw cf occupied
    s&m "with habitat dtfta meanest fa? -(MWAPp»ti^>m£s.  am m&teel a&trve tk& &etrg,
                                                    >»>w>y
                                                      * *Vy>V'  ^r
                                                f|(BM 4. Humbert of ecatpied tiles and forest tract
                                                                                        fa mek tractates doss
                   USFWS Region 5
                     In the Northeast Region, a
                   total of 3,077 Cerulean Wss-
                   bters were localed at 820 spe-
                   cific sites (Map 4)  Intensive
                   surveys at many sites in Wast
                   Vagina a&d western Peaasyt-
                   vauia tamed tip roughly 1,400
                   Ceraleans ia the heart of tfae
                   species' ranga—this is un-
                   doubtedly oaiy a small &ac-
                   tion of the true population la
                   these slates. Outside of the
                   Ohio Hills physiographic
                   fcrsa large and sigftiflfiaat
                   populations were documented
                   m several areas incltKhag the
                   Montezuma W^lasds com-
                   ples. afidsmtoufidiug areas in
                   ceattal New York (400-«-
                   pairs)  Allegbaay ^a^ Park
                   and Hadiona! Forest atea df
                   western New York and Penn-
                   sylvania (175-*- pairs), the
                   Delaware Water Gap isgioa <»f
                   northwestern New Jersey and
                   adjacent PaaasyCvama (150-t-
                   pairs),  and the  Blue Ridge
                   Parkway area of western Vir-
                   ginia (100+ pairs) In addition,
                   smaller populations exist in
                                                                                                                        figure S, Habitat classifications at sites with Cerulean
                                                                                                                        Warbfat-s in USFWS Region 4. Numbers &f mdrtfektat
                                                                                                                        Cerulean Warblers rgc&rd&J in e&ch habitat type am
                                                                                                                        noted above tfte b&rs, ™JV" equals rwmber ofac&tfiieel
                                                                                                                        sit®* -with habitat data rtp&rted by GEWAPparticipants.
                                                                                                                                    Region 5—Tract size
                                                                                                                                   232
    the Ha^sen IU vet Valley and Highlands of southeastern
    New Yurie, and in many paits of Peussytvaflia, Small
    but persistent populations were fotind feoughoat south'
    em New Eaglatid, in nafflbem New Yoik, and In the Pied-
    ms&t of M&ryiaiK! and Virginia, Finally, although not in
    Ibis USFWS Region, a large population of Cerulean
    Warblers exists la Ontario, not far &oai the N w York
    border.
      As in otter regions, Orulean Wartilers exhibit a Jis-
    liacUy bimodal habitat distribution in the Northeast Of
    fee 600 spedfk Kites witft habitat d&ta, 43% were in
    riparian or other bottomland forest feabitatsf accounting
    for 44% of Individual CeruleaBS found (Figure 5), An
    additional  39% of birds wens found at 256 dry slope or
    ridgetop sites, wMt the remaicder of birds fn other tip-
    land habitats.
      For 333 sites in Region S, participants provided data
    oe die extent of available habitat at sites where Cer-
    «!eaa Warblers occurred. AJtiiough a quantitative analy-
    sis of forest patch size is not possible wifti these data,
    we believe that tbey provide a reasonable sample of the
    range of tract sizes used in the region. Roughly 19% of
    occupied sites were described as 1,000 acres or greater
    in extent, sceouafing for 40% of all birds found (Figure
    6). This is a mueh lower proportion than in the other
    two regions. In contrast, 57% of occupied sites were
    described as  S 1GQ acres, supporting 29% of the
    Ceraidans foatid to this region. Whether these data in-
    dicate a lower threshold of ar*a sensitivity by Cerulean
    Warfclers in theHortfaessi, compared with other regions,
    or whether the nmge  of available habitats searched was
    different, is unclear.
                                                                                                                        Figure & Numbers ofaccHpted sit&s and forwt tract
                                                                                                                        stusfa- tuts in USfWS Suflon S. Nttabtn o/(«rfwrf-
                                                                                                                        mil Cemlmn WarMers recorded in tmefj traet-tlxe class
                                                                                                                        aw n&ted above the bar*.
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                   A-756
                       Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                       State Summaries
    Alabama
      Our current duta for Alabama (Map S) comes ftom
    Enc Soebrea (e-mail eommuaicadon, Oet 2000), who
    rsfsortcd birds from two sites in fcBaakheadKatloiml
    Forest OLswmteeasd WlasEou wiratics). Five birds wees
                                                                   observed Is the Sipssy Wilderness sad 2 were soted.
                                                                   akrag Flaaaagla Creek. Ifc& total potation tar AJs aica
                                                                   Is tii&sg&t to possibly be much. larger, and more sys*
                                                                   tsmatlc surveys at® i
                                                                                                                                                              A&^ & Ccrulcm Wsrblerp&pttl&ii&m in Arkansas. P&fygdw r&ptwent clusters of
                                                                                                                                                              sli^ where cer^lt^m werefou^ift close gse^f^pkic proximity. These do not n&e~
                                                                                                                                                              esmrify match spe&lfic areas listed in tk6 corrwp&ndtng state table.
                                Map 5. Cerulean Warbler p&ptile&ions in Alabama. Polygons represent clusters of
                                siles 'where cerut&eifis w&r& found In dose geographic pr&ximity.
                                                                                                                                                    Of tos 46 sites with Ceraileans, 35 (76%) w«sm etas-     Among the 33 sites that recorded tnws species, ap-
                                                                                                                                                  sified as upland and 12 (25%) wests bottomland (Figure   land sites were dominated by oaks (m&slty red nfe) and
                                                                                                                                                  7). Upfead ttott seeostated for H 3 (79%) Cerulean ob-   hickories, whereas bottomland sites reported sweetgum,
                                                                                                                                                  semtions, wfeersas 30 (21%) bittfs wen; observed in   maples, and sycamore (Figure 8).
                                                                                                                                                  bottomland habitats.
                                                                                                                                                               at
                                                                                                                                                                                                            0! H» t e
                   Arkansas
                     There Is iittle published inSMJistioa oat
                   absence or raladve abtaidaace of Cerolean
                   Arkansas; however, Hamel (2000) <^es cite a few ref-
                   erences suggesting tbat the spades Is common in the
                   Oaachita NatkBial Forest and -«wfeaH Ozarks. Has pri-
                   jsary ai« saas^ed fey CEWAJ? partisi|mote was Use
                   Ozarfc National Forest in the northwestern part of file
                   state (Map 6). It is likely that addMoas! populations exist
                   m the Qimchita Katioaal Forest aed naaearclied areas
                   of the Mi^issippi Delta regiofi.
                                                     CBWAP paztieipaitts observed 145 birds at 46 (%%)
                                                   of 48 sites visited ia Aafcaas&s. Of these, 121 (83%)
                                                   were acted la &e C^rk Naftoaal Forest and 14 (10$4)
                                                   were detected mt)esliaaQdl>miriecooiities of ibe Mis-
                                                   sissippi Delia ne^oa (Table 4). No birds were discov-
                                                   ered at two separate sites along the Ouactnia River (sear
                                                   CalliorO and the Saline Itivcr (near Risen). Data from
                                                   fet OtailcHatioQal Foasst consisted of individaai Cenikan
                                                                  piste Ms sampling was for the species in this regioft.
                   Tabte 4» lvnp&nxa& smct$i/i&' brs&sSng Cerub&s&t W&rbfars in
                   ofMrds
                                                               County ($)
                                                                             Habitat (s)
                     121   Ozark NffiEitmsa Foi^sst
                      34   Missa
                                                              Upland, bottomland
                                                              B
    -------
                 Connecticut
                 Orul&kn Warbleis &6ra 6 ^H of fiK atlas blocks (Bevier
                 1994) CSWAPc»wra^mComisctJCBt'wmspitehy,|mt
                 distributed in several regloss C^niteguswcfs observed
                 IB all regions searched, except the extreme southwest
                 comer near fee towas of Redeteg a&dWesfm (Map ?)
                   CEWA1* parttetisaiMS counted 34 buds at 13 <6S%)
                 of 20 sites; visited at Connecticut Of the 34 individuals,
                 10 (29$&) were noted in Hatehattg State Forest m
                 Wisd&am County Other import®! aieas lor Cenii&ms
                 included habitat along the Hoasatomc River ia JUtcfaSeM
                 County and the Session Woods WiJ dliie Maaagemmt
                 Area in Hartford Coaaty (l&ble 5)  AddiiiaM! smgle
                 birds wcae found aJ Kaha Preserve near Mew Mttford,
                 Ncbmhc State Forest  near Lyme, Bend of £be River
                 r SoiAbury, tod (te Yale Forest in
           County Araoag the areas seiircfeed that did
    sol hftve Oetuleans were Devil's Dea Preserve and
    Lam^alfi Nataral asea ai F^tfid4 C^saKy
            sud olfeer feottomland sites accoutred for
                                                                                                                              CT Habitats (N^14)
                                                                                                               CTTree Species (N=14)
    were soted kt ii|jiaad Sirest Isafeiate (Figuce 9}
      Oaks md staples were the most coaauoaly reported
    tree species at oosapiad sites, heweviKc, bkcfe, Mckoty,
    sycamme.acd eastern heaalockwerc also imported (Fig-
    afti 10) Tfes Hatehaag Stole forest is & 12,500 aere site
    dommaad by red oak, white oak; Hack dak aud hickory,
    wksraas sites akmg the Hoasatorae Kiver bad sycamores,
    red md silver espies, wMte oaks, aad asfa.
                                . Cavlta Warbhrpofwlaaom m Connecticut Pafygow npnsent dusters
                            o/si'l« when artileam warn found in ufow gasfrnpfce proximity Thex da not
                            nscessonfy fftateti specific areas fotad tti the corresponding state table
                     J. Important anas for tmdlngCmilaai SVarUm fa ConmeHcut
    Number
    of birds Site foaaloa
    10 Nstotaug Sate Forest
    6 Hotisatoaie lUver-* Kmt, Bail's Bsidge
    5 S«Jan Woods WMA
    3 Pleasant Wlfty Nateim i*reserve
    3 Human Park, Lyme
    2 Still Kiver ft eser^e
    Caunfy(s) SaUtatd)
    WiixJliaiB Tjfe® ffiMgla, *ky slops
    LteifieM WpaAa
    Hsrt&td Ri|Kiian
    Mi«««t 77
    Middlesex 77
    LitehSeld Ri^tiafi
    Elmaian (fl)
    ; 77
    370
    750
    7?
    77
    250
          Ill         ll....
           PSpflfian      UpSsnd    Swamp fbrost         ^   ^j>>   je>    A   j&    f&-
    Figure 9. Ha<at classifications & sites with Ctind&an           ^        ^  ^   ^f
    Warbiers in Connecticut, Numbers of individual Cer-
    ulean WairMers meorded in stssk habitat type are »oted  Figure l& Pmthmttteitit tree species rwp&rteslat ocea-
    above the bars. "JV" egustis mmber&fe&cupieei sites  pied sites i» Canmcti&tit.  "N" equals number a/sit&s
    with habitat data reported by CBWAP partieip&nis.    wtth treti gpeei&f reported by CEWAP p&rticipante.
                                                                                                                    Delaware
                                                                                                                      Ilamcl (2000) reported that "Prelim i,-ury result
                                                                                                                    the Delaware Breeding Bird Atlas iiwicatc Ihe binJs were
                                                                                                                    fdtmdiatwoblCKjks in tfesBortl»empait*f the state (Lisa
                                                                                                                    Ckilvln-Iiinftvaer, pers. comro., 18 ^»pt !996),H
                                                                                                                      CEWAP partScipautB counted 10 CsrtiieAn WsAlers
                                                                                                                    at 7 sites In the northern Detawace county of New
                                                                                                       (Map 8). AU these birds were along White Clay Creek
                                                                                                       in rfpaiiaa and adjacent upland forest. The forest was
                                                                                                       dominated fey sycamore, awples, tulip tree, and walnut.
                                                                                                       This srea is adjacent to a site with two additional birds
                                                                                                       «t (tie Whitt: Oay Crcde Pteserve in Chester County,
                                                                                                       PA.
                                                                                                                                   Cerulean fRiffr/cr populations irt Delaware, foiygems repr
                                                                                                                              sites whers centlems
                                                                                                                                                                          ent clusters of
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                               A-758
                                                         Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                    Georgia
                      CSm* surveys yielded 22 birds at 14 (87%) 0f 16
                    sites visited (Map 9) Nearly all the bads were 03 ifee
                               e National Forest in Omoa County, be*
    tweea 2,646 and 3,400 ft, elevation, either en dry slopes
    or in cow finest Specific sites oa the jaataofial forest
    mduded Wakat Kiiob, Poplar Knob, Ragtag Knob,
    Stseedly Houston, and Rockfeea Le&d.
                                Ma/f & Cerulean Warbhrpopuiati&fis In Geargfa Polpg&as i^resmt dusters of
                                sites where csruleans werejfoanei in close g
                    Illinois
                      Out knowledge of Cerulean Warblers in. Illinois
                    ceases primarily from Scott Robinson asd Qlesdy
                   wfao complete^ statewide surveys for t&is species be-
                   em for sharing their unpublished data, which siake up
                   the btilk of ow account, below, A few additienal ob*
                                       8 sites dadsg ^e CBWAP, bia
                                             n IBted$ in li^bt ^TSie
                   recently »m|slet^i surveys O^ap 10).
                      B-obiasoi! and Vauderah completed 2,587 censtss
                   poiiits and 253 ceasusfotitos, Sfiifipliag 11? forest tracts
                   sut^jwitk. Tfaoy satimated OKmiean Watbf er abtiatesce
                   in 21 regioas of the state and Mteapolated to produce a
                   rang6 of population ^sttostes for each sfea. The tesults
                   of this ambitions survey yielded a statewide population
                   of betweea 1 ,000 and 3,000 staging male Ceralean
                   Waifel^s. Mo^ Ihsai 75% of these weie coatxsirtiafesd is
                   four areas io Ae soathwest portion of the sta^— •
                   Kaskaskja River Valley, Pern iMtoquetle State Park sad
    Big Sivms aldi^ the Mississippi Biver, Cave/Cedar
    Crtick, and the Illinois O-iaiks(lV,b!e 6). Stnailer pop il-
    lations occur fetber aortii along the Mississippi Elver
    and isfamg a l&w o^er riv^- S^S^ES. The Mgfeast $8Br
    sfag of siugiug mbM (0.66 per ^)-m point cmint) was
    fotsada* ttse Cav»Cedar Creek sites.
      Habitat sdee&oa varied aorQ$s Hie state, with the
    majorf^'' of birds occipyisg tall, diwrae floodplaia for-
    ests Of wMts-oalc domlaated slopes. Aa interesting situ-
    ation fseeaesd locally Is black loctist gK«ms wiiimj
    iarger ferest Eiaels. At Pern MarqBette State Paife, Cer-
    ulean Warbler tecrite*es la bliM^: locust raaged fien 2
    <1996, 1997) to 13 (t$9S), ppesimiably a response to
    local outbreaks of l^dopt^aa larvae on &&& we spe-
    cics. Similarly, at Mississippi Pali.s,'ine^ Sta',^ Pai'k. gtnth
    b*a-of te^
    -------
                 Roughly half of 48 tacts & 500 ac (200 ha) wore occu-
                 pied, whereas only 2 of 42 tracts < 80 ha (200 ae) had
                 bifds. Rates of cest parasitism by Bmwa-feeaded Cow-
                 birds were relatively Hgfa; e,g, 75% in Illinois Qzatfcs
                 asd 80% at Mississippi Palisades State Park.
                   Robissoa and Vandsrali point out that Illinois is near
                 the cotter of the Cerulean Warbler's Wsiorfe range and
                 that the species was abundant these during the 1800s.
                 Today fee species is "w®, patchy, sad extremely area
                 sensitive;.* Th&y were found to be absent or very jas* ia
                 (I) drier forests oa poor or sanely soils; (2) pure tree
                 plantation (pines, sweetguaa, tulip-ttee); (3) younger
                 or heavily logged forests; (4) urban woodiots; aad (5)
                 forest patches < 200 ha (500 ac) that are seattewsd
                 through the agricultural landscape.
                                                                It Forest Tract Size
                                > 1,QOosc
           Percent -pe accounted for 247
                                                                 (72%) of Cerulean observations figure 12), Roughly
                                                                 97 birds were found k various bonomliind and kke-
                                                                 Baargia habitats m Isdisaa, and an additional 34 indi-
                                                                 viduals wert found in dry txptend &ff£$ts.
                                                         refepottodftomthe!atgest '
                                       tnmsber of occupied sites {Figiat 13)» however, the site
                                       with the largest population f Jt-fTerEon Proving Ground)
                                       WBS dominated by white oak and talip tree. Bottomiemd
                                       site* consisted piteaiily of syoamm-e sad maples, with
                                       black walnut and elms also frequently reported.
                                                                 Tahlf 7. Imjtertent areas for breeding Cerulean Warbhrslnlr.dicma
                                                                          Slle loonier.
                                                                                                                               Elevation (fl)
    202  leS&fgoB Fraying Grouad
    JeSersm, Ripley, Mosic upland iorcst
                                                                      900
    22
    17
    10
    10
    9
    9
    7
    7
    6
    5
    5
    BTOWII County State Psrk
    MnscntarruckNWR
    Indiana Danes National ILakeshore
    Turkey Creek Bottom
    Gross Road
    Pstoto River
    tittle Bta» River
    Tank Spring Bonom
    Getdsbwry Hollow
    Camp Huberts Cove
    RogctsRoad
    BK,™
    Jsckson, Jenr
    Pottet
    Martin
    MOMOC
    Pike
    Monroe
    Martin
    Martin
    Brown
    Monro*
    sipsHun
    dd|s S«»a^* forest, meslc slope
    SWEmp forest, ri]>«risn
    Bo&omlaud
    Mcsi c and (by upland
    Riparian
    Ripwi;i]
    Bottorftkud
    Battomted
    BcXtomland
    Moist Cov* &mt
    S50-750
    550
    «00-6SO
    520
    550-720
    420
    400
    510-530
    4*0-510
    710-850
    660-770
                                                                                                                             m Hsbitats (N=3*)
                                                                                                                                                                IN Tree Species (N=30)
                                                                      !••*        mm..
                                                                   /s/JS         '/'//'"
                                                                 Figure 13. Kktbtiatelao^eaiataaitltt^ wltii Cinhait  Flgm 13. Pnthmlmnt tnt tpectft mporterf at ocai-
                                                                 WarMen In l»Ham. matters «/jKfcfcta? Centteat  tMsUesIn InAma. "N" egvali manlier of sites with
                                                                 m^rirKaMiltaKliluUlattftiemitctmlalme  me teenies m/torted tyCEWAPpttrttctpmts.
                                                                 the bars. 'W equals number af occupied sites with
                                                                 htibitafdola reported by CBWAPpartlcfemts.
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                               A-760
                                                       Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                    44 (6%) atlas bbeks in 28 couotics. However these     CBWAP|Wtid|Mmistalfled22cenj!eaffiBat9sia!Sin
                    observations occurred mainly ia pnotity bloeles that had  6 comities (Map 12). The .most important sites were !o-
                    been selected because they contained teg® amounts of  eated aioag tfee Mississippi Riven1 ia AUamakee and
                    forest  Most reports were from extssme eas^ni Iowa  Cfeytaa cotuMieg, where 11 birds were observed
                                Map 12. Cerulean ffiorbt&r populations tit faywa. Potygotis wtpreseHt clusters of
                                sites where cemleans wet&found tn clos& geographic ptwctmtty
                    Kansas
                      CEWAP partici$!ajits doctmasoted 1 Genileaa at Uss
                    Western Bead Bottomlands oa the Fort LeaveaweiHi
                    MiUtaty R^erwticffi. T^e bird WES in ripariaa fiaast
                    domiaated by sy^ui^res, cottenwood, md ash. This was
                    the only site $jm?yed by GKWAP. O^s p&paIatiQ»
                    may exist in the eastern part of fee §tste (TbmM^Mi and
                    Ely 1992).
                                                                                                                                                             Map 13. Cerutetm Warbler populations In Kmtucky, Polygons t&pmssnt clustery of
                                                                                                                                                             sites w&ere eera/eow WWB jbmd in ct&se geographic pmximtty.
                            Kentucky
                              The Kentneky Breedmg Bird Atlas (Palmer-Bali
                            1996} reports Ccsuleftu Waty^rs ftom 16% of priority
                            atlas blocks statewide. Thsy were "Siirly widespread
                            in the Cumberland Plstoau ami Mountains regiocs asd
                            "v«y locdly distHhit&f* owssr mpsh effee BnMhite of
                            the state. Hame! (2000) notes that fee current status in KJ&a-
                            tucky Is very different  from older occoanJs which state
                            tbatthis ^pecies was much more common atKi widespread.
                              This state received limited coverage from CSWA?
                            pail3dj3Mts.Mmtofoiir reports c^iM from two sotiRsest
                            a point-comfit daiAset SOSE £Ete Danle! Soone National
                            Forest in eastern Kentucky (t-iada Pesiy), sad some sd-
                            ditioaal surveys condoled through die K Y Dcpsrtmcur
                            of Fisli and Wtldllis Resources (Steve Thomas), Coa-
                            seepsntly, ow attts leaves large paps, espedaKy in the
                            Cumbedand ?lateati region.
                              Data from Daniel Boone National Fores! reveals a
                            minimum of 71 binds from 96 point counts, fdmariiy in
    the Pioneer Weapons ares, Wolf knofe, Somerset and
    London Bores districts. We have ao haWtat data sssoci-
    ated with lh«se points. Other satwys reported an addi-
    ttons! 6? O^ileftm from 20 site, mostly state owned
    psiks ««i management »PK^. The most bifds foam! were
    1 5 at Beech Ctoek WMA (O«y Omn^X ? *** *&& «
    Kcntenia State FtweM CHar!^ Osmty) aad Fleming
    WMA (Fleming County), and 6 Cenilesns at Sloughs
    WMA (Union and Henderson Counties) (M«p 13).
      Of fee latter 20 sitiss, 10 were <£y s!op^ or ridges,
    BCarjuting for 33 i r,di\-i duals. 3 sites were in moist cove
    forest with & feiitis, and 1 sites were ia bottomland areas
    including swainp tcrcst and lake margins, acco-onting
    for 28 Cerulesns, White oak, shaglwrtc hickory, tulip
    flsje, «ftd maples were the most frKpsaSy repoitc.-! trees
                                                                                                                                                                                                   elms we^e most frequent at bottomlaad sites.
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-761
                      Section A  - Organizations
    

    -------
                                     CEVJAP Populations in Massachusetts, 1997-2000
                Map 14* Centleem
                ters of Mies where c&ndeom «
                not tteG&ts?artfy m&t£h speelfle
    
    Massachusetts
      VWt aad PeteftSQfi (1993) estimated t&e tot&l Msssa-
    cfeusetis poptilatloa of bleeding Cffirulean Warbleis to
                                                                           &lyg&ns representclus-
                                                             m close geographic prdvimity These do
                  CE WAl'parlicipanli ciocumenfed IS Cemleaus at 10
               of 11 site visted across the state, wife sevmal sltss SB-
               porting 2 to 5 siagtog males pcesmt (Tabk 8). Areas
               with Cemleaas laolade sevemi ia th& CoaseeticutElver
               drainage in Framldiii Coaaty, two sites aiong Qoatalsia
               Reservoir, a&t} sarpmiagiy, two sites In eastern Massa~
    chusem in I^EQsafli cotm^ (M^» 14). AJbout half of
    £b& birds found wcrfi ia ripariaji or bottomisnd foiest,
    an4 half ia diy i^jlaads.
      Dominant tree ^>pa;i=s2t occupied sites include c,iks
    (tecl tsisk, wfeite oak, fio«fcem red oak) aad Mekoiies In
    es^s wl^t co&mwood, wilbw, mapkra, oaks, birches,
    feeraloek, and white paao.
    3Wt»._tmix>Maa anon far bridling Ctnlem mrtlm In MsswtaM*
    Number
    4
    3
    3
    2
    2
    2
    1
    . 1
    Qusbbia Reservoir
    (West slope and Whitney Hill)
    Little Wachusetts Mountain
    PooU) Seat — OreenBeld
    StiDwaJef — Dcerffiefci •
    Middleboro
    KnigfctvilleDani
    Danbar Valley, Monroe State Forest,
    Rows
    ErwtaS. Wilder WMA
    County (s)
    WhiceMer
    Wtfaates
    Franklin
    Mjmoalh
    FranWi.-l
    77
    Habitat (s)
    Dry slope
    Brpanan
    Swamp forest
    Mesic forest
    Riparian
    D«y slope
    Elmationff!)
    750-800
    300
    175
    JO
    610-787
    1500
    77
    23
                                                                                            Mop /5. Cerulean Warblef poptttatiow m Mwyt&nd Polygons represent clusters
                                                                                            of sites nkere centteans werefottnd its clom geographic proxtmlty
    Maryland
      Robbtos and Btora (19%) report Cemloui Wari»ter»
    it 165 out of 1,25« possible Breeding Bird Atlas Mocks.
    The species was most conubon and vfidesQiead in die
    BM70W rklge ejid valley of western Maryland, IncEue^
    ir.sCatoctmMomtainttca, and locally distributed along
    livens flowing dowa Itirmigli th€ Fiedmoijt
      CEWAP rarseys yieided oaly  1« Oirateims on 9
    (82%)of 1] »tosumyeiNine(56%)ofll» 16otar-
    vations came from Howard Cour.ty in the cental pot
    of the stale (along Patvacnt snd Paapsco Rivera) ami
    &mr observ&tfoss ctime &mn the Big and Littie Pataxeat
    Bivers in Anne Axonde! gad Pfince Oso^ges collates
                                                                                                                                                                             (Map 15). Two x.dividuals were noted a! CatoctinMoui!
                                                                                                                                                                             tain Fade Is FFedenck Cotraty, ^d an anomalous bird
                                                                                                                                                                             wss at Oraenwell State Fafk Mar tlie mouth of the
                                                                                                                                                                             Patuxeat lUv?r in St, Msry's Cmrnty, Tbs lack of sur-
                                                                                                                                                                             veys conducted IB Hie ii%e aad valley of western Msry-
                                                                                                                                                                             laad, where &is species Is undotibtedly cpite common,
                                                                                                                                                                             represents due af the largest gaps in tJas mng^wide at-
                                                                                                                                                                             las.
                                                                                                                                                                               All but the Cjtoctin birds  were In riparian forests
                                                                                                                                                                             doinkated by s^c^more, tulip ^ee, and silver maple.
                                                                                                                                                                             The upland birds were in sugar map'."-bass\»ood forest.
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                               A-782
                                                                         Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                          Ml Habitats (N»17S)
                                                                                                                                           MI Tree Species (N»12t)
                                     C&nttean "fi(arh}er populations m bficktgan. Polygons r&present chatters
                              of sites wfeem entmlt!&»s wepejfottKd In dose geographic proxwity  These do not
                              necessarily stoatck specific eifmst listed fit the eowespowling state table
                 Michigan
                   The Alhs ofBmdtng Birds of Michigan (Brewer, et
                 «L l$9i)r^rtsCeraieaa Wallers torn 155 (12%) of
                 1,8% townships., with 141 (92%) of these ohsen'aricros
                 cosaiag fi-ora the southern Lower Beatasala.
                   CEW&P surveys yielded a total 507 fcftnb al 176
                 (96%) of 183 §li&s (Map 16). Two sisss  fa Alkg&an
                 Coanty, the AHegfaaa State dame Area and itatesasoo
                 River, aceoiMted &r 177 (35%) of the 307 blsls ob-
                 served (Table 9). Offier fejsportaat SIBSS tedaded Fe*t
                 Ouster IB ICalamazoo and Cstboxtn comities, and die
                        Important amasf&r breeding Csnilsm Warblers la Michigan,
    Watoloo Recrasiion Area in Wastfleaaw aud Jackson
    ecsaties.
      Sites coateiBiag djy apiacd fMestaneJ ripariao/swaiBf)
    forest accounted for 185 (36%) and 150 (30%) cerulean
    observations, respststi^ly. These two kabitat types were
    pnaeiit at 149 05%) of 175 sites where hahimt cosdi-
    ^ki^ were reported (Figure 14).
      Of 119 sties where  tree species were reported, 99
    (78%) contained oaks and 51 09%) contained maptes.
                 of birds    Site location
                                                                            HitbHal(s)
                                                                                                 Elevation (fl)
    ffl Alkghan State Game Arcs
    and Kalamazoo River
    1 00 ^ort Caster and vicinity
    44 ^teriooRecrMtKmAreii
    24 Wlrfte River
    21 St Jwej* Rivw
    10 Peny Trust
    10 Flat River Sta» dam Area
    Meghan
    
    Kalamazco, Calhoun
    Washtcaaw, Jackson
    Muskeegan, Oceana
    Branch, St Joseph
    Baay
    M^itcalm
    KiparfaE, swan^> fisres
    m«ic forest
    Dry uplaaii forest
    Dry upland IcKost
    K^arian
    Riparian
    Mosic Forest
    Dry iip^ad ibfest
    t, 600-700
    
    820-1010
    984-10SO
    600
    853-886
    951
    820
                                                                                                                                                      Dry u^M^d      RipariaiV
                                                                                                                                                        fof «si      swamp forest      torsst
    
                                                                                                                                              Figure 14. HabilatcUusificaticns at slim with Cemlem
                                                                                                                                              foirblers in Michigm. Numbers of individual Cviilean
                                                                                                                                              ffiarbJers recorded in each habitat type (m fmftMta&ave  Figure /I f^demimnt tr®e jpuAcr repantaet af oceu~
                                                                                                                                              the bars. *W" nq&als number of occupied sites with  pietfsttes tn Michigan. "N"'equate number &fsties with
                                                                                                                                              habitat data rsp&rted by CSWAP parftetpemts.         tr&? spetO®! nsptyrt&d by CEWAP participants.
                                                                                                                                              lies, America basswood, eastern hemlock, black cherry,
                                                                                                                                              arid black locust (Flgwre 15). For tie 117 silas is^era
                                                                                                                                              tree species tea were r«poned, tfce most Srecpieatly ob-
                                                                                                                                served sisecies ineladcd oaks (blsck oak, red oak, aad
                                                                                                                                swamp white oak), maples (silver maple, sugar maple
                                                                                                                                and red maple) and willow species.
    Minnesota
      Citing A personal coiJimBnieaioii torn Steve Stacker
    sod Richard Baker of the Minnesota Comity Biological
    Survey, Harael (2000) reports th&t "Simse 1988, the
    Minnesota County Biological Swvey has satveyed 32
    counties within the range o£ the Om^ean Warblet As a
    result of this eHbrt, singing ffiales were observed at 103
    'locations' (or elei&sat occufreaces) whieb. cm be
    grouped into 42 'local poptilatioas.' These oomist of 8
    Iocs! populations in ffoodplais forest and 34 local popu-
    latiom in upland forest Sewn of to S largest tod popu-
    lations were in upland forest."
      CEWA? participants diaoovamd 103 Ceruksfi War-
    blers at 57 sites in soath-eeatral Mloaesota (Map 17).
    At least OM individual cerulean was noted at each of
    the 57 sites surveyed (Table 10). Sites with gr«2tar tet
    10 Cenil^m Wi^jlcrs IncIiKled Msrj%-Ham«han Re-
    serve and County Park in Scott County, Dike Mana Sta&i
    Park in Wnght Comity, and Siar.ley Eddy Coui)t>' Park
    In Wright Couaty, Besides the cluster of skes m sorth-
    era Wright County, a majority of birds wens fouad near
                                                                                                                                              IMIr jf0. /mjHsmmtjjffwas/or btmt&rtg Csruteem Wtxrbters IB Mirwm&ta,
    Number
    of birds Sittlacmton Coanly (*)
    20
    
    16
    11
    9
    9
    7
    S
    S
    5
    Murphy-HMrehun Park
    Reserve and County Park
    I Ae Maria State Park
    Stanley Eddy County Park
    Beaver Creek VMfay State Park
    Seven Mile Creek County Park
    Kdly Late, MN Valley Recreation Ares
    St. Johns Woo*
    SuconnixWMA
    Hagy tesoftgoimty Pak
    Scon
    
    WH^tt
    WrifM
    Houston
    Nicollel
    Carver, Scott
    Stearns
    Wriilit
    Wright
    HaMteKs) Elevation (fl)_
    Riparian, mesio dope
    
    Riparim, dry slope
    Dry slope
    Riparian, megic siope
    R^jariaii, dry slope
    Rip&rian
    Kip^iaa, dry slope
    Riparian
    Riparian
    1000
    
    77
    «
    752
    7?
    ??
    7?
    77
    ??
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                               A-763
                                                                            Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                 the Minnesota River as Scott, Carvei, sod Nicollet
                 Counties Am outfymg popalatKm was at Beaver Greek
                 Valley State PaitaitbesoKtheastctHnM-Qftia: stale At
                 this point, we do eat know how these srtes compare
                 with the Minnesota Biological Survey datable
                    Of 39 sites reporting habitat conditloas, 20 (51%)
                 wet« clarified <*s riparian, while 17 (44%) wes® at dry
                 slope conditions Of the 79 birds observed at these 39
    sites, 41 (51%) were soak! ai riparian and 23 wera la
    dry slspe feabiiats (Ptgore l£)
      Gaks» maples, aad American basswood were the most
    coirnnosly repotted tree species m Minnesota (Figure
    17) Attiptadsiies,red0ak,b«roak, sugar maple, and
    basswood were most frequently report, whereas at
    riparian sites cotloawood, silver maple, i$d oak, mht
    and elm were domisaat species
                              Mop 77. Cerule&n WarbJ&rp&pttl&ttow in Mmmsota. Potyg&w represent clusters
                              of sites where csntleom toerejmtttel a* cfase geographic proximity  These do not
                              necessarily match specific areas Itst&d In the corresponding state table.
                              MN Habitats (N=39)
                                                                             RSNTraa Snectfts fN=381
                 /^a/% M Habitat chisslfication.-; etlsifes with Cernlxm
                 Warblers tit Mtnrm&la. Numbt'rs of individual Cei-dean
                 Warbhrs recordsc! in &aeh ksMi&t type are noimtabove  Figure 17, Pred&miwmt tree Jspx^itts r&partmf atocca-
                 the bars.  "N" equals mtmb&r afacatpieel sties with  pled sites fa Min»e$&ta. "N"equalsmmber&j'siteswith
                 hgMtea data reported'b?CEWAPpartieip£ittt$,          ftw* species rsport&i by CKWAPportidpmts.
    Missouri
      The Missouri Bmtding BirdAttas (lacobs and Wii-
    son J 997) reported Caruteaa Wetrfelers fmm 8! (7%) of
    1,207 atlas blocks statewide. Hamcl (2(XKJ) states:"Some
    Missouri occumaicea in uplands, but the major num-
    bers are associated with np&rian corridors and other ar-
    eas near rivers, particularly the Current, Jack's FoHc,
    and Eleven Point rivets in the Ozarks in southeastern
    Missouri." CEWAP coverage in Missouri was confined
    to the southeastern portion of the state within these sev-
    eral majtjr riparian areas. Note the lack of surveys Urom
    fee OsHtrks  of southwestern Missouri; given the krga
    number of birds found in northwestern Arkansas, we
    expeei that sbmhrty large populations may exist in that
    part of Missouri as welt,
      Almost all of th£ southern l«tlf of Missouri was origi-
    nally, and k again today, blanketed by oak-hickdry and
    oak-pine forests-  Is  1998  Jane Fitzgerald hired Tim
    KJppdHbergar and Tom Hali to survey several rivets in
    this Ozsrk region. Tim and Tom's canoe surveys of the
    Black River, Coariois Greek, Eleven Point River, and
    Huzzah River revealed densities of over 4.5 singing
    Kales per rivet naiie. Mark Rabbins {an ornithologist
    from tile University of Kansas) who worked in conjunc-
    tion with Tim andTom discovered densitiescf 3.5 sing-
    ing males per river mile when floating the Upper Cur-
    rent River. However, thsre were still distinct stretches
    of riv«r where warblers were not present.
      Stretches of the Bteven Point River were digitized in
    the rnii of 1999 and entered into 2 CIS da&base at the
    Missouri Department of Conservation. Information on
    warbler distributions were then superimposed upon a
    map of !and cover (i.e. the amount and distribution of
    cover types such as forest, pasture, urban areas, etc,}
    within a 7-ntile distance oa either side of the area of
    river in question (Map 18).
       We were toM that the maps would be updated some-
    time in 2000. An analysis will be run 03 determine the
    significance of relationships among landscape variables
    (e.g. percent of forest in the landscape, patterns of for-
    est fragmentation, etc.) and warbler distributions  Re-
    sults of the analyses will help us to better understand
    what geographic scats we need  to consider as we at-
    tempt to eonserve this high priority species In MO
       CEWAP participants in Missouri taUied 301 ceruleans
    at 31 (97%) of 32 sites surveyed (Map 19). The two
    most important areas were the Eleven Point River with
    137 (45%) birds and the Upper Current River with 114
    (38%) birds (Table 11).
       Twenty-three (74%) of the  31 sites with Ceruleans
    were classified m riparian. Not surprisingly, these ri-
    parian sites accounted for 286  (95%) of the tota! nurn*
    ber of observations (Figure 18).
       Commonly reported tree species at  occupied sites
    included sycamore, oaks, and  maples. Other trees re-
    potted tiifi!uded American walnut, ptafts, birches, Ameri-
    can elm, and wiiiows (Figure 19). Mature sycamore
    forest is clearly the most importsist habitat for Cerulean
    W&fhieis along river systems in Missouri,
                                                                                                   Map US, The distribution ttfsfaglng mala Centfaetn Warblers along the 83&v&n
                                                                                                   Point JZtver, otalimag ike I-kilometer zom where temdG&ver is being mapped.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                  A-764
                                                                              Section A  - Organizations
    

    -------
                                 .Map jf& Cemlean WarblepoptUafoam m Msso&ri Polygons f^prmmt dusters &f
                                 sitss wferra c&rul&etns werefduttd In close gsagraphtt: proximity These do not nec-
                                 essarily match specific areas listed m ihs cormsp&xdmg state t&ble
                                     are&s/br bfs&dmg Cemleem WetrMers in
    Number
    of birds Sltel&eatlon
    1 37 Eleves Point River
    1 14 Upper Carmtit RJw
    34 CmtQiB Creek
    12 Black River
    County ($) Habitat ($)
    Oregon Sipanaa
    ?? Riparian
    Crawford Eiparitn
    Reyoolds Riparian
    Kievatifm (ft)
    40S-670
    n
    640-^0
    570
                                 mO Habitats (N=31)
                                  266
                                                                               MO Tree Species (N=29)
                                 M3-sic ccwfl fo.-est
         » /*£ Habitat dm$$satt£>m at sites with Cerulean
           r iw fafissmtri. Numbers Qfirtiiiv&foal Centtsan
    Warbtsrs r&cx»rd&d in each habitat type ana noted above   figttre 19, Predominant tree igieetes mported at occu»
    the bars. "N" equals number ofoccupied sites with  pieetstt&s in ASssowi. "N" equals number of sites wttk
    habitat dais reported by CEWAP parttctpaiits.          tr&e species reported by CEWAP participants.
                                                                                                                                                      Nebraska
                                                                                                                                                         Oaw/Ur psfftjcipstils stirvsyod Isstc s£ tss
                                                                                                                                                      Forest in Ssrpy County, where they noted I
                                                                                                                                                                                       Warbler. Tbis site was m a npaiiwi foiest along the Mis-
                                                                                                                                                      Now Jersey
                                                                                                                                                         1& New Jersey, tbe majority of our data came from
                                                                                                                                                      Jofea Betudiiger, wh& conducted CEWAP surveys in
                                                                                                                                                      NJ Eadaugra-ed Species aatt Noogaaie Prograra of to
                                                                                                                                                      Division of Fish sod Wildlife, and we gmtcftifly ac-
                                                                                                                                                      knowkfjge Asmoda Bey for sharing resells of these
                                                                                                                                                      csrl i er s:irve ys . Tneir quantitativ e e&scs:mcats do not
                                                                                                                                                      s^ttefly follow CEWAP protocols, bat provide a siisUar
                                                                                                                                                      picture of habitat USB in this regies. Mtich of the foi-
                                                                                                                                      and from Banzlager's reports to tbe state agency,
                                                                                                                                         !a recent years, the Cerulean Warbler is a commas
                                                                                                                                      breeder alo:if> !he Debware Rjver, which Jividec this
                                                                                                                                      State from Peaasylvaaia (Map 20). From the Ocisware
                                                                                                                                      Q^3 north to Port Jervls, NY, fee Cenilean "V&ifeler is
                                                                                                                                      fcmnd along the riparian eomdQr of the Delaware River.
                                                                                                                                      Ths birds tead to me mature deciduous stands of oaks,
                                                                                                                                      tulip poplar and sycamores as their prime habitat Tbe
                                                                                                                                      deasity of Cerulean Warbler along tine tJdaw&re River
                                                                                                                                      is impressive, with singing males found wit&tn severs!
                                                                                                                                      hundi&d feet of each other
      An eEXfisMiofl of tbe Delaware River population has
    colcnizcd The Stokes State Forest, High Point State Park,
    tbe Flutfersoofc-Ray Wildlife Management Area, and the
    Walpack Wildlife ManagetncRt Area, (tenths O:ni!e;m
    Waifelere etrve their territories adjaceat to or in the vi-
    cinity of lakes such as S«wmUl Lake at Higb Point S&te
    Ptrfe and poads created by beaver activity- Despite the
    pcesetice of extensive forests, the Cerulean Warbler has
    a lower density in these highlands than in Hie Delaware
    River corridor.
      The Cerulean Warbler also occurs IB isekted spots
    in forested dry Hdgetops, ofton associated with a forest
    openings, This habitat preference is infrequ^ttly used,
    with aectirreBces usuaUy consisting of 2-3 singing males
    m close proximity of each otter, but mote scattered torn
    each other than habitat used along  riparian corridors
    Site fidelity is tpestionable slace an occapied site may
    be used on* or two years and then go umi&ed in subse-
    quent years.
      la die Highlwads phystspaphic pR)viKffi of N«w |er-
    scy» tfae Cenil««3 Wwblet hss aliiwiys been an uncom-
    mon breeder along small rivers and streams and to &
                                                                                                                                                                   Map 20. Cerulean Warbter populations in Mrw Jersey Polygons mptwtstit clusters
                                                                                                                                                                   of sties where ceruleans were found at elms g&agra$dtit; proximity.  Tfat&e db not
                                                                                                                                                                   mcessarily match specific areas Itsted at the eorr&sponding state table
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                              A-765
                        Sectton A - Organizations
    

    -------
                      lesser extern on dry tidgetotML Small colonies cMM^os&d
                      of 2^ stE^kig males were $je moat eommoa OSCOMH-
                      ier. Some eift® li^e Dufiker Poraa In fiie Newadc WaMtr-
                      shed aiid flw Rocks way Eiver in tie leisey Cily "Water-
                      shed held small colonies Sar years dating die 1980s.
                      Today, the Cenileen Waller is fttt dl^ipeaiing as a
                      breeder id die Highlands despite plenty of extensive
                      forests, with pstea sizes up to 6,000 acres, T&& iaeisased
                      radty residts ia deoarresass limited to sisgl* bia^ at
                      pairs & isolated areas and far from other kt&mn breed-
                      ing sites. The Cerulean Waibier QES the greatest CG&-
                      ceatrafion in lheHifhiaadsoflHaujbtllgM6imt3l»ridgft
                      of Veraoa aad HaidystoH townships. Occurring ia ry si0?8" ^^ mazgia
    Elparian, m^ic slope
    RIpltiiEm, river island
    RipsMn, gR&sic slopfi
    Upland ^fcst
    
    Riparian
    Upland foKSt
    K OptaMl«»s«
    Upland forest
    100-500^
    
    1300-1500
    200-500
    75-100
    200-500
    ??
    
    850
    1300
    900-1000
    1100-1500
    tsass, FurtWmore, several occupied areas aiosg the
    Delaware fepteseiited forest strips withlij grss.4and er
    siiniblnnd habitat* ga^esting thai structure of the forest
    canopy was more important thaa extent of habitat
    patches in (his region. Virtually oU occupied sites were
    iu fores! with canopy height > 15m.
      At present, die vtslmajonty of Ceralean Warblers in
    NJ are on public kinds, both state tnd federally owned.
    Although these areas  are under protection &OGJ
    Jbr Cerulean Warblers do not exist, and important
    habitats (e.g. strips of riparian fosest) are potentially
    vulnerable to recreational development. An important
    exeepticfi is in the Northern Highlands region, where
    most birds occur on private isad In particular, the largest
    reffiatei»g popuktiQii oa Hamburg Mountain is e
    ttirea&med by development (Miranda).
    Figure 20. Habitat classification at sites wth Cerulean
    Warblers iw MJH» Jersey. "IN" tefaafs mtmher ofooctt-
    pfoetsites with tvihitat 4&ta reported by CEWAPpartic-
    ijpemts.
    New York
      TheAifas of Brewing Birds inNew tf,v-A £/.-«*> (Andrb
    and Carrol 1 W8) reported Ccnilear.Warbbrs from 2"(J
    (5%) atlas blocks statewide, The bulk of the distribu-
    tion was reported from the Lake Ontario Main, with
    scattered populations south mto the Finger Lakes, aloag
    the Southern Tier, and in the Hudson Valley and High
    lands. Asdde sad Carrol, as well as Bufi (1974) dketiss
    the separate expansions of Cerulean Wartiers into New
    York torn the Great Lakes to the west, and flrom Hew
    Jersey and Pennsylvania to the south,
      CEWAP participants documented  1,086 Cerulean
    Warblers at 246 (86%) of 286 sites surveyed to New
    York State (Map 21). Several aiesss proved to be iispo?-
    taut; however, %ur stand out because of exception^
    numbers of birds. These include: the Moatezams Na-
    tional Wildlife Rcftjgc in Wayne, Seneca, asd Cayugs
    counties; the Allegheny River-Salamsaca region &
    Cattanmgus County; the Galeti Wildlife Management
    Ares in Wayne Couaty; dftd the Jtoquois National WM-
    iifeRefug^Orchard Oak Wildlife Management Area in
    Geeesee {tad Otleaaa  counties. Combined, these four
    areas account for 626  (58%) of the Cerulean War-
    biers counted in the slate (Table 13). Other important
    areas included several  sites in the Hudson Highlands of
    sotttbeasfetft New York find Salmon Creek mar Otryuga
    Lafca.
      Of 240 sites where habitat data were reported, 184
    (77%)  were classified &$ bottomland/riparian. These
    bottomland/riparian sites accounted i&f 773 (74%) of
    the Cerulean Warbfens observed. Forty-she sites were
    classified as dty sloijes, accoantiog SJT 222 (21%) ec^
    ulea« obser
    
      For 215 sites reporting tree species, the most eom-
    fwaly reported trees included maples, oottonwood, and
    oaks. Other important free species at occupied sites in-
    cluded ash, American bssswood, hickories, American
    beedi, black locust, siitd sycamore (Figure 22). In a
    breakdown  by region of the state, bottomland sites in
    the Moateisima and Iroqeois region were dominated by
    coaonwood, silver and red raapic, sycamore, and green
    ash. Sites in fee Hudson Highlands were primarily white
    oak, American beech, sycamore, and ash, whereas sites
    slorag fee HtKisaa River were predomisautly oottonwood
    and syeanwe. Sites in the Allcgany region were domi-
    nated by white oak, red oak, chestnut oak, sugar maple,
    black cheery, $nd white ask Cerulean habitat along
    Salmon Creek in Tompkras County consisted of s di-
    verse forest with sycamores, cottonwool, sad blaelc lo-
    caat in the §oodplaifi sad red oalc^basswood, and maples
    on the suimnndiag slopes.
      Most of the  Cerulean Wsrblers fes New York occur
    OH publicly owned  lauds, wt& the taargest pcpufetioas
    on National Wildlife Keftiges, State Pstrks, and State
    Wildlife Manageiner.t Areas. An im;x)rl;-uit exception is
    the Salmon Creek popiibtion, which exists entirety on
    private lands. Following initial CEWA? surveys; how-
    ever, the local Finger Lakes Land Trust became inter-
    ested in Ais site and has subsequently acquired several
    sections of prime Cerulean habitat from willing setto
    The National Audubon Society of New York contrib-
    uted to the conservation of this site by designating it an
    Important Bird Area and providiiig support ta the Land
    Trust. Nearly every si» with breedisg Cerulean War-
                                          f»»/Wgffl 34)
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                             A-766
                                                                          Section A  - Organizations
    

    -------
                               Map 21 Cerulean flbrbler populations In New York Polygons represent clusters
                               of sites where ceruleans vmrejfamd m close geographic proximity. These do not
                               necessarily match sp&clfte awas listed in Ihs corrospcm&ng stats table.
                           Wets in KciYort«;j!c has l)«i]<1nilenii.s,t'iUicG«len
                                                                                                                                                                                           WildlifeMiiiiageiiicntArca.RstilcowiKdlrectofsirni-
                                                                                                                                                                                           ls,-habi!«talonetlieaydeRiver,Ar.cwtest
    Rockland
    Riparian, rfiesie slope  .
    Dry slope
    2%%»anaa, swarap forest
    Biy slope, bottomland
    Ripaiian, river island
                                                                                                                                                                                     Livingston
                                                                                                                                                                                     Onnge           7t  *
                                                                                                                                                                                     Orleans           R^jarian, swamp forest
                                                                                                                                                                                     Quandaga, Madison Ripari»ji. swamp forest
           n
    
    1350-2200
    
          SO
    
           r>
    1400-2000
          650
     300-1000
           10
           r?
           t?
          395
          385
                                                                                                                                                          NY Habitats (N=240)
                                                                                                                                                                                                      NY Tree Species (N=215)
                   Map 12. Cerulean Warbler pepttlallem at Montnama tfatloiat WUMIfe Reftige.
                                     rifjartoi
    
                           Pfaare 21. rfa&itta ete&si/faatitft® at sites with Certtfsmi
                           WarbltrsinNmt'YorlNtlmbersofindividual Cerulean
                           Warblersmc&rMl in each habitat type tire noted tfa&ve   Figure 22. Pmdtimfa&nt itve species reported at acctt-
                           the tars, "tt" equtils mmber of ocaipUd sites trill!   plfdnllfs In Mew fork, "ft" equal* mmber afsttes with
                           habitat data reportedliyCSnFparticifaiti,         trm species opened by CBWAP participants.
    
                            34
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-767
                             Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                       Obsemttetss of singing t>W$ at MosSezaatt NWR
                     (N * 235) showed heavy asa of red andsilvez maples
                     (44%), cottotnsoo* (28%), and ah (16%) (Figure 23).
                       Conceitteatianj of Cerulean Warblers were all within
                     contiguous Modes of oalustrine finest dominated by
                     taaples and cottoirwoods (saeisn ia magenta within the
                     acquisition area on Map 4). Thae forests exi«t (Kfaarflty
                     along canals and natural channels of the Clyde asd
                     Seneca rivets and ate often iracwsrible except (9 boat
                     Areas with many Ceruleans often consisted of onususiry
                     large trees, jscladlng emergent cottowoodsaisl swamp
                     white Oil® niching 30 to 40 in ic height. Some of these
                     trees undoubtedly date bade to the period of barge canal
                     constructional fee early iSOOs-AYeragsestimawdheigbt
                     of trees with singing Ceraleans was 28.3 m (N ^ 145
                     trees). Some areas wife Caraleans were in younger
                     forests (especially red maple swamps), but these tended
                     to bo adjacent to stem with taller trees. Additional tracts
                     of seemingly suitable habitat, mott notably in the
                     Carusoe Lake mt, were wmyeA tat tarorf «p few or
                  Tree Species Use
           (Mo.-ltazuma NWR, NY—N=235)
    &/er? &t f/fe Marttemtfia wvtlands coirgtlex, c&n&al NT.
                     North Carolina
                       LeGtsad (1979) todicjaM that eerulesm an "atf
                     and "local suiaraef residents" at lower etevatioas in
                     motmtains a&d aiot^g the EosBOke Biver m the coastal
                     plain.
      CEWAP nmeys yteSded K» biids it 39 (93%) of 42
    srte${M*p23) By te,tfee most important site was aloag
    tbfi Blue Ridge Failcway ta B%at£Qt^be County, where
    60 (55%) Cerateins were noted (Table 14) Additional
                                 ters of sites where centletxns vf&e found in dose geographic praxmuty. These do
                                 not necessarily match sp&xfie amas fated in tfts convsponding state fable.
    bird's were iocs!cdEtoti:er points tlong fa Blue Ridge
    Parkway, m tin Qwcah Rnger District of Nttt»W»k
    NatiooM Forest, and on White Oak and Warrior Mow-
    tatos inPolltOiBiay. (Wy 3 birds weasioettedtoGrMt
    Smoky Mounwins National Pork. Finally, recent sur-
    veys (long the Roenoke River revealed 7 Cerulean
    WsrHors.          *'         '
      Of27 sites rcportrngrahiut data, 13(50%) were clas-
    sifiiid is dry slope, wtriJe 9 (33%) were ia riparian ar-
    ess. Of the 75 Ceratemj ttpuM ftonl (ho* 27 lite',
    53(71%)weteiiidrys!opehabitata,sud 11 birds each
    were in riparian and cove forest babiats (Pigttre 24).
      Upl^id sites tfoog the Blue Bidge were dominated
                                                                                                                              itad taHp tree, whereas dparlaa tbresta <^iere Ceruleans
                                                                                                                              occur along the Eoanoke River were dominated by
                                                                                                                              •yotmore, eottonwood, tnd green ssji (Figure 25).
    Table 14. Im^rtattaiSls far brffdir.gCertileariWarblars in Norsk Carolina -' -
    Naattr t
    jf«**:.: SiteloJilitui-
    m BlneRMgeftKfawjr,
    PisgallNalinnal Forest
    10 Cheoah Ranger District,
    Nantahilah National Forest
    10 White Ottcmd Warrior Mountains
    7 Roanoke River
    4 Flat River Bin®
    3 Blue Ri%e Parkway
    3 Nairahalah Lake, NimtalaM
    National Forett
    3 Great Smoky Mountains '
    National Park
    2 Stecoah Gap, Nantahola NF
    2 Chunlcy Oa! Mountain
    2 DoH^Hon, 0,S. 21
    1 Chimney Reclt Park
    -£SS&£>
    Buaeombe
    
    Oraham
    
    Polk
    Halifax, Northam[iton
    purham
    Ashc
    Macon
    
    Swain, Haywood
    
    Oraham
    Clay
    VOut
    Ruthorford
    Habitat (s)
    Diyslor)*,
    moiil cove forest
    _e^^m__
    S100-3700
    
    Dry slope, rsoiM cove forest ??
    
    n
    Riparian
    Riparian
    Cova forest
    n
    
    VI
    
    Dry Bispe
    ft
    n
    n
    
    2000-2400
    50
    500
    3200
    17
    
    11
    
    31S5
    3400-3800
    57
    n
                                                                                                                                                            NO Habitats (N-27)
                                                                                                                                                                                                        NCTV«B Species (NaZT)
                                                                                                                                                         Drystepe     ftlpwlan   «*jtetcov»tore«
    
                                                                                                                                               Fijurt- 24. Habitat cla&yiattlant at sites »»* Csrvlaa
                                                                                                                                               Warblers in North  Camiina Numbers of individual
     Warblers in Narth Camiina  Numbers of individual
     Cerulean fKirtiltn ncartkd In each habitat type am  Flgiirt is. ftKlimlnant »w jpeote nfrortedot oceu-
     natKl nbmv the bm. "N" *t/ttals mntber ofocotptetl  pied sitai* North Carolina. "tf"tguab number ttf sites
                                              n    wllt tree teciel reorted b CBWAP arttctisatt.
                                                                                 natKl nbmv the bm. "N" *t/ttals mntber ofocotptetl pied sitai* North Carolina. "tf"tguab number tt sit
                                                                                 site* with ImUtut (4itor^»ort(trf*v CeWAFfxmieiponu.  wltlt tree tpeciel reported by CBWAP parttctfisatt.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                         A-768
                                                                     Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                    Ohio
                      Jtenel (2000) rsjxwa the Mowing breeding ted
                    «tb< informattoa for OMo. 'Teterjohn and Rice (1991)
                    relate fee oeCBrreace ami aboadaaee of cerulean war-
                    blers m Ohio to the occurrence and abundance of hard-
                    weed fcress  The birds occurred on 51% of priority
                    Mocks statewide They were vay fiwjaest m physi-
                    ographic aro of tto«!aje with teWvery tags amotajs
    offore«,eg 67-89*4 o
    oftheAUefh«tryPIa
    -------
                                  Map 25. Cerulean Warbler j)e>pulatiAm in P^fmsyfvanla. P&lygomr&pmsent&lm-
                                  t&s of sites where csmlearts were found in cfoaw geographic prvxtmHy These afo
                                  mi necessarily match specific areas listed m the corresponding state ta$&
    Number
    ofbinh Sin Iticalicn
    41
    40
    37
    K
    29
    23
    22
    20
    20
    19
    18
    17
    
    IS
    14
    11
    11
    10
    10
    10
    JiaBiitta Biw aad vicinity
    Delaware River Valley
    MoraiM SMe 2>&k
    Jennings BnvirtMimentai Cettor
    Feter's Mountain and State Game Lands
    Brady's Sun County Pa*
    Pwbe's Sate Forest and vicinity
    Dul£1*a$c and Boyee Paric
    Ten Mile Ci«ek and vidnity
    SewioMey Heights Pa*
    Ryetson Station State ?sfk asd vicldi^r
    Michatst State Forest
    
    Crooked Ondc lake Fide, CoAran1* Mffls
    Delaware State Forest areas
    Lower SusEjuehaana River
    Harrison Hills Park
    Ohispyle State Park and vLdaity
    Kinzuit Bay, Allegheny Reseivok
    Perry, Dunkard Townsfeifs
    County®
    Husttagton,Sltir
    Pike, Monroe
    Butler
    Batter
    Dnuphin
    Beaver
    Fayette
    Westmorelaod
    MB Greene
    Aikgheny
    WOteene
    Adums,
    Cumberlarid '
    Aixnstrong
    Piise, Monroe
    York
    ABegheny
    Fayette
    Wsrrcn, McKear.
    SE Greene
    Hati!M(s)
    l^mactet
    Rlparlaa, iiplasd
    Dry ilope, lak-e maigia
    Dry slope
    Dry slops, take margin
    Drystope
    Drys^pe
    &y slope, riparian
    Riparian, dty slope
    n
    mpaiias, uplarjd
    Drysloise
    
    Dry slope, ripadsn
    Dry slope
    Riparian
    Dry slope
    Dry slope, mesic slope
    Dry slope
    Riparian
    Blmotian fji)
    740-830
    335-WO
    1200-1SSO
    1120
    700-1320
    1000
    1SOO-2700
    940-13W
    KO-1000
    900
    1000-1200
    1475
    
    840
    1800-2000
    22S-325
    ??
    1950-2135
    500
    1000-1100
                                                                                                                                                      The most commonly resetted Sree species at 172 oo
                                                                                                                                                   etipied sites included oaks, mspSes, and sycamore (Fig-
                                                                                                                                                   ore 29), Riparian sites Uuoughout the state wen! dotni-
                                                                                                                                                   nated by sycsmorcs, with black chKry.biackloCTisl.nilip
                                                                                                                                                   tree, wbitc esli, and maples frequently reported.  Dry
                                                                                                                                                                PA Habttats (Nt7B>
                                                                           upland sites seperted wfette cafe* red oak, biftdk cherry,
                                                                           and maples as tlw most frequent trees, whereas various
                                                                           combinations of maples, oaks, tulip tree, and cherry f*-
                                                                           doraimttd at fiwtic upland sites.
                                                                                                                                                                                                              PA Tree Species (N=172)
                           /%«**<* 25. Habitat claxsificatiaKS at sites
                           Warblers in Ptsnmyivtwia. Numbers afitwliviettial Cer»
                           H/KJM Warblers «fe0«fe»# in each habitat type are noted  Figure 29, Prwfo&iimat &ee species reported at o&ru-
                           abovs the bars. "JV" eept&ls mimbsr of &catpied stiffs  pt#dsites f» jP&tm$?h>an!a, ''N" equals number fif sites
                           with habitat e&tta wpertedb)! C£WAP'participate*     wttti free species mparfeet by CEWAP parficiptmts,
    
                           Rhode Island
                              No birds observed.
                                                                                                                                                    South Dakota
                                                                                                                                                      CEWAP participants observed 3 ccniiema at two lo-
                                                                                                                                                    cations in South Dakota, Two bwds were mated at New-
                                                                                                                                                    ton Hills State Pask in Xincolfl County aftd I bkd was
                                                                                                                                                    observed at Wiiabay National Wildiifc Efi&ge in Day
                                                                           County. The Newton Hills J'ark birds w<^e
                                                                           canopy ripanao barest domiuated by cottonwool, silver
                                                                           maple, ekn, and ash, whereas the Wnsbay NWR bird
                                                                           was in swamp teest of osJks, basswood, ami elm.
                                                                                                                                                   Tennessee
                                                                                                                                                      Tt« Xffiw &/Btve<&ng8ittfs afJkttnessee (Nichofscn
                                                                                                                                                   1997) Dotted Ora!ft«» Warfeksts fiwm 14% of *^3iiof"
                                                                                                                                                   ity atlias felons" stt^swi^te. WNsh of ow daw from Ten-
                                                                                                                                                   nessee wag provided lay M«Uada Welt&n of the Hata«s
                                                                                                                                                   Coaaerv&ncy who cootdifiated Jntcnsi¥e sarveys of sev-
                                                                                                                                                   eral portions of the state, CEWA1'surveys yielded 1,210
                                                                                                                                                   hirdiaMS5 sites (Map 26).
                                                                                                                                                      By fer tia m^t important «sgion in tfes sitate fbr
                                                                                                                                                   Cearuleam is tbe Cambw-laad Mountains of Campbell,
                                                                                                                                                   Scott, aad Motgwi Counties, northwest of Knoxville.
                                                                                                                                                   In fiaitietiiar, the Royei Blae Wildlife Management Area
                                                                                                                                                   (42,000 ac) supports at least 430 birds and Frozen Head
                                                                                                                                                   State Park (8,000 ac) and vicinity supports at feast 142
                                                                                                                                                   tmtfs (Tkble 17); these mpwssenl the only two areas of
                                                                                                                                                   publicly owned lands withis this large moyntamotis
                                                                                                                                                   region, Uiububtedly, rnaay more Cemleaiss  occur oa
                                                                                                                                                   private lands sot surveyed. Birds tn this aiwa wet* found
                                                                           in messic tipiaud forest dominated by oxks, i
                                                                           and tulip popi&r, mostly between 2,000 ft. and 3,000 ft,.
                                                                           elevations.
                                                                             Another very important area is the Center Hill Lake
                                                                           region of DeKftlb and Putnam Counties in ccntfai
                                                                           Tesflessee. Ifl this area, most CratiJeaiEi were fonodatoog
                                                                           the moj^^r^&edaorthem shore and sujtoaading Mils,
                                                                           ;m: hid ing Edgar Eviiiii State Park, Floating Mill, and
                                                                           Mine Lick Creek- Astgmfkarit bat unknown propordoa
                                                                           of thesM bbtb were CKI public recreation area land owned
                                                                           by the AJtssy Cops of Engineers. In summer 2000, an
                                                                           additional 34 birds wese located on the escaipsient
                                                                           iEUrdier north in I^itnam County. Thc^ iatter individuals
                                                                           were in relatively young forest, where tatter tulip poplars
                                                                           formed an uneven emergent canopy (Weltoe, pers.
                                                                           comm.).
    
                                                                                                        {Continued &n page 42)
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-770
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                Map 26. Centlmn Warbler populations in Tmnoss&z Poiyg&m mpre?$nt clusters
                                of sites whsre eentlaam ware fotmd m dose g&ograpkic proximity These do not
                                n&c&ss&rify match spti&ifis at&as listed In the aorresponelmg state table
    
                    •j;^f£^
    Number
    igHrib Stefec«ft»a
    430
    
    142
    238
    
    75
    54
    
    32
    28
    25
    15
    12
    11
    Royal Bine "Wildlife Management Area
    and vicinity
    Frozen Bead State Park and vicinity
    Center Hill Lake, Edgar Evins State Park
    and vicinity
    CMefcasaw National Wildlife Refcge
    Meeman-SheJby Forest State Park,
    Mississippi Delta
    Cheaihsm Wildlife Management Area
    Hatches "Bsce Parkway, National Park
    Mil Creek Ed.
    Reclfcot National Wildlife Refuge
    BsarKnob
    Westvaco Tkaberlands
    CcuMy(s)
    Campbell, Scott
    
    Metfaa, Scott
    BeKalb, Putnam
    
    I.a-aderdjile
    Shelby
    
    Cheatons
    WBBamsoB
    Putnam
    Hayward, Obloa
    Overtoa
    Stewart
    ^UaO>iia(i$
    Mesio slope
    
    Meslc slope
    Mcsio slope, dry slope
    
    R^jarian, swamp ibrest
    Upknd, bottoniknd
    
    Dry slope, mesic slops
    Dry slope, fflesie slope
    Dry slope
    Bottoml&nd .
    Dry slope
    Dry slope, mesk slope
    Elevation (ft)
    2000
    
    2100-3200
    800-900
    
    240-250
    240-JOO
    
    500-725
    8S5-900
    1100-1350
    290
    1360
    475-«00
                                                                                                                                                    A tod irflfsaHant region of the state tbr Cerulean
                                                                                                                                                 WBbfats is ataig &e KC»is»i|ip Rfcer, «teo riatively
                                                                                                                                                 luge nunbere were found at Chickas«w Nition al Wild-
                                                                                                                                                 lift Refuge (75 birds) and Meemsn-Shelby 1-oreat Staic
                                                                                                                                                 Park north of MempMs (54 birds). Birds «t Chickasaw
                                                                                                                                                 NWR occupied bottomliiKllmtiiwocxl forest domimtcd
                                                                                                                                                 by coltonwoods. Additional individials were found on
                                                                                                                                                 biuffs a!onE the Mississippi Rivn at Fort Pillow State
                                                                                                                                                 Rrtc,
                                                                                                                                                    Overall in Tennessee, nearly 400 of the «7sitra with
                                                                                                                                                 reported habitat conditicns were classified ESmesic steps
                                                                                                                                                 (Figure 30), TbeM 400 sites stcotmted ftr «5% of C«-
                                                                                                                                                  Predominant tree species reported at occu-
                                                                                                                                                  the bars. "H" equals number af acatfU lilet with  pizd sites in Tnrnaitr "fT'tquahmmbercfriteswith
                                                                                                                                                  habitat data exported tyCBIWparttcfraats.         tree species npeirtedl»> CEWAP f&ttctpatts.
                                                                                                                                                 Virginia
                                                                                                                                                    The Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Project recorded
                                                                                                                                                 Cerulean Warbkes on §S blocks pfim&rify in the west-
                                                                                                                                                 em and northern mountains, and Shenando&h 'valley.
                                                                                                                                                    CEWAP participants documented 152 birds on £4
                                                                                                                                                 (61%) of 106 sites visited (Map 27). Amajority of birds
                                                                                                                                                 found were clustered in tisree portions of the Blue Ridge
                                                                                                                                                 —the Focosin Cabin area of Shenandoah Ha^onal Fade
                                                                                                                                                 w«h 30 Cemlews, the Reeds G^i-Humplnck Moan-
                                                                                                                                                 tain area  with 27 birds, and the north section of
                                                                          Shenmdoaii national Park and Appalachian Trail north
                                                                          of O.S. Highway 522 with a total ofW Cerulewu de-
                                                                          tected (Table IS). An additional 20 Oraleane are esti-
                                                                          mated to occur on ft* Clinch ftanger District of Jetoson
                                                                          Nstiorol Forest to extreme western Virginia. Usdoubt"
                                                                          edly many more Cerulean Warblers occur in unsurveyed
                                                                          portions of the Northern Cumberland Plateau and on
                                                                          the Ridges west of Shemndoah Valley,
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-771
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                       For 60 sfrtes wife reported habitat eosdlteis* 41 (68%)
                     wwe classified as mesie cove forest and 18 (30%) dry
                     slope. Meste cows foeests itajsported 67 (46%) Cenileaos
                     while dry dope forests supported 78 (53%) (Figure 32)
                     Tfee oaiy birds found away from tlie monatala ftdgss
                     were two individuals at Rivestetd Park on tbe Potomac
                     River, la cottoawood-siiver
      Foi 61 sites wbar» tee species data wer© reported,
    the most commonly recorded species were oaks (mostly
    aoifbem red oak, chestnut oak and white o&k), maples
    (mostly ted maple), and bikskon^ (^bagl^ric asd motio-
    tain hickory), with tolip tree, white asfa, am! blat^c lo-
    cust also frequently reported (Figure 33)
                                                                                    ^         VA Habftats (N^60)
                                                                                    SO*}
                                                                                                                                                                                                          VATrec Species (N-61)
                                             fa&H Warbttirpopulations in ^Irgtnia. Potygatts rep&sseM Gtastem of
                                 sUes where &^let^ wwejownd in close g^gf^Mc pw^mity These ab not nec-
                                 essarlfy match specific areas listed in the corresponding state (able
    Number
    Of&lrds Site l&ctttign Comity ($)
    30
    
    »
    27
    20
    15
    
    10
    7
    2
    Shenesdoah National ^rk— ~
    Pocosin CablaAte*
    AppalwWan TnB, N. of US fflghway 522
    Blue Ridge Pafkway— Reeds Gap,
    Clinch R«lg« District,
    Jefferson Nationri Forest
    Sheaendoah National Park- —
    north section
    Doe Creek »te«— ta, 613
    Bke Eidge Parkway,
    Flat Top Mountain (Jefferson HP)
    Riverbefld Park
    Greene
    
    Warren
    Augssta, Nelsoti
    Lee, Scott, Wise
    Warren,
    Rappah&Kioek
    GUes
    Bedford
    Fairfax
    HabUal(s)
    Dry Mope
    
    Mesic cove forest
    Dry slope
    Dry siope, cov0 forest
    Dry slope, cove forest
    
    Bry slope
    Mesic cove forest
    Riparian
    Eltvation (Jl)
    2700-3200
    
    1200-2000
    2J32-J600
    2420-3370
    1950-2100
    
    3100-3400
    2610-2700
    160
                                                                                                                                                figure 3Z Habitat classifications at sites wifk Cemfew
                                                                                                                                                Warblers in Virginia. Numbers of individual C&v'.can
                                                                                                                                                Warblers recorded in each h&bit&tt type are noted afayve  Figurf 3J. PredGmtftant tree species reported of &ccu~
                                                                                                                                                the bars. "AT" equals number of occttpt&el sites w&&  p£ed $$t«$ in Virginia. "N" eqtt&ls mmb&r &fsites with
                                                                                                                                                habitat data reportedly CEWAPpe&fictptmts          tree specie; reported hy €$WAP partfalpmts.
    
    
                                                                                                                                                Vermont
                                                                                                                                                   Tfee Atlas qfBr&xfiitg Birds o/"$fem#s/{E!IisoflI98S)  previously \^cttot site near 8se Quebec border had a si«g-
                                                                                                                                                repoitad Cffifii&Kti«s iVofn onty two atlss blocks statewide,  teg Osttfeaii V^Sfbler, and a third location was obtained
                                                                                                                                                   CEWAP participants observed only 1 individual oa  via Dim Rimmer thrmigb fee Vermont bMisg !is«§erv«.
                                                                                                                                                1 of 3 sites visited in !99? and 1998. Use bifti was ob-  All known aifeM! is the state we along the east shore of
                                                                                                                                                served along the Lamoille River ftw the iowa of Miitos  lake Chainplaifl (Map 28),
                                                                                                                                                in ChitMtiden County.  In samissf 2000, howevet; tbe
                                                                                                                                                             Map 28. Cerutee&t Ww bier populations m Vermont Polygons represent clusters of
                                                                                                                                                             sifes where centteans werejburtd In close $£&gr£tphic pr&xlmlty.
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                                                          A-772
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                     Wisconsin
                       Hamel 2000 reports the Sallowing regaling the Wis-
                     coasia Breeding Btrd Atlas ""BcBedmg Cerulean War-
                     blers recorded as confirmed, probable, or possible i&
                     3.8% of 3,084 blocks (5 km x 5 km «•&) surveyed
                     throughout the state, wife moat birds fcoiag firnnd In the
                     southern half of Ube  state is upland hardwood oak-
                     hickory or maple4xieeh-birch forests (lerattfisr Davis,
    15 March ,£000, pers  comm to Stephen Lewis),"
    CEWAF surveys wre eoaceatrated m ibe southern oae»
    third of the state, however, Ceruleans were also noted
    in the wesMssairal and aortkeast portions of the state.
      CHWAJP participants ialhed 174 Cenrfeans at 59
    (98%) of 60 saes surveyed (Map 29} Three sites sup-
    ported more than 20 bads each—
    -------
                               tem of$tie$ wfagtv emtlems wemfowsdtn class geo&vpMe pwximlty. These ds
                               mt meezMPtly match qpecjfto arvw listed In the com&apotid&tg state table.
                     Tbsptitnsay Kee^)^desaoifidda221 oec^plsd sitss
                   ^Uttawide were oakg, maples, Mc^ie$« aj£^ t*l% tceer
                   (Rgtw 37). forests wSft Cemleaa Itebles we» «-
                   tremely divcise. At tlpatiaiisiJes, spttiaw§ •$« donfi-
                   naiit, widi ^Qttom^oods, tt>Mte oa^ md <»ik» various
                   maples, boxelder, £Mip tme( attd t*lac& locost also So»
                   qusnlly reported. Dry slopes and ridgetops wets domi-
                   nated by wMte !^ut bickedes, and red
                                    d slopes aad OOVB Crests were
    doffiisatsdl^wMte osfe, fed oak, sugar aa|rfa, taMp tree;
    with A^i?eiic^mts9Sdi, feosswood, ami bladt cfe^ty also
      In V/esl Virginia, our field mtenls also coileclcd
    detaHed da& on irce-^seotes me by Ibrafirag or $«^Jag
    Carolao ^SiWera to 1997. Ob»»«Iiom of fcragiag
    Otd suigiiig biids at upland sites (N * 150} indicated
    frequent use (10-17%) of chestnut oak, red oalt, maples,
    black oak, and 11 after tree species 
    -------
                                 VW Habitats (N=249)
                                                                                V/VTrce Speeds (N=221)
                                               DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
    Waitltn in Wat fagtnto. fftmAtrt o/faAAfeaf Ctf-
    altanKirbltnramieiilitadilmUatQifxammited  ffemST.Pfedimlmattrmspectampartmlatoeai-
    ei-idndPbteau, where
                                                                                                                                                                                      aa average of 2 to 3 Cerulean Waifelets ate detected
                                                                                                                                                                                      annually on every BBS route in the last decade. In West
                                                                                                                                                                                      Virginia alone, the total population is ftlfrtost ceftainly
                                                                                                                                                                                      in ^e lO.QOOSi and rmy be close to 106,00© pairs. In
                                                                                                                                                                                      physiographic areas near the peripheiy of the Cendean's
                                                                                                                                                                                      raugc; however the nun^ber of birds iwmd is not greally
                                                                                                                                                                                      different fioift that'esHmtted using BBS » for example,
                                                                                                                                                                                      Southern New Etigtand, Low«f Great Lateas Plain.
                                                                                                                                                                                         Our atlas is  theFe&sw moet v
    -------
                                                         fpopul&thns sl^eestimatmfor ^artnm-s In Flight pkys-
                                  i&graphie err®a$r tesc? $n ttxtrapotations from BBS relative et&tmd£ttie& Range of
                                  estimates basset on twmt]tit&me/$^tive area c&vereet by sash B$Srottte be~
                                  tw&m O fon* 0&12.5 kof.
    Physiographic Area Name
    South Atlantic Coastal Plata
    Bat Golf Coastal Hita
    Soufeem Hew B&gi^
    Mid-Atlantic Piedmont
    Mid Atlantic Rjd6c and Vaiky
    Soiiftsm RHgc and Valley
    Mtedor Low Plateaus
    Lower Great Lakes Plain
    Upper Gnat UK) Plata
    Northern Ridge and Valley
    St Lswtenee PJais
    Ozi:rk-C>richita Plateau
    Boreal Hardwood Ifraasitloa
    Horthem Cumberland Plateau
    Ohio Hills
    Southern Hue Ridge
    Allegheny Plateau
    Prairie Peaatasula
    Owge Plates
    •Wist Gaff Coastal Plata
    Mid Atlantic Coastal Plain
    AKait BBS Population Kens*! (pairs)
    3
    4
    9
    10
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    31
    33
    42
    44
    40-100
    336-840
    90-225
    soo-woo
    2,550-6,400
    95-240
    7,300-18^00
    , ' 210-530
    386-950
    2^JOtt-5500
    150-400
    1,950-4,900
    1,850-A«»
    22,700-57,200
    37,«»-M,700
    1^50-3,100
    4,450-lUOO
    750-1,900
    85-410
    110-275
    25-45
                          Habitat and Area Rcqirements
                        Primary habitat for this species is most often
                      described as mature decidfcoas forest, Iy|si0ed by
                      straeftirally mature hardwood species  IB raesk or
                      JloO'Jplain conditions with a closed or semi-open canopy.
                      Habitat descriptions la the literature often have
                      emphasized moist woodlands In both tspland and
                      bottomland forest (e.g. Schorger 1921, DeJotig 1975)
                      in ((ifferent regions. Hamel (2QOO) sirmmarizcs the broad
                      range of habitat de^ciipUOES that exist for this species,
                      £0»dttd!sg tfoat Ceroleaa Warfcteis may f»e somewhat
                      opportunistic is &s$k!fig t&e most mature  forest
                      conditions available in each region. Dominant tree
                      species and undcrstory species described in the li torture
                      also Jeud to vary by region; tee size is tiiought to tse
                      primary asd trad species of secondary importance
    im New Bo^aad and the upfiBr Midwest AKioiigh isiaay
    of these slopes and ridges are Ja relatively close pfox^
    imity to major river valleys, suggesting Uiar populations
    sot Always t&«tjase. For exumisle, dry tidies seem to be
    fibe pftoary Ijabitat of Ibis species ift iaaay peats of the
    Sto Sidgs of Vbgfofii ascl Hoith Camfiaa. T%e Rio^:
    importaot feature of IM^ babitet ^pe, perhaps, is the
    presence of aaatee osfc-hlckory ferc^t, with whit© oak^
    ml oak, black oak, starlet oak, and chestnut oak 3t-
                        Habitat data from CEWAP coafirm Hie wide range
                      of habitat types used by Cerulean Waifelea ihKmgb0&t
                      tbfiir tang*. Large pepalatioas occur in both li^arian
                      battoffijtead forests afid m a variety of upland situations,
                      Perhaps uncle^ajjpreseiated In past $c$on{$t8 is tbe im-
                      portance of dry slope and ridgetop habitats to Cemtcan
                      Warbleis, not only in the Appalachian ridges, but also
      TifOB^ssut tE£$£ti of the SoBfbeast and northwards
    through the Appalachitxiis, a very important hibita', for
    Ceitileaii 1ft%£M$f& conttou^ to fee me^c upland fet^at,
    iBoladajg mixed nj^n^iy^t?  of rawe fis^st CBWAP
    coafcaed tfee large popuktioBS ^tot occur wkmavar
    large tracts of this habltatesist, and also the groat dlvdr"
    sity of trte species present EttWse sites. TuiipU'ecap-
    pmm to be a cogpfiftoii IsdleatOf of Csmleaft habitat in
    many of these areas, to E«Mitios to tbs variety of oak
                                                                                                 wnerways. Only a f«w f octets of
                                                                                                   ii the Mississippi Rivet Valley pfO|>er,
                                                                                    but 3 raunber of Uibutorics support the bulk Of the spe-
                                                                                    cies in the Midwesi Region. Other important riparian
                                                                                    s&ea& iiiciiidet&e Detowar« River Valley, Rflanofee Riv*r
                                                                                    in Virginia, middlitfudsor, River, and forested wct!ands
                                                                                    of the Lake Ontario Plaift iit New Yoifc.AcoKiiBoit ffea-
                                                                                    fiu-e of ihcse ntanaii forests, nearly throughout the range,
                                                                                    is the presence of mafea-e stands of sycamores,
                                                                                      Haraei (2000), as weH as othsr authors, ha vosti-uggjetl
                                                                                    to find st common denomiBatof aisong di« vatied de-
    species tise. A tall, totoiK»ir canopy swftaas to be fe
    most frequently meiatioiKsi feature, along with !arge area
    requirements. Indeed, a shared f«ttsf6 of the three v«ry
    different habitat types used by a majority of €&&&&&
    Warfeiefs ifiay be SMS inegnlar canopy staietaBe, On dry
    ridges, tall oaks fottn a liftear "iatfcmal edge," wbere
    wsrbler territories may look on! over the sunoundiny
    eaaopy. This same linear canopy edge is $ promised
    fe-atare of mature ripaiian forests, especially where tall
    sycamores form an emergent ia>er above the Other trees.
    On slopes with a diverse mixed i&esophyti? ibrest, the
    (Mfeaasee of troes with a variety of canopy stniciEures is
    probably key to provi ding the same soft ofcanopy-edge
    effect dfistred fcff Ceonliwm Watblers. Meltoda WeJton's
    observation of C^raleatm infeabitlftg seeoHidsfy forest
    patches in T^nnes^MSi where twKp tees fiwm a broken
    emergent canopy, sif gesls fest th^ we tMy be aa im-
    portant stttM^ifal fe^edient in otherwise clos<5d-cwEioipy
    oak forests.
       Landscape situation ftnd context has a strong feeaiiag
    on whether oOicrwifiC s.ii;7-bie feNsedfetg hsfcitat wll! ac^
    tuaUy eoataifi wallers (Haiael 19^), Ceralean IMif-
    blets are tfeos^ht to prefer large, contiguous  tracts of
    fx>rtion of birds in these iirge patches varied SOTongfho
    segioas. Ill (he Southeast, nearly all birds femtnl wojrif in
    fo:tsk £ 1,003 d£rest suggesting strong area sens!' iv^',
    ^ttieas in the Korthe^t, a substantial proportion of
    populations wane is much smaller forests, Fiathcr de-
    ^ifig the coaveetioaal wMom oa Cera!«aa Warfeters,
    & growing body of rese&rdi in eastern Ontario s%gest«
    that birds tlierc thrive Is patches of secondary maple
    festsst as small M 25 acres (Jason loses, peis. comm).
    Peeas^e qi^tatilitive studies of ataa rexjuiremeats in
    Ceraleaa %jutSe? come prfntsiiSy frota die MM-Aflan-
    tic and southeMtem states (Tlobbins ct si, 19X9, Hamel
    I992X f&nge&id* «staaptions of extreme area ssisi-
    tivify may be exAggerated,
    
       Monitoring and Research Needs
      TTas Adas of C&m!«aa WsrHitf Fopulatiom tasty fee
              a first step Is Menti^lrig fins key sites and
                   to protect this species into lite future,
    For s S!iccc3sf;i! conservation strategy that er.aures the
                of healthy  breeding Ofulean  Warbler
              s thfoiighout the species11 range, we
               tbe foUowing tfiofikoiitig and research
    RobbfaSdtal. 1992), Miffld (2000)««« B»geogn*hto
    vwiatan and inconsBteicy of ptiblishrf «ftre»*s to
    atea seosHivity, h*i'W«^et. ^Of example, tM9 specks
    scam (o fa&t taig* waodad t«cts of at least 50-75
    mm, and typtolly tvaids IsoKttaS woodlats te® flaa
    20-25 a<» to rt» to Cftto (Pelajoto «n4 Ric« 1891).
    In cth;rarei5, stands greater tlian 526 b2( 1,300 ceres)
    m «MKfere4 op«m«l S» Cerataan Wabteit (Evaa»
    andFiK*i!rl«97).
    
    mates of haMat-patBh sizes oseapied by Cwutean Wir-
    bl«rs, 4o suggest geogsaphk -variation in degree of atea
    seBsitivity. Whsrea  a !at|e numtar of Individuals oo-
    cticred ia extensive forest tracts in all regions, the pro-
       R^Ksatssirveya of the 73 piitaary and secondary sites
       idffiRMeid fet l^ibie 1 and 2, perhaps every five years,
       lo tmnltor heatlA of known, Importajit populatioits.
       Quantitative studies of reproductive success and
       peculation tamover w apiand vs. bottomksd Mbi-
       tats, s|XK!lfic to each region.
       Quantitative swdies of regional atea senskivity, per-
       hsps asrng 6IS aniUyses of bataitat patches identified
       ia CEWAP.
       Hshltat suitabitlry modeling to determine new and
       potential popafettoii sites, ^peehlty in areas where
       OSWA? was fc^s effective.
     •  Quantitative s^lias af response to manageaieat op-
       tions, ssch as canopy ^tinnir^, selective logging, or
       wtMemess protection.
                                                                s, saeh ss fmm momntaintop removal min*
                                                       ing, residential development, or lo^ng.
                                                     •  D«t«rmase pattern of land-ownersliips at impomuni
                                                       areas ia esch regton: devise alternative strategies for
                                                       eoBssfvatiaft asd management on pabVic, vs indus-
                                                       trial, vs private funds.
      Away fitsoi tlie Appalashian Motiasaiss, a majoiify
    of Ccruican Warbler pcpulatiojis seem to occur in ms-
    tace riparian or other bottomtsad forests along large or
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                                                             A-776
                                                                         Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                              ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    
                                         The following iadMdBab provided support and advice over and
                                       above apt* CBTOWpaHle^Kitten or provided » wtt unpabiiiBed
                                                       LITERATURE CITED
                                       Sflbemoa (Cornell IA. of Ornithology), dm* Hiuae (OSFWS
                                       Region 4), Baa. Btwotog (?A Game ComaiijstoaX BavU Bnehler
                                       (UijiveotJy offcanesie*). On* Jones (WV Department of Natural
                                       lte«»H!es},PfcaeP«, and J. R. Cajtol). 1988. I*e rofite:
                                                                                                                                                wralean wurbfer (BwAofca (tntlea) oa tnilita»y
                                                                                                                                                installations in the somheasrem United Slaws Tedv
                                                                                                                                                raeal Report SERBM7-U, O.S. Aimy Eagi»««
                                                                                                                                                Waterways Experiment Station, Viebbarg, MS.
                                                                                                                                             Poos, C. R. 1994. >«rf«f ^fttmAtg »»*ia Afew ff«p-
                                                                                                                                                *Af*6. Audttben Society of Kew Hat^jshtre, COH-
    Hatual, M»., FJ. Dtoitf , Jr., O. HaBB)em«, and D.W.
       Mefaluum (edi.) 1999. Ccmlean Wartjlet (Dcndm-
       tea certtlea). Wisgs !alb Resetireea / Species Itiibr-
       mation and Ma^agememt Abstracts. Tbe Nature
       Coraervaaey. Available otdlns: hMf)^/w
    Hftrael, F. B. 2000. Status Assessment: Ceraleas War-
       bler, looted for U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service;
       A|»ii,2@0e.
    la^Kjflf, T. A. 1962. Alabama &!«&. University of Ala-
       bama Press, Ttooaloosa, AL.
    Jacobs, B. an;] ID. Wilson. 1997. Missouri biccdm2 hire)
       atlas 198^1992. Natuial HiMoo' Series, No. 6, Mis-
       soariDepaSm«ait ofCossemiikia, JtefftecKiCity.MO.
    lUfel, R. B., T, S. Basfc»&» I. A. Bllb, atsd J. N. Bur-
       mtigtis. 19S5. OiasftctersWcs of stimmot habitats
       of selected nongame birds in Mtssotai. Unlvedst^
       ofMlssoofi-^Coltjffibla College ^fAgncutasce, Ag-
       ricultaral Experiment Station, Research Bnlietm
    LeOrand, M, E,, }r. 1979. Cerulean Wtabler colony in
       Graham Cotmty, N.C Chat 43:20.
    Lynod.J.M. IMI.StaWsofthecemteanwarblertathe
       Roanoke River Sa$in of North Carolina. Chat
       4S(2}:29-35.
    Nicholson, C. P., ed. Tenttessee $*w*#Hg Bird Atlas.
       Univeni^ of Tetm«a« Press, Knoxviite, TN.
    Palmer-Bali, B. L., Jr. 1996. The KmOKly breeding klni
       atlm. The Ofliversity Pfess of Keatucio?, Louisville,
       KY.
    PotBrjohn,B.<3,,atldD.ltaic«. 1991. 7»eOA/o*««rf-
       ittg btretalteK, lite Ohio Desarttnenl of Katurai RB-
       sources, ColBmbus, QH.
    Petenoa, i. A. 1995. J*« South Palaiii breeding btnt
       atlas. South Dakota Omithologi-it.?' Union.
    Robotes, C8. md R A.T, Btom. 1996. Atla of treat-
       ing Wwfe ifUayland mJ tltt District i/Colum-
       Ua. UB!v. of Pittsburgh Preis. 479pp.
    Robbins,C.S., I.W. FiBpatriok, andPJB. Hamel. 1992.
                                                                                                                                                      . 1981 . A Merafch«i approach to avian com-
                                                                                                                                                monity straetuM. ph.D. Mss. Ctaman l)(iiv«aity,
                                                                                                                                                South Carolina.
                                                                                                                                             Hamd, P3, 1992. Ccral«ati Warbler, Bertcfalca cer-
                                                                                                                                                «/<». Page* 385-400 in KJ. Sdnwider and 0.M.
                                                                                                                                                Pen«, editors- Migratory natgamt Wnft t>f man-
                                                                                                                                                agement concern fa the Northeast. U.S. Fish and
                                                                                                                                                Wildlife Service, N«wton Comer, MasMctes«I«.
                                                                                                                                                400 pp
    
                                                                                                                                               54
                                                                           562 it J.M JIagan m and D.W, JWfflStw, editea.
                                                                           Ecology ami caisavatiai ef metmplnal migrant
                                                                           '.anitbink. attitlMotiian ImUtution Press, Washiog-
                                                                        RotMbMI, K. V., and J. V. Wells. 1995, Final Report:
                                                                            importance of geographic areas to Neotropical mi-
                                                                            grants in the Northeast Prepared for tJ.S. Fish and
                                                                            WU4U& SewiM, Region 5; July 1995.
                                                                        Rosenberg, K. V »nd i. V. Wett». 2000. Global perspec-
                                                                            tives on Neotropical migrant conservation in the
                                                                            Northeast: Long-term responsibility vs. immediate
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-777
                      Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                        and L. Nitos (Eds.) Siraugias Jbr terf eomerw-
                        tion- ThejPartmm InFftjtfltpIaffiitngpmcess. Cor-
                        nell Lab of Qmi&olegy.
                     SchoijHi A. W. V927. Notes on tie distribution of «cme
                        W5seonstobiEls.Aak 44235-240-
                     Velt, R. It, ted W. R. ntoMB. 1993. Sink af Masse.
                        ctwsetts. Massachusetts Atidaboa Society, Bostda,
                        MA.
                                                                 APPENDIX
                           Afps>*4ixI,IJa<>fCBfPj!Ppaiicipatt$pm 19S7~
                           Ray A^ami
                           Bthn Alton
                           Sieve Allen
                           RodAneH*
    0avMDa«i«
    "Item Davis
    Deaaa Desman
    Kara Den
                           JataesAsfi
                           J«tHtrA*&t
                           fredAtwood
                           ffmeftiyBUrd
                           Nict Barter
                           KesBatiaore
                           G.Betao
                                                                                                                                                                      JeniyDicljcm
                                                                                                                                                                      XvmlMKKtii
                                                                                                                                                                      MlctadHie.
                                                                                                                                                   Sima Boettfihef
                                                                                                                                                   Nldwlaj BolsJinc
                                                                                                                                                   W.BmdBooil
                                                                                                                                                   D. BoBttr
                                                                                                                                                   Patrick Soyd
                                                                                                                                                   DsoSranniitfi
                                              BlU Evan
                                              David ETO!
                                              ante Fill
                                              Victor fcKo
                                                                                                                                                                      DichFtsiK
                                                                                                                                                   Mat^iew Brihftzer-Sttiil
                                                                                                                                                   tasef&BrtH
                                                                                                                                                   AdttmByniD
                                                                                                                                                   RonC
                                                                                                                                                   KM Oir.rj
                                                                                                                                                   JaddCiftfy
                                                                                                                                                   Join Cecil
                                                                                                                                                   DexlerOialee
                                                                                                                                                   Davis Ofl^tnati
                                                                                                                                                   AilM Chartist
                                                                                                                                                   Dwi^t & Asa 0*raaf
                                              I'.u!« Gills
    
                                              Clia[Qte3t« Qoedacbe
                                              Sx
                                              Ml
                                              JiraC
                                              IBM Graves
                                              M&HtOreese
                                              RllphOiuoddl
                                              OrdGire.
                                              TomK^l
                                                                                                                                                   Rogei Clifford
                                                                                                                                                                      Nancy Batplfl
                                                                                                                                                                      BobHarlrom
                                                                                                                                                   Brace Coiiei,
                                                                                                                                                   [>jv«l Corsici
                                                                                                                                                   LiadaCrabtite
                                              JoeyHerrm
                                              Ar.thor.y HcrtaJ
                                              PaulHciJ
                                              Miotel Hill
                                              EonHoif
                                                                                                                                                   P«i!Cyi*«r
                                                                                                                                                   Damey
                                                                                                                                                   DaleOivis
                                              AmyH&we
                                              Dai)
                                                                 Kanellr-.a,
                                                                 Vtifaat* ^rngar
                                                                 Dcngbma
                                                                                                                                                                                         MutJcir.s
    
                                                                                                                                                                                         ,'naiJoses
    
                                                                                                                                                                                         WfDtesKmes
                                                                                                                                                                                         AUKpindl
                                                                                                                                                                                         Mictael Kittb
                                                                                                                                                                                         C- taiw«ic« King
                                                                                                                                                                                         JtclLnv.
                                                                                                                                                                                         Thoaas LeBSaflc
                                                                                                                                                                                         FttdLetho
                                                                                                                                                                                         J,-i!»Up!sa
                       JMLynd:
                       OkanLyw
                       WictaelMsrts
                       StUManiDUS
                       May
                       Matkk
                                                                                                                                                                                         C. McCnlh
                       JohaMcNRly
                       Flnacea McVay
                       DoujMcWr.lrK.
                       Jerry McWiB.m!
                       Dorsxliy Miller
    
                          ti Miller
    OanxMlKMI
    IjiUt Mitchell
    Neil Moore
    MleUorg.nle
                                         -lanws Mt^^iy
                                         ilodMmry
                                                                                   UnlMI
                                                                                   DamaiO'Bran
                                                                                   RaftOwnttao
                                                                                   LydaPtge
                                                                                   Krisloi*er Pilemxl
                                                                                                                                                                                                           mile-fswtoski
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Lyada Perry
                                                                                                                                                                                                           DsvidPelera
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Ctajg Pwvost
                                                                                                                                                                                                           BiUPuiveli
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Gnce fcurfoipl,
                                                                                                                                                                                                           MstyKa^ff
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Joseph RoM,
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Marl Bobbins
                                                                                   Peter Rixieiv.W
                                                                                   Jes»lf«rRood
                                                                                   Not-.™ R-j-ietill
    
                                                                                   Mara^nst Ra«k
                                                                                                                                                                                                            t>osine1» Sellers
    DiveSbs
    
    J-ckStailicky
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              RKt Stevens
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              DoilieStov-r
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              VciiJUrcSmsiev
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              M«cveT>>1or
                                                            V.'.IUainTolin
    
    
                                                            K.t.-UM'AB Tsssc:
                       Allen Waldraii
                       Mindy W.lker
    
                       tti«Wnle>
                       OolWMlI
                       AlraWells
                                                                                                      Mel!..!. WeIMn
    
                                                                                                      WHnam
                       RoalWf
                       JocnWbl^
                       DwgVHnt
                       Pei-HsinjWu
                       Helen Wueslenftia
                       Peter Wnllkwii
    MTMA/F Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-778
                                                     Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                 Subject: Re: Recent TN permits
    
                 On 11/4/03 4:56 PM, "Doug SiddeU"  wrote;
    
                 H6re is the requested Information. I apotagbe for the delay in getting thte to you,
    
                 Company     PerrnftNo.  Permitted Acres  Estimated Disturbed Acres
    
                 Appoto Fuels, lno.-^3012.>> T;. 24-- -.-j-'-.;'. •....•-   24
    
                 Appote Fuels, Inc.  3112. ; .   2298             860
    
                 Bell County       3106      15               15
                 Coal Corp.
    
                 Mountainside Coal   3114     277             216
                 Company
    
                 Mountainside Coal   3127     351              228
                 Company
    
                 Robert Clear Coal  3116      2102             1148
                 Company
    
                 Tennessee Mining,   3066      62              62
                 Inc.                      .                   •,
                > From: Malrnda W&fton . Date: Won, 03 Nov 2003 09:38:41 -0800
                > To: Doug SiddsB 
                > Subject Recent TN permits
                >
                >Doug
                > Just a reminder. When we talked a couple of weeks ago you Indicated that you
                > would be able to send me a list of the surface mining permits in the
                > Cumberland Mountains issued since
                ;• December 2002 with the permitted acreages and tie estimated actual surface
               . > disturbances,
                >
                > Thank you in advance for your Bme to do this.
                >
                > Cheers
                > Mellnda
                     Population Objectives - Rosenberg and Blancher
                        SETTING NUMERICAL POPULATION OBJECTIVES FOR PRIORITY LANDBIRD
    
                                                     SPECIES
    
    
    
    
                                                Kenneth V, Rosenberg,
    
                                          Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY
    
                                                       and
    
                                                   Peter J. Blaucbw
    
                                            StaJ Stmfa Canada, Ottawa, ON
                     Corresponding AuSto: fcft Rosenberg
    
                     Cornell Lafe of Ornithology
    
                     159 Sapsocfcw Woods M, Ithaca, NY 14850
    
                     Tel: (607) 254-2412
    
                     F«: (607)
    
                     E-mail: kvt2@ootnell.Klu
                                                                                                                                                                   22 pages, 4 tables, 4 figures
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-779
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                     Rosenberg and Bteneher     2
    
    
    
    
    
             Abstract. — Following the example of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan,
    
    
    
             deriving numerical population estimates tod eonMtvKttan targets fct priority laodbirf species is
    
    
    
             considered a desirable, if not necessary, element of the Partners in Plight planning process.
    
    
    
             Methodology for deriving such estimates remains ia its infancy, however, and the use of
    
    
    
             numerical population targets remains controversial within tie conservation and »cademie
    
    
    
             communities. By allowing a set of simple assumptions regarding species' detectabifity, relative
    
    
    
             abundance data from Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes may be extrapolated to derive first
    
    
    
             approximations of current, total species populations, both rangewide and within Bird
    
    
    
             Conservation Regions, JPrelnoirary comparisons with independently derived abundance
    
    
    
             estimates (e.g. Breeding Bird Atlas) suggest that these population estimates are within
    
    
    
             acceptable limits of accuracy for many species. If restoring populations to early BBS levels (late
    
    
    
             1960s) is desirable, trend data may be used to calculate! the proportion of a species* population
    
    
    
    
             lost during CBS 35-year period, Kid an appropriate population target may be set For example, in
    
    
    
             the Lower Great lakes/St Lawrence Finn, BBS data indicate a current (1990-1999) population
    
    
    
             of about 14,000 Red-headed Woodpeckers (Melanerpss eiythncgphaba) and a loss of >50
    
    
    
             percent since 1966, A reasonable conservation objective, therefore, maybe to double the Red-
    
    
    
             headed Woodpecker population lathis region over sonse future time period. We encourage the
    
    
    
    
             ase of numerical population estimates and conservation targets in implementing conservation
    
    
    
             objectives for priority landbiid species, and we encourage further research that leads to
    
    
    
             refinement of our methodology and our estimates.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
             Key Words: Breeding Bird Survey, iandbirds, population estimates, population objectives.
                                                                                Rosenberg and Blaucher
                        INTRODUCTION
                         Conservation actions are most effective and efficient when they are directed towards meeting
    
    
    
                         explicit objectives or targets. In North America, conservation of birds and their habitats has
    
    
    
                         benefited from numerical population targets developed by regional or species experts. For
    
    
    
                         waterfowl and wetland habitats in particular, species-specific population targets were developed
    
    
    
                         and published as part of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP 1986 &
    
    
    
                         Updates), Population targets were based on estimates from survey data from the 1970s, and these
    
    
    
                         served as a baseline for restoring populations of declining species. These numerical targets, when
    
    
    
                         scaled to waterfowl flyways and expressed in terms of habitat-acres or other limiting factors,
    
    
    
                         have proven to be a very compelling tool tor generating billions of dollars for wetland protection
    
    
    
                         and restoration (2003 NAWMP Update, J* draft). More recently, the U.S. Sborebird
    
    
    
                         Conservation Plan has set numerical population targets for priority shorebird species, based sn
    
    
    
                         current survey data and also using early 1970s as a baseline (Brown and others 2001). Other
    
    
    
                         examples of numerical population targets exist ia the numerous recovery plans for endangered
    
    
    
                         species to the United States asd Canada.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                         Conservation planning for the roughly 500 species of non-endangered landbirds in North
    
    
    
                         America has been proceeding 4t the regional and national levels through the international
    
    
    
                         initiative, Partners in Flight (Pashley and others 2000). Although much discussion has taken
    
    
    
                         place regarding the desirability and possible nature of population objectives for landbird species,
    
    
    
                         we ax just beginning to develop methods for deriving quantitative population targets for
    
    
    
                         widespread and still-numerous species. Such numerical targets require the estimation of species'
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-780
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                            Rosenberg and Blanoher     4
    
    
    poputetion size at several geograpMe scales, knowledge of reoestt historic poptflrtoE trends, snd
                          t
    agreement on t
                                    and baselines for getting desirable targets. Is this pa|>er we otitljae a
    
    
              pragmatic and tepestabte approach to estimating tandbM population sizes using indiw from the
    
    
              North American Breeding Bird Survey {BBS, RobMns and others 1 989), the moat
    
    
              comprehensive and eoatinoous survey of landbird populations in most of fbe United State and
    
    
              southern Canada. We also discuss the many assumption!! and issues that bear on tiie use of this
    
    
              approach, to addition, we propose a simple protocol for assigning numerical conservation targets
    
    
              for specific regions, based OB. current population estimates for high-priority species and
    
    
              knowledge of recent population trends. We present preliminary results of population estimation
    
    
              and objective setting for two Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in whisfa active birt-
    
    
              conservatkm initiatives are underway, the Atlantic Northern Forest (BCR 1 4) and Lower Great
    
    
              Lakes-St. Lawrence Plato (BCR 13). Fiaaily, wttria tee two regions, we compare oar BBS'
    
    
              derived population estimates with independent estimates derived from atteaiafive datawts.
    
    
              Additional details and results of our population esfimatiofl methods win be poblished elsewhere
    
    
              (Rich and others in prttp., Biancher tad Rossabetg in prep.). Oar goal here is to introduce a
    
    
              standardized methodology for incorporating numerical population objectives into landbird
    
    
              conservation plans and to stimulate father refinements of the population estimation approach.
                                                           Rosenberg and Bltncher     5
    
    
    during the 1990s. Relative abundant* indices for each bird species were then averaged across til
    
    
    routes within each Bird Conservation Region, By making a series of assumptions regarding area
    
    
    sampled, habitats sampled, and detectability of individual bird species, we can extrapolate BBS
    
    
    relative abundance to estimate total population size within geographic areas or for the entire
    
    
    continent.
    
    
    
    
    Estimating Population Size From BBS Relative Abundance
    
    
    
    
    A BBS route consists of as a series of 50 point counts, distributed along a 39.4 km (24.5 mile)
    
    
    roadside transect. The starting point and direction of each route are assigned randomly within 1 -
    
    
    degree blocks of latitude and longitude in the United States and Canada (Robbins and others
    
    
     1989). Each route traverses a vwiety of habitat types; taken together, the routes in a region
    
    
    potentially provide a random sample of the broad landscape within that region as a whole. At
    
    
    each of the 50 BBS stops on a route, observers are instructed to count all birds seen or head
    
    
    witMn a 3-minute period, out to a radial distance of 400 m (1/4 mile). The maximum area
    
    
     sampled by each route, without making any corrections for species' detectability (see below), is
    
    
     rou$ily25.J to2 {Fig. 1).
               METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
    
    
    
    
              Our primary method for estimating population size of widespread landbird speciw involves
    
    
              extrapolation, using indices ftom the North American Breeding Bitd Sorvey. Specifically,
    
    
              indices of relative abundance (birds per BBS route) were derived from every route surveyed
                                                                                                                         A formula for estimating regional population density from BBS counts has been presented by
    
    
                                                                                                                         Bart (in press). This formula explicitly takes into account the proportion of individual birds that
    
    
                                                                                                                         sing (or otherwise are detectable) daring Use 3-minute BBS stop, the probability that a staging
    
    
                                                                                                                         bird will be detected by an observer, and the potential bias due to differences in roadside and
    
    
                                                                                                                         region-wide distribution of habitats. An advantage of this formal approach is the ability to
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                    A-781
                                                               Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                      Rosenberg and Blanche
                                                                                                                                                                                            Rosenberg and Blancher
              calculate error associated with population estimates, and values ofl.O can be used fer probability
    
    
              terms that cannot yet be estimated with empirical tea. Bart (in press) provides examples of this
    
    
              approach for a suite of species to shrub-steppe habitats in western United States.
    
    
    
    
              Assumptions: Habitats
    
    
    
    
              For fhe purpose of ont initial analyses, we assume tint (1) BBS routes are randomly distributed
    
    
              across larger landscapes (e.g., BGRs), and (2) BBS route sample habitats in proportion to theit
    
    
              occurrence within the target landscapes. Because BBS routes are assigned at randomly located
    
    
              starting points, and because BBS coverage is widespread across most of ti» United States and
    
    
              southern Canada, our first assumption ia.probably reasonable for most of the BBS-coverage area.
    
    
              An exception occurs in boreal mid arctic BCRs at She northern limit of BBS coverage, where
    
    
              roadless areas predominate and roads typically sample a geographically-biased portion of the
    
    
              landscape.
    
    
    
    
              The second assumption, namely ftat habitats along roadsides are an adequate sample of habitats
    
    
              throughout the region, is frequently discussed, and is considered by some to be a serious flaw of
    
    
              the BBS. Although the capability now exists to test this assumption usxnf QIS, this analysis has
    
    
              not yet been carried out for the entire survey area, or for many local regions. Those few studies
    
    
              that have examined potential roadside bias have presented mixed results. For example, Bart and
    
    
              otters (1995) found that the proportion of forest along BBS routes in Ohio (in a strip out to 280
    
    
              m from roads) was  not significantly different from the proportion in the overall landscape, fc an
    
    
              inner strip within 140 m, however, the proportion of forest was significantly less (35 percent)
                        than ia the overall landscape, suggesting flat for forest-breeding spades detected primarily close
                                              t
    
                        to roads (see below), BBS would underestimate abundance. Keller and Scallan ( 1 999) found
    
    
                        similar results its Ohio and Maryland, with forest habitats under-sampled by 21-48 percent and
    
    
                        agricultural and urban habitats over-represented along roads. Interestingly, forest-field edge
    
    
                        habitat* also were under-sampled along BBS routes, whereas early suceessional and wetland
    
    
                        habitats did not differ between on-road and off-road landscapes. Most recently, Bart (in press)
    
    
                        found that proportions of major forest, shrub-steppe, and grassland habitats along BBS routes did
    
    
                        not differ from the surrounding landscape within U.S. Forest Service Region-4, a large area of
    
    
                        the western United States. While we urge a continent-wide G!S analysis of roadside bits in the
    
    
                         BBS, which could yield BCR-specific correction factors to plttg into Bart's equation, for now we
    
    
                         assume no roadside bias in our calculations. Further ramifications of this assumption will be
    
    
                         discussed below.
                         Assumptions:
                         Our initial approach assumes thai all breeding pairs of birds very close to an observer at BBS
    
    
                         stops are detected, and thai detectability is otherwise a function of distant* from the observer.
    
    
                         We assume that all species have a feted, average maximum detection distance on BBS routes
    
    
                         across their range, and that these distances can be translated into effective sample areas for each
    
    
                         species. Because few published data exist on exact detection distances for a wide range of
    
    
                         species, we chose to assign species to one of four detection classes as follows (Table 1 ). A
    
    
                         majority of birds on BBS routes in many regions are detected by songs or calls in forested or
    
                         other densely vegetated habitats. A simple method of extrapolating avian density from counts of
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-782
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                       Rosenteg tad Blaneter
                                                                                 Rosenberg and Blaneher
              singing males using detection threshold distances was proposed by Batten and DaJong (1981),
    
    
    
              who also provided average maximum detection distances for 11 species of common forest bilds.
    
    
    
              These distances ranged from 72 m (Blue-gray Ctattesteher PollaptUa emrulea) to 186 m (Wood
    
    
    
              Thrash Hylocickla mwtelina) and averaged 128 m for the 11 species. Emlen and DeJong (1981)
    
    
    
              further proposed tint numbers of singing males be doubted to obtain a total population. Wolf and
    
    
    
              others (1995) also found that most forest bads in northern Wisconsin could be heard to
    
    
    
              maximum distances of between 125 and 250 m. There was much individual variation, however,
    
    
    
              and some individuals could be heard at much greater distances. "Wolf and others (1995) also
    
    
    
              recorded the minimum distance at which individuals of a species could no longer be heard; this
    
    
    
              distance also averaged 128 m for the 12 species presented. Based on these empirical data, we
    
    
    
              chose to initially assign most forest birds and other weakly vocalizing species a detectabili ty
    
    
    
              threshold of 125 m (close to the average in Etolen and DeJong's study). For these species, we
    
    
    
    
              assnme that all breeding pairs are detected out to that distance, and the effective area sampled on
    
    
    
              a complete BBS route is therefore 2.5 km2.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
               A second jyoop of species is detected visually or by loud calls over long distances; these include
    
    
    
              soaring raptors, crows and ravens, Upland Sandpipers (Mortromw langteauda), and a few other'
    
    
    
              species with very loud vocalizations (e.g., Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginiama, fiieated
    
    
    
              Woodpecker Dryocopus pliestus). For 
    -------
                                                                      Rosenberg and Btoncher     10
                                                                                 Rosenberg and SJancher
              peak detection probability for each species and then the ratio of -peak detections to average
    
    
              detections across the SO stops. TMs ratio was used to adjust average numbers of birds per route to
    
    
              peak numbers, as if peak detection lasted throughout the morning. Species-specific correction
    
    
              fectots ranged from 1.04 (House Finch Carpodaaa mexfeimus) to 223 (Whip-poor will
    
    
              CctprSmtdgus voeifenaf) with a median of 1.34 across sdl landbkd species examined (median of
    
    
              1.32 for diurnal iandbirds). Four different types of time-of-day distributions are illustrated in
    
    
              Figure 2. Using these corrections, we can estimate populations even for crepuscular or primarily
    
    
              nocturnal species (e.g,, Great Homed Owl Babo va-ginianas, Common Nighthawk Chardettes
    
    
              minor), as long as they are detected on several BBS routes on. at least fhe first BBS stop. For the
    
    
              few specie without adequate BBS data to calculate a time-of-day correction, we assigned a
    
    
              value based on another similar species with adequate data, or used the median 'value. Our tane-
    
    
              of-day corrections will tend to be conservative for any species whose peak detection is outside of
    
    
              the BBS sample period, diurnally or seasonally.
    
    
    
    
              Finally, we assume that individuals detected represent one member of a pair, and we therefore -
    
    
              doable all estimates to derive total number of breeding individuals. This "pair correction" is most
    
    
              obvious for the many species that are primarily detected as territorial singing males. Even for
    
    
              species in which males and females may be equally detectable, however, our experience on BBS
    
    
              rotttes suggests thai only one member of a presumed pair is usually detected at any given time.
    
    
               Possible exceptions include some corvids, in which both members of a pair are highly weal, and
    
    
               swifts and swallows, in which both sates and females typically forage together over open
    
    
               habitats. A pair correction of 2 (double) may also be high for species with a high proportion of
                         singing but unpaired males. The "correct" ptir correetion for all species lies somewhere between
                                              i
    
                         1 and 2 and may be determined empirically with further study.
                         Comparisons With Breeding MM Atlas Eitimiites.
    
    
    
    
                         Few independent population estimates exist with which to make even crude comparisons with
    
    
                         our BBS-derived estimates for commor landbirds. One source of such data is the simple order-
    
    
                         of-mtgnitude estimates of breeding populations gathered during Breeding Bird Atlas work in
    
    
                         Ontario (Cadman and others 19S7) and in the Maritime Provinces (Erskine 1992). During the
    
    
                         course of atlassing in these areas, observers were ashed to estimate the total breeding population
    
    
                         of each species within lOO-km2 squares. Although these estimates are very crude (e.g., 1, 2-10,
    
    
                         11-100,101-1,000,1,001-10,000 or 10,001-100,000 pairs in a square), precision is gained from
    
    
                         the very large number of squares sampled. Because atiassers are not restricted to roads, to early
    
    
                         mornings, nor to a single peak of the breeding season, atlas data differ from BBS in having a
    
    
                         reduced bias against off-road habitats, seasonal changes ifi breeding activity, and nocturnal
    
    
                         species rarely detected on diurnal routes. Atlases also dirTer by covering larger proportions of the
    
    
                         landscape, providing a larger sample size of population estimates, coverage for rarer species, and
    
    
                         allowing extrapolation based on knowledge of the habitat by the observer.
    
    
    
    
                         To estimate a population in an area covered by breeding bird atlas, we follow Erskine (1992) in
    
    
                         taking the midpoint of each categorical range (assuming a poisson distribution of abundances
    
    
                         within each category) as the estimate for the alias square. These estimates are totaled for each
    
    
                          species across all squares to which estimates were made, then extrapolated to account for
    MTM/VF Draft PEtS Public Comment Compendium
    A-784
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                              12
                                                                                                                                                                                        Rosenberg and Blanche?    13
              unsatnplsd squares. This-method is illustrated using data for Hie Brown Thrasher (Taxastoma
                                   i
    
              rufian) in fee Ontario portion of Lower Cheat Lakes-St Lawrence Bird Conservation Repon
    
    
              (BCR13). Brown Thrashers were found in 549 out of 744 eensused atlas squares within this
    
    
              region, and estimates within squares ranged across several abundance categories (Fig, 3).
    
    
              Extrapolating abundance from poisson midpoints of these categories, «d extrapolating to the
    
    
              full 840 squares ia the region, we derive a population estimate for the region of 42,369 pairs. We
    
    
              compared atias-derrved population estimates for landbirds present in 25 or more atlas squares
    
    
              with population estimates based on the 28 BBS routes run from 1981-1985 within the same
    
    
              region. We then replicated this comparison using BBS and ate data from the Maritime
    
    
              Provinces (part of BCR 14), which involved 1682 atlas squares and 39 BBS routes conducted
    
    
              fiora 1986-1990. In the Maritime comparison, we used estimates from Brakine (1992) only for
    
    
              species where they were based on data from atlassers, disregarding estimates from other sources.
    
    
    
    
    
              Comparisons With Breeding Bird Census
    
    
    
    
    
              Another source of density estimates tor landbirds is the Breeding Bkd Census (BBC), in which
    
    
              observers estimate breeding populations in snail plots of fixed area and uniform habitat We
    
    
              used the Canadian Breeding Bird (Mapping) Census Database (Kennedy and others 1999) to
    
    
              obtain landbird densities in BCRs 13 and 14 for comparison with our BBS estimates. Because
    
    
              BBC plots are not randomly distributed across the landscape, we use total landbird density as our
    
    
              basis of comparison, rather than density of individual species. We also calculated BBC landbird
    
    
              density within each broad habitat type, and adjusted regional BBC averages according to the
    
    
              proportion of the regional landscape in each habitat type, based on satellite land cover data.
                        RESULTS
    
    
    
    
    
                        Population Estimates
    
    
    
    
    
                        First approximations of breeding populations were derived for 16? species that were sampled by
    
    
                        the BBS in the Lower Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Plain (BCR 13) and for 154 species in the
    
    
                        Atlantic Northern Forest (BCR 14), These estimates ranged from roughly 100 breeding
    
    
                        individuals for rare breeders such as Diekeissel (Spissa amsrieana) and Le Conte's Sparrow
    
    
                        (Ammodramui leconteii) in BCR 13, and for Peregrine Falcon (Faleo pengrima) in both
    
    
                        regions, to 10 million American Robins (Turdus mlfpaiorius) in BCR 13 and 11 million Red-
    
    
                        eyed Vireos (Vireo olivacaa) and 13 million robins in BCR 14. Breeding population size
    
    
                        averaged 488,000 individual! across all landbird species in BCR 13 (398 birds per km2), whereas
    
    
                        populations averaged 792,000 individuals in BCS 14 (340 birds per km2).
    
    
    
    
    
                        Of particular interest are population estimates for species considered of high conservation
    
    
                        concern in these two regions. For BCR 13, we calculated populations for 20 species identified as
    
    
                        high priorities by the landbird breakout group of the ongoing BCR 13 bird conservation initiative
    
    
                        (see Hayes «id others this volume). Our estimates of regional populations for these species
    
    
                        ranged from roughly 400 Short-eared Owls (Asiaflammew) to 1.9 million Bobolinks (Table 2).
    
    
                        We also present average relative abundances on BBS routes in the region, as well as detection
    
    
                        distance, effective sampling area, and time-of-day adjustment factors for each of these species. In
    
    
                        BCR  14, our population estimates for 20 species with high PIF assessment scores (Panjabi and
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-785
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                     Rosenberg md Blanehsr
                                                                                              14
                                                                                                                                                                                        Rosenberg arid Btaicher
                                                                                                         IS
              others 2001) ranged ftom roughly 10,200 WMp-poot-iwslls to 2.1 i&U]ianVecfys(Cattang
                                   i
              fiactseem; Table 3),
              Comparison With SreettlngJiinlAtlta
    
    
              We obtained independent estimates of breeding populations for 120 Sandbitd species tbat had
    
              abundance dam in at least 25 atias squares and an M least 1 of 28 BBS routes in the Ontario
    
              portion of BCR13. Correlation between these two sets of estimates was remarkably M^i (r =*
    
              0.95;-Fig. 4a). Two-thirds {66 percent) of species tad estimates that differed by less flan a footer
    
              of 2, and 99 percent were wrttsn an older of Magnitude of each other. For example, in the
    
              Ontario/BCR 13 companion, the atks method e*Ba»»ted raugbly 1.3 million pain of American
    
              Robin versus 1 .$ rniffion pairs for the BBS method. Oflw close comparisons, representing a
    
              wide range of common and rare species, included Boropean Starling (Stems vutgaris; 1.9
    
              million vs. 2.2 million pairs), American Goldfinch (Cwdtxlis trtstlt; 381,000 vs. 363,000),
    
              Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosia; 24,000 vs. 23,000), Great Horned Owl (5,700 vs. 6,300),
    
              and Henslow's Sptrrow (Ammodnmus hsmlowll; 147 vs. 160 pairs). Other individual
    
              comparisons that were not as close may suggest incorrect detectability thresholds, drSerences in
    
              habitat coverage between the two survey methods,  or lade of precision for raw species.
    
    
              A similar comparison in the Maritime Provinces portion of BCR 14 also resulted in a high
    
              correlation (r * 0.91) between atlas- and BBS-derived estrmstes for 99 species (Fig. 4b). For this
    
              comparison, we relied on EraJdne's (t 992) calculated estimates, which involved removing the
    
              highest 3 percent of abundance estimates for each species, Md reducing the midpoint of the top
                        abundance category. We.estim«te that this trimming procedure reduced atte population
                                             t
                        estimates by more than 50 percent, on average, and resulted in conservative (lower) populations
    
                        relative to our BBS-derived estimates. Still, atlas and BBS estimates Were within g factor of 2 for
    
                        64 percent of species, and were within an order of magnitude for til species.
    
    
                        Comparison With Breeding Bird Census
    
    
                        Total population density for at! landbird species was approximately three times higher when
    
                        based on Breeding Bird Censuses, compared with BBS-derived density estimates, in both BCRs
    
                        (Table 4). Even when BBC densities were corrected for habitat availability in each BCR, BBC
    
                        densities remained high relative to BBS-derived densities.
    
    
                        Deriving Numerical Population Objective!
    
    
                        To derive numerical population objectives, tve start with the pnemise fcgt a reasonable
    
                        conservation target is to reverse population decline observed over the pot 30-40 years, as
    
                        measured by BBS or equivalent survey. Rather flan extrapolate: annual rstes of decline over 30-
    
                        40 yews, we chosa to use broad classes of population decline as the basis for objectives, as in
    
                        Rich and otters (in prep.). For this purpose we used population trend sears* (PT) assigned to
    
                         species in the PIF species assessment process (Carter aad others 2000, Panjabi and others 2001).
    
                         These scores of 1 -5 are based on BBS population trends (or equivalent) dver the entire tirneframe
    
                         of the survey, usually since 1966. A PT of "5" is assigned to species feat have declined
    
                         significantly by at least 50 percent over a 30-yetr period, for these species, our conservation
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-786
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                      Rosenberg and Blancoer    16
                                                                                                                                                                                           Rosenberg and Blancher    17
              objective is to doable cunent populations over some future ttae period, and the nuaierfeal target
    
    
              is calculated as roughly twice the current popalsiion estimate. A FT score of "4'* is assigned to
    
    
              species with less certain declines or sijpificaat declines of between 15 and 50 percent over 30
    
    
              years. For these species we propose an objective of restoring populations baaed on a 30 percent
    
    
              decline (approximately the midpoint of the 15-50 percent range), which translates to > numeric*!
    
    
              target of about 1.4 times cunent population. FT scores of "3" are assigned to species with highly
    
    
              variable, uncertain, or tmtooxwi population trends. For tee, we suggest a conservative objective
    
    
              of maintaining sightly higher populations to the future until we em acquire sufficient trend data
    
    
              to measure trend; Le, 1.1 times current population estimates. Finally, for species with stable (FT
    
    
              = 2) or increasing (PT *» 1) populations, oar conservation objective is to maintain fiitnre
    
    
              populations at or above current levels.
    
    
    
    
    
              Note ttitrt tMa categorical assignment of numerical objectives reduces the reliance on specific
    
    
              BBS trend estimates, which often have wide 95 percent confidence limits, especially in regions
    
    
              with small samples of BBS routes. Using this approach, we present conservation objectives arid
    
    
              numerical population targets fbx several species identified as priorities irt 0CR13 (Table 2) and
    
    
              BCR14(Table3).
    
    
    
    
    
              DISCUSSION
    
    
    
    
    
              We believe that our pragmatic approach, with clearly stated assumptions, can product useful first
    
    
               approximations of total population size for North American la&dbirds. Oar comparisons with
    
    
              independently derived population estimates suggest that extrapolations from BBS abundance
                        data typically yield estimates well within the correct order of magnitude. It is likely that our
                                              i
    
                        population estimates are conservative for most species, beetuse we did not include any
    
    
                        correction for birds that are within detection distance but still not detected during a 3-minute
    
    
                        BBS count even at peak detection time of day, i.e. because they didnt vocalize, or because
    
    
                        observers missed them. Bart (in press) estimated that 30-70 percent of ghrab steppe birds do not
    
    
                        call during a 3-minute counts, and a further 20-30 percent of birds singiag within detection
    
    
                        distance are missed by BBS observers. Our comparisons to BBC tandbird densities also suggest
    
    
                        our BBS-derived estimates are conservative, perhaps by a factor of 3, though it is possible that
    
    
                        BBC densities are high if plots were biased to sites with more birds or if densities were
    
    
                        overestimated in small BBC plots.
    
    
    
    
    
                        A habitat bias on BBS routes, if present in the region under consideration, would result in under-
    
    
                        or over-estimated populations, so is best measured and inceporated into the estimate (Bart, in
    
    
                        press). However, even where habitat biss has not been meowed, this does not rule out use of
    
    
                        BBS-derived estimates to set and track conservation targets, n* long ai progress towards
    
    
                        objectives is measured using the same method. The ssnse studies that documented & bias against
    
    
                        forest sampling on roadside routes (Bart and others 1995, Keller and Scalta 1999) did not find
    
    
                        an equivalent bias in terms of the change tn land cover over time.
    
    
    
    
    
                         While we are encouraged by the comparisons with other measures of population size, we
    
    
                         acknowledge that our estimates are only crude first approximations that might be poor for some
    
    
                         groups of birds, or in regions where BBS routes are sparse or strongly habitat-biased. We
    
    
                         therefore encourtf e further research to refine the corrections we have applied so far and to test
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-787
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                       Rosenberg and Btaaeher    18
    
              for and correct any habitat bias in BBS surveys in specific tenons. Studies of species-specific
                                    s
              detection distances, voesilization frequency, detection probabilities of males and females, and
    
              proportion of unpaired birds detected would all be extremely useful for refining population
    
              estimates. Our efforts thus fer have focused on hndbW species, which as a group are reasonably
    
              well sampled by BBS, These methods rosy also be appropriate for some species of waterfowl,
    
              shorebtrds and waterbirds that are typical of landscapes sampled by BBS; testing is needed to
    
              confirm this. Finally, our method does not address vast boreal/taiga and arctic regions of North
    
              America that are not sampled by BBS. Other methods will be needed to estimate populations of
    
              these far-northern breeding species (Rich and others in prep.). We invite additional comparisons
    
              and discussion, and we encourage the testing of these methods on oflier species and in other
    
              regions.
    
    
              Even if we accept the first approximation of laadbird population estimates as reasonable, using
    
              these to set numerical conservation targets remains controversial. Fear exists among academic
    
              ornithologists and conservation practitioners thtt using inaccurate population estimates to set
    
              conservation targets may lead to misdirected conservation actions and loss of scientific
    
              credibility. Alternative forms of population objectives have been proposed and discussed,
    
              including iising minimum block sizes of habitats for msmtaimng "source* or "viable"
    
              populations, using BBS relative abundance as a surrogate for population size (e.g., achieve a
    
              regional density of x birds per BBS route), «nd using raw trend estimates as objectives (e.g.,
    
              stabilizing a 2 percent per year BBS decline). Our assumption in using explicit population
    
              estimates is that there is compelling value in knowing the magnitude of population change
    
              desired, and having easily understood objectives. Population estimates also allow comparisons to
                                                                                  Rosenberg and Blaneher     19
    
                         independently-estimated-sources of mortality and a grasp of the magnitude of habitat required to
                                               i
                         sustain bird populations across the landscape.
                         Other considerations is setting conservation targets relate to timeframes, historic baselines, and
    
                         political and social acceptability of objectives. We selected "early BBS" as a reasonable historic
    
                         reference because it represents the extent of our knowledge of population trends for most
    
                         species, and because it is a similar Eimelrame to that proposed for the restoration of waterfowl
    
                         and shorebird populations. Just »s important, it also allows a comparable measurement of success
    
                         into the ftiture, using the same BBS methodology. Numerous factors could make it desirable to
    
                         alter this titneframe, however. For example, some populations and habitats were severely altered
    
                         long before the beginning of the BBS, and it msy be desirable to attempt restoration of these to
    
                         some earlier baseline. Alternatively, some populations or habitats may have been artificially
    
                         abundant ia the 1960s (relative to pre-settlement conditions), such as sorrte early suceessional
    
                         habitats in eastern regions, or populations responding to sprace-budworm outbreaks, and
    
                         proposing the return to these levels may be inappropriate. Full discussion of these and other
    
                         factors is critical for setting effective and achievable conservation targets, tat such a discussion
    
                         is beyond tile scope of our paper. Our proposed method for setting numerical targets can be
    
                         adapted to a variety of baselines or timeftames.
    
    
                         In conclusion, we believe that numerical population estimates and conservation targets for
    
                         landbird species are useful and achievable. We propose a simple methodology for extrapolating
    
                         from widely available BBS abundance date, while stating a series of assumptions and
    
                         acknowledging the limitations of this approach. We encourage further research that aims to
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-788
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                    Rosenberg and Bhneher    20
                                                                                                                                                                                     Rotenberg and Blancher    1\
             refine population estimates and better enables us to understand and use data from the BBS. We
                                   i
    
             further encourage the use of additional survey d&tt, point counts, checklist counts, and other
    
    
             measures of abundance to fill is gaps for species and regions poorly covered by BBS. Finally we
    
    
             encourage the use of population-based conservation targets in continental and regional plans as a
    
    
             compelling means of justifying aid communicating levels of desired population and habitat
    
    
             change in specific regions.
    
    
    
    
             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    
    
    
    
             We thank many individuals throughout the Partners in Flight network for inspiring discussions,
    
    
             both fbonal and informal, on the topics of population estimation and objective setting. In
    
    
             particular, members of the PIF Species Assessment Technical Committee (Carol Betrdmore,.
    
    
              Greg Butcher, Dem Demarest, Eriea Dana, Chuck Hunter, Arviad Panjtbi, David Pashley and
    
    
              Terry Rich) were instrumental in helping us develop the methods and arguments presented in tMs
    
    
              paper. Jon Bart contributed to early discussions and provided a draft of his methods for
    
    
              extrapolating BBS counts to population size. John Saner contributed insights into use of BBS
    
    
              data, fa addition we thank the many participants of meetings and workshops wfco encouraged us
    
    
              to continue our efforts. Our analyses and approach rely on data collected by many o&ers; we
    
    
              thank all of the volunteers who participated in breeding bird surveys and atlases, and the
    
    
              organizations that made those data available. This paper is a contribution of the Cornel!
    
    
              Laboratory of Ornithology and Bird Studies Canada.
    
    
    
    
              LITERATURE CITED
                        Bart, J, [in press]. Estimating total population ttee for songbirds. Bird Populations.
    
    
                        Bart, J., M. Hofsehen, and B. O. Peterjohn. 1995. Reliability of the Breeding Bird Survey;
    
    
                              Effe«t« of restricting surveys to roads. Auk 112: 758-761.
    
    
                        Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill (eds.) 2001. The U.S. Shorebird
    
    
                              Conservation Plan, 2°* ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA.
    
    
                        Cadman, M. D., P. F. J. Eagles, and F. M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of
    
    
                              Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Long Point Bird Observatory,
    
    
                              University of Waterloo Press; 617 p.
    
    
                        Carter, M. F., W. C. Hunter, D. N. Pashley, and K. V. Rosenberg. 2000. Setting conservation
    
    
                              priorities for landlords in the United States: the Partners in Flight approach. Auk
    
    
                              117:541-548.
    
    
                        Btnlen, J. T. and M. J. DeJong. 1981. The application of song detection threshold distance to
    
    
                              census operations. In. C. J. Ralph and J. M. Scott eds. Estimating numbers of
    
    
                              terrestrial birds. Studies in Avian Biology 6:346-352.
    
    
                        Erskine, A. J. 1992. Atlas of Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces. Nova Scotia Museum
    
    
                              and Nimbus Publishing Ltd.; 270 p.
    
                        Hayes, C., A. Millildn, R. Detlmers, K. Loftus, B. Collins, and I. Ringuet. (this volume).
    
    
                              Integrated migratory bird planning to the Lower Great Lakei/St. Lawrence Plain
    
    
                              Bird Conservation Region.
    
                        Keller, C. M. E. «nd 1 T, SoOlan. 1999. Potential roadside teses due to habitat changes
    
    
                               along breeding bird survey routes. Condor 101:50-57.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-789
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                  Rosenberg and Bleacher    22
                                                                                                                                                                               Rosenberg and Blancher    23
              Kennedy, J. A., P, DUworA-Christie, and A. 1. Erskine. 1999. The Canadian Breeding Bird
    
                    (Mapping) Census Database. Technical Report Series No. 342, Canadian Wildlife
    
                    Service, Ottawa, Ontario
    
    
              NAWMP. 1986. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. A strategy for cooperation.
    
                    U.S. Dept of the Interior & Environment Canada,
    
    
              NAWMP. 2003. North American Waterfowl Management Kan 2803 Update. Strengthening
    
                    the biological foundations. 1* draft for review by stakeholders, 8 August 2002.
    
    
              Panjabi, A. and C. Beardmore, P. Blaneher, 0. Butcher, M. Carter, D. Demurest, E. Dasn, C.
    
    
                    Hunter, D. Pasbiey, K. Rosenberg, T. Rich, and T. Will. 2001. The Partners In Right
    
    
                    Haadbook on Specie* Ass«sment & Prioritizarton. Version 1.1. Rocky Mountain
    
    
                    BiW Observatory, Brighton, CO.
    
    
              Pashley, D. N., C. J. Beardmore, J. A. Fitzgerald, R. P. Ford, W. C. Hunter, M. S. Morrison, and
    
    
                    K. V. Rosenberg. 2000.  Partners in FBgkt CsMervatfon of ft* Land Birds of tke
    
                    United States. American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA.
    
    
              Robbias, C. S., D. Bystrak, and G. H. Geisler. 1986. The breeding bird surveys its flrrt fifteen
    
    
                    years, 1965-1979. USDI Pish and Wildlife Service Resource Publ. 157, Washington,
    
    
                    D.C.
    
              Wolf, A. T,, R. W. Howe, and 0. J. Divis. 1995. Detectabffity of forest bird* fr»m stationary
    
    
                    points in northern Wisconsin. In: Ralph, C. J., J. R. Saaer, and S. Droege, eds.
    
    
                    Monitoring bird populations by point counts. Gen, Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-149, Albany,
    
    
                    CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture;
    
    
                    19-23.
                       Table 1. CATEGORIES Ot DETECTION DISTANCES AND EQUIVALENT BBS SAMPLING AREA FOR
                                           i
                       LANDBIRDS.
    
    
                       Maximum    Effective                        Example species
    
                        defection   BBS sample
    
    
                        distance    area / route
    
    
                            80m         1km   Brown Creeper, Blue-gray Qnatcstcher, Golden"CrowriedKinglet7
    
                                               Ruffed Grouse
    
    
                           125 m       2.5 km2  Most forest-breeding warblers, Red-eyed Vireo, Downy
    
    
                                               Woodpecker, accipiters
    
                           200 m       6.3 km2  Thrushes, waterthrushes, wood-pewees, meadowlarks, Bobolink,
    
    
                                               Song Sparrow
    
    
                           400 m      25.1 km2  Whip-poor-will, Pifeated Woopecker, Red-tailed Hawk, crows,
    
    
                                               vultures
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-790
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                               Rosenberg and Bltnete-    24
                                                                                                                                                                      Rosenberg tnd Blancher    25
             Table 2. POPULATION ESTIMATES AND NUMERICAL OBJECTIVES FOR LANDBBS) SWOBS
                                i
             I0ENTn»mrj AS PRIORITY BY HAYES AND OTHERS (THIS VOLUME) fe» LOWBR GREAT LAKBS-ST.
             LAWEMCX PLAIN, BCR13
                      Table 3. POPULATION ESTIMATES AND NUMERICAL OBJECTIVES POR LAHDBIRD SPECIES WITH
                                         t
                      HIOH PIF ASSESSMENT SCORES IN ATLANTIC NORTHERN FOREST, BCR14
    Species
    Norftiem Harrier
    Black-billed Cuckoo
    Short-eared Owl
    Whip-poor-will
    Red-headed Woodpecker
    Eastern Wood-Pewee
    Acadian Flycatcher
    Loggerhead Shrike
    Sedge "Wren
    Wood Thrush
    Brown Thrasher
    Blue-winged Warbler
    Golden-winged Warbler
    Cerulean Warbler
    Hooded Warbler
    Field Sparow
    Hensiow's Sparrow
    Grasshopper Sparrow
    Bobolink
    BBS Maximum BBS Time BCR FT
    avg/ detection sample of day population
    rte distance araa(ksi) adjust (individuals)
    0.302
    0.746
    0.004
    0.017
    0.178
    3.477
    0171
    0.007
    0.025
    6.081
    1.499
    0.565
    0.123
    0.100
    0.357
    3.572
    0.025
    0.476
    24.863
    400m
    200m
    200m
    400m
    200m
    200m
    125m
    200m
    125m
    200m
    200m
    200m
    200m
    125m
    200m
    200m
    200m
    200m
    200m
    25.1
    6.3
    6.3
    25.1
    63
    6.3
    2.5
    63
    6.3
    6.3
    6,3
    6.3
    6.3
    2.5
    2.5
    6.3
    6.3
    63
    6.3
    1.29
    139
    1.60
    22.3
    1.25
    1.12
    1.17
    1.19
    1.62
    2.30
    1.12
    1.21
    1.32
    1.35
    1.20
    1.07
    1,66
    1.47
    1.21
    6,200
    66,100
    400
    6,100
    14,200
    249,200
    51,100
    500
    2,600
    , 892,200
    107,800
    43,700
    10^00
    21,800
    68,800
    243,800
    2,700
    44,700
    1,927,000
    3
    4
    5
    5
    5
    4
    2
    5
    3
    4
    5
    2
    2
    2
    2
    5
    5
    5
    4
    BCR Numerical
    population target
    objective (rounded)
    I. IX pop
    1.4 X pop
    2Xpop
    2 Xpop
    2Xpop
    1.4Xpop
    Conentpop
    2Xpop
    1.5 Xpop
    1.4 X pop
    2 Xpop
    Current pop
    Current pop
    Conentpop
    Current pop
    2 Xpop
    2 Xpop
    2 Xpop
    1.4 Xpop
    6,900
    93.&00
    800
    8,500
    28,000
    350,000
    51,000
    1,000
    2,900
    1,200,000
    215,000
    44,000
    10,000
    22,000
    69,000
    490,000
    5,600
    89,000
    2,700,000
             Notes: Area of BCR13 is 201,292 kma. Pair adjust« 2 for all species. For descriptions of
             detection distance categories, BBS effective simple seas for each species, pair adjustment, time-
             of-day adjustments and population trend (PT) scores, see Methods.
    Species
    Broad-winged Hawk
    Raffed Grouse
    Whip-poor-will
    Yellow-bellied Sapsuckei
    Black-backed
    Woodpecker
    Olive-sided Flycatcher
    Veery
    Wood Thrush
    Chestnut-sided Warbkr
    Cape May Warbler
    Black-throated Blue
    Warbler
    Blackbumian Warbler
    Bay-breasted Warbler
    Canada Warbler
    Scarlet Tintger
    Nelson's Sharp-tailed
    Sparrow
    Rose-breasted Grosbeak
    Bobolink
    Rusty Blackbird
    BBS Maximum BBS Time BCR PT
    avg/ detection sample of day population
    rte distance area (km3) adjust (individuals)
    0.190
    0.218
    0.016
    3.351
    0.043
    
    0.551
    10.889
    4.983
    7.622
    0.371
    1.988
    
    2.324
    0.727
    1.216
    1.496
    0.077
    
    2.731
    7.271
    0.179
    125»
    SOrt
    400m
    125m
    125m
    
    200ffl
    200m
    200ffl
    200m
    125m
    125m
    
    125m
    125m
    125m
    200m
    125m
    
    200m
    2Q0»
    200rn
    2.5
    I
    25.1
    2.5
    2.5
    
    6.3
    6.3
    6.3
    6.3
    2.5
    2.5
    
    2.5
    2.5
    2,5
    6.3
    2.5
    
    6.3
    6.3
    6.3
    2.63
    1.37
    22.3
    1.40
    1.81
    
    1.25
    1.67
    2.30
    1.23
    1.31
    1.12
    
    1.28
    1.28
    1.25
    1.14
    1.92
    
    1.09
    1.21
    1.44
    143,100
    214,700
    10,200
    1,342,700
    22,300
    
    78,700
    2,071,600
    1,302,900
    1,070,000
    139,900
    639,400
    
    852,700
    267,100
    436,500
    193,500
    42,400
    
    340,400
    1,004,100
    29,300
    2
    5
    4
    4
    3
    
    5
    4
    5
    4
    4
    2
    
    1
    4
    5
    2
    3
    
    4
    4
    5
    BCR Numerical
    population target
    objective (rounded)
    Current pop
    2 Xpop
    UXpop
    1.4Xpop
    1.1 pop
    
    2Xpop
    1,4 X pop
    2 X pop
    1 .4 X pop
    1,4 X pop
    Current pop
    
    Current pop
    1.4 X pop
    2Xpop
    Current pop
    UXpop
    
    1.4 X pop
    !.4Xpop
    2Xpop
    140,000
    430,000
    14,000
    1,830,000
    25,000
    
    160,000
    2,900,000
    2,600,000
    1,500,000
    196,000
    640,000
    
    850,000
    370,000
    870;OQQ
    190,000
    47,000
    
    480,000
    1,400,000
    59,000
                       Notes: Area of BCRI4 is 358,697 km*. Pair adjust •* 2 for all species. For descriptions of
                       detection distance categories, BBS effective sample areas for each species, pair adjustment, time-
                       of-day adjustments and population trend (PT) scores, see Methods.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-791
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                Rosenberg and Blancher    26
    
             Table 4. COMPARISON Ot TOTAL LANDWRB DENSITY PROM BREEDINO Brno CENSUS (BBC)
             PLOTS Vs ESTTMATBS BASED ON BSEEWNO BIRD SUJWEY (BBS), FOR BCRs 13 AND 14
              BCR   BBC   BBClandbirf   BBC density weighted   BBSlaodbird      Ratio
                      plots
                      (N)
     density
    (prs/km2)
    by habitat in BCR
       (prs/ta2)
     density
    (prs/kin2)
    BBC/BBS
             BCR 13   204
             BCR 14    93
       592
       632
          506
          621
       198
       210
       2.6
       3.0
             Note; Estimates are for Canadian portions of the BCRs.
                                                                                                                                                Rosenberg and Biarscher    27
                                                                                             Figure Legends:
    Figure 1, Schematic of a BBS route, illustrating how the 50 roadside points, each sampling out to
    a distance of 400m, can sample a maximum of 25.1 km2.
    
    Figure 2. Distribution of detections across 50 BBS stops for four species with contrasting
    temporal patterns. Lines are 6* order polynomial recessions fit to the data. Numbers are time of
    day adjustments (max detection / avg detection) used in population estimates.
    
    FigureJ. Brown Thrasher pair estimates in 10 x 10 km squares in the Ontario portion of BCR 13,
    from the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas, 1981-1985.
                                                                                                                       Figure 4. Comparison of BBS- and Atlas-derived population estimates: A. Ontario portion of
                                                                                                                       BCR 13,1981-1985; B. Maritime provinces (BCR 14), 1986-1990. Line shows equal BBS and
                                                                                                                       Atlas -values. LandbMs with atlas estimates from 25^- atlas squares and found on 1 or more BBS
                                                                                                                       route are included.
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                                                                           A-792
                                                                                                                                     Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                Rosenberg and Blascher   28
                                                                                                                             Rosenberg and Btenefaer   29
                                    Figure I
             Each BBS stop is a too m (1/4 mile)
                 radius "point count"
                                                 SO Mops • 25.1 Km2
                                                                                                      i       A.  Whip-poor-
    
                                                                                                                  22,3
                                                                                                          D. Broad-winged Hawk
    
                                                                                                                  2.63
                                                                                                       Hlllllll
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-793
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                        Rosenterg and Blander   30
                                                                Rosenberg aid Blanch«    31
                                          Figure3
                                                                                                                                      Figure 4
                                                      Brown Thrasher Pairs
                                                        •   0
                                                        •   1
                                                        *   2-10
                                                        •  11-100
                                                        *  101-1000
                                                  10,000      100,080    1,000,900    lO.OW.OOO
                                                    Atlas Paira
                           ]0,000,0(»
                                                                                                                1,000,000
                                                                                                              e
                                                                                                              2
                                                                                                                  1,000
                                                                                                                                    10,000
                                                                                                                                   Atlas Pairs (Etskine 1992)
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-794
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                   Subject: Re: Recant TN permits
    
                   On 11/4/03 4:56 PM, "Doug SkkfeHf  From: Melinda Weiton 
     > Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 09:38:41 -0800
     > To: Doug Slddell 
     > Subject Recent TN permits
    
     * Doug
     > Just a reminder. When we talked a couple of weeks ago you indicated that you
     > would be able to send ma a list of the surface mining permits in the
     > Cumberland Mountains issued since
     > December 2002 wfth ttw permitted acreages and ths estimated actual surface
    . > disturbances.
    
     > Thank you in advance for your 8ms to do this.
    
     > Cheers
     > Melinda
                   BRADEN MOUNTAIN SURFACE MINE
    
    
             CAMPBELL AND SCOTT COUNTIES, TENNESSEE
    
    
    
    
    
                 1  PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
    
    In November 1999, TVA approved a m!nir>g plan submitted by Gafilff Coal Company for
    mining TVA-owned coal in the Koppers Coal Reserve In Campbell and Scott Counties,
    Tennessee. Most of (he laid surface over the Koppers Coal Reserve, including the area of
    the approved mine, is within the Royal Blue Wildlife Management Area and owned by
    Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). Ths mine, known as Breden Mountain
    Area No. 16, had a permitted area of 66-",.5 acres and would haw used a variety of surface
    mining techniques.  Gatiiff had previously been issued the necessary approvals for the
    mining plan by fha Office of Surface Mining Reclamation end Enforcement (OSM) and the
    Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. As pat of te approval process,
    OSM completed an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (OSM
    1999). TVA cooperated with OSM in the preparation of this EA, conducted its cnvn
    independent review of Ms EA, and adopted this EA and issued its own FONSI as part of its
    NowWber 1999 Approval (TVA 1899),
    
    Shortly after the November 1999 approval and before the initiation of mining activities,
    Gatiiff terminated Its lease agreement with TVA because changed coal market conditions
    had wade the proposed nJinftg operation uneconomical, O^M placed Qattlff a raining
    permit In Inactive status.
    
    Recent changes In coal market conditions have made the formerly proposed mining
    operate mow economically attractive, TVA therefor® proposes to writer ffito a new tease
    agreement that would result In mining coal in tJ-.e Braden Mountain area. This EA evaluates
    the environmental impacts of the tease agreement and resulting coal mining operation, and
    supplements ih« EA prepared by OSM and adopted by TVA In 1998.  It also addresses
    teues that haw arisen since 1999.
    
    
     2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
                                                                                                                               2.1   Th« Proposed Action
                                                                                                                               TVA proposes to enter Into a '.ease agreement with a coa! mining company that would result
                                                                                                                               In the mining of WA-owned coal h ths 8rad«rt Mountain area. The rnWfif operations
                                                                                                                               would be carried out as described in the mine plan previously submitted by Gatiiff Coal
                                                                                                                               Company (Sat* Coal Company 1998). The mho would produce about 300,000 tons of
                                                                                                                               coal per year over a 7.4 y«ar paled, tot m toial production of 2,232,817 tons. Major
                                                                                                                               features of the mine am illustrated In Figure 1.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                         A-795
                                                                                                                                    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                 Figure 1. Major features at the proposed Bradan Mountain surface mine
                                 Aa decribed in the Gatfiff Coal Company mining plan, coal would be mined from five seams
                                 - Upper Pine Bald, Lower Pine Bald, Penes, Wsinut Mountain, ana Red Ash. Mining
                                 techniques would inetutte contour mining, cross ridge mining, second cut mining, s* «O®r
                                 mining.  the mine permit ares, as ttefced by QSM wguiations, 1*664.6 acres. Thaareaof
                                 surface disturbance, Including reads, settling ponds, and Ms, totals 526.5 acres. Haul
                                 roads would occupy about 86 acres, and light duty access roads to sediment basins would
                                 occupy B acres.  Contour, cross ridge, and second cut mining would disturb an area of
                                 320.6 acres. Augur mining would occur on 138 acres, on which there would be MHe surface
                                 disturbance.
    
                                 Fill areas for excess overburdsn would total 80 acres. Four fill  areas totalling 22.1 acres
                                 would be on old orphan mine benches, mostly on the 2300-foot contour. Six fill areas
                                 totalling 33.Z acres would be vBiley fills. The largest vaiiey M would be 9.8 acres,  and
                                 portions of two of the vaSey ffis would be on abandoned mine benches. The remaining four
                                 fl areas, totalling 34.7 acres, would be Eoc&ted wBhln newly mined areas. Twenty-five
                                 sediment basins, ranging from 0.4 to 1.8 acres in size, would bs constructed. Seven of
                                 these sediment basins would be within newly mined areas. The 18 other sediment ponds
                                 would have a total area of 18 acres; 14 of these 18 ponds would ba on abandoned mine
                                 benches.
    
                                 Almost ail of the proposed roads outsida of the area to ba mined follow existing roads.
                                 Most of these roads would be ragraded and many segments would be widened. About 0.6
                                 mles of new road would to constructed between Elk Sap on Highway 297 and Braden
                                 Gap.
    
                                 Hydraloglc impacts would ba minimized by measures described In a Hydraloglc
                                 Reclamation nan submitted as part of the Gatliff mine permit application. Hauiroads would
                                 be constructed with durable material and -culverts would be installed.  Disturbed areas along
                                 roads would be quickly revegetated. At runoff torn Ins actual mine site would ba diverted
                                 by terms, drainage ditches, and natural drainways to sediment basins.  Sediment ponds
                                 would be designed for a 10 year/24 hour precipitation event and haw discharge structures
                                 to maintain a steady ftovsr after pftsdpftattofi awsnts. Alternative sediment control devices,
                                 such as hay bales and fl«®r febrte fence, wouW bs utBzed durirtg early construction
                                 aotivifcs before bsstos «m completed. Drainage structures would be lined wBh grass or
                                 rock as necessary, and incorporate splish ponds to control erosion. Storage of ooa! on the
                                 mins site would be minimized, and runoff from temporary coal stockpiles would drain to
                                 sediment basins. FIB areas would be constructed with diversion channels around their
                                 perimeter* and rock drains beneath the flife to routs both sufraca runoff and ajttundanster
                                 flow to sediment basins. Sediment basin discharges would bs  monitored and treated as
                                 necessary to meet effluent limltaibns.
    
                                 Miriet®dimattav»mildb«conternpowt»ousv*hrolntaa,  BaaMHng of spoil would be
                                 used to eliminate highwails and return the area to approximate  original contour.  Topsoil
                                 would be s«gr»fl8ted daring rriMng and redlstributsd over «rt» area during redamallon. The
                                 poetminina tend us* would bs wildlife twMat  RsvegeteBan msasurw to he implem«*d
                                 at the request of tt» TWRA snd the U.§. FWi and Wildlife Service include pfanflns warm
                                 season grass»» on 20 sews of flat met® on top of the vatoy fHs and pfenting 12.5 acres in
                                 hardwood spoctes that vwuM raatuw to provide potential bat roostine; ttwa.  Acoeptabte
                                 soediis Inciucle poat o»k, chesftiu* oak, pemfmmen, northern red oak, white oak arid
                                 wwtooth oste sawtooth oak would not compose more than 28 percent of the plantings. An
                                 additional 14 acres would ba planted In a mix of trees and shrubs. Both Bio hardwood
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-796
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                        plantings and tho trae/shrub plantii>gs would to in discrete Mocks distributed across the
                        mine MM. Thetwnttnd»ctthaan*a»ou!dbeplanted**amWumofgrassesand
                        taeumes. Sediment tmslns would be retained by TWRA for wildMa habitat enhaneenwnt;
                        some basins may be niodiSed to enhance their wetiand characleristics.
    
                        2.2   Alternatives to the Proposed Action
    
                        Under the No Action alternstive.TVAwouM not enter Woo lease agreement Tor the mining
                        of TVA-owned coal in the Braden Mountain area.  The coal would not be mined as
                        described ebove and TVA would not receive royalty paymants.              _  '
                                            3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
    
    
    
                        3.1   Vegetation
                        The project area lias within the Cumberland Mountain subprovlnce of the Cumberland
                        Plateau Physiographic Province as described by Fenneman (193S).  It b also within the
                        Mixed Masophytlc Forest Region as defined by Braun (19SO).  Historically, forests of this
                        region were dominated by a mixture of deciduous trees including several oaks (northern
                        red, white, black, scarlet, and chestnut oaks), red maple, sugar maple, yellow-poplar,
                        basswood, cucumbertree, Mack cherry, yellow buckeye, sweet birch, Mackgum, white ash,
                        and, formerly, American chestnut. Pines occur on some south- and west-fadng ridges and
                        hemlock often occurs in stream bottoms.
    
                        The project area Includes too peaks on Sraden Mountain, with elevations of about 2640
                        and 2700 feet. The surrounding topography Is steep and rugged. Most of the area has
                        been  previously disturbed by togging and/or coal mining. Deep mining has occurred in tt»
                        area,  although relatively little evidence of this disturbance remains. Abandoned contour
                        surface mines surround much of Braden Mountain at about 2300 feet elevation. These
                        mines are generally less than 100 yards wide and mosBy reforested Larger abandoned
                        surface mines are present between about 1900 and 2150 feet elevation on the south side
                        of Braden Mountain and between Braden Mountain and Highway 63. These mines are
                        partially wvegetatad.
    
                        The dominant vegetation type Is upland hardwood forest  Forests on Braden Mountain
                        range from sapling to sawtimber-size.  A large portion of the southern Braden Mountain site
                        was logged In about 1999 to prepare tor raining by Gafliff Coal Company. This area Is
                        vegetated by a mixture of hardwood sapfings, pole-sizod trees and scstisrod snags, and
                        has a dense shrub layer dominated by blackberry and pokeweed. Forests on the rldgetops
                        and south and west slopes are dominated by scarlet and chestnut oaks, mockemut history,
                        red maple, end sourwood. Common uaderstory species found In these forests Include
                        mountain laurel, flame azalea, plnxtor Rower, greenbriar. and Christmas fern. Forests on
                        north  and east slopes support mom mesic speciss including yellow-poplar, yeSow buckeye,
                        white oak, northern red oak, sweet birch, cucumbertree, and basswood. These forests
                        have  a rich herbaceous understory; common species Include Mack cohosh, wild ginger, and
                        painted trfltum.  Dominant trees on the abandoned mines ore black locust, yellow-poplar,
                        and red maple; Virginia pine, shorfleaf pine, and white pine are also present.  Many of the
                        pines have recently died from southern pine beetle infestation.
                                 The distribution, estimated ag« class, and composition of the forest communities in the
                                 project area are representative of the greater Cumberland Mountain region {Smstoy 1984;
                                 HinMe et al. f 888).  Review of all natural communities thus far deRnsd In ihe Internafflonal
                                 ClassWeaflon of tcologleal Communities Indicates that none of the plant communities are
                                 current^ considered to bs Imperiled {hav» been assigned a global conservation r«nk of (31
                                 or £32; NstaBServe 2002). In summary, no plant communities of state, regional, or global
                                 significance occur within the project area.
    
                                 3.2   Wildlife
                                 The primary wildBfe habitat fet me Bmden Mountain araa consists of upland hardwood
                                 tore* Previous mining and timber harvwHng tetivitos have resulted In an overall mixture
                                 of ag® classes of trees In most Ibrest&d portions of the study araa.  Age classes range in
                                 ag» torn mined sapling and pole-sized sands to mature sawttoibeMlzad, second-growth
                                 forest Mast producing trees such as hfcfcortes and a variety of oaks are common in the
                                 project area. Other prominent tee speciss in the area Include yellow-poplar and red msple.
    
                                 A portion of the area (described in Section 3.1) was logged in about 1999 In preparation for
                                 ttie mining proposed by ©atfiff Coal Company. Roads, partSaUy vegetated abandoned
                                 surface mines, and exposed rock h^hwafe provide additional sally successtonat habitats.
                                 Prominent spedes of plants In these early successions! habitats include princess tree,
                                 redbud, black tocust, elderberry, and blackberry.
    
                                 As part of the Royal Blue Wildlife Management Area (RBWMA), the study area is managed
                                 for wildlife such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, gray squirrel, raccoon, quail and ruffed
                                 arouse. The Tennessee VWWiife Resources Agency (TWRA) has recenfly reintroduoed elk
                                 and bear Into HBWMA. Elk sign was observed in the Bmden Mountain area during field
                                 investigations.  Slack bear are occasionally sighted In the lower elevations of RBWMA.
    
                                 In addition to the game species toted above, other common mammals In the project araa
                                 Include gmy fbx, easterh chipmunk, woodlsnd vote, whit&^oted mouse, house mouse, big
                                 brown bat, red bat, and short-tailed shrew. Reptiles and amphibians observed within the
                                 ares include eastern box turtle, green frog, teopard frog, gray te® frog, Hvs-Hned skink,
                                 fence lizard, red-spotted newt, American toad, garter snake, and black rat snake.  A few
                                 small ponds OR abandoned mine benches provfde hatoiat for several tpactes of
                                 amphibians. Northern eopperhaad and timber rattlesnake were also observed during fctd
                                 visits.
    
                                 A tew abandoned mine portals occur wtthta t» Braden Mountain permit area. These cave-
                                 like environments can provide habitat for numerous speciss of small mammals, such as
                                 whte«footed rnfca, and several species 8f bats. BWs »ueh as eastern phoebe and Carolina
                                 wrens also frequently build nests In mine openings.
    
                                 The permit area supports a diverse bW population, eemprtesd mostly of taresMweina
                                 species.  About hat of the spproximaMy 5S spscies of birds breeding In the mine permit
                                 area are nsotraplea) migrants which winter In  tt» Caribbean and Lafln America. The most
                                 abundant speetos present in pole- to sawftnber-stesd torest are, In descending order of
                                 abundance, th« nkMyed vimo, ownbW, csrutean warbler, scarlet tanaoer, Amarictn
                                 redstart, btek-arufrwhita warbter, and hooded warbter. Indigo bunings, eastern townees,
                                 and northern cardinals «re common In forest edges and in the porton of Braden Mountain
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-797
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                        cutover 3 to 4 years ago. Other birds typical of early successfenal habitats occumng In the
                        cutovet area am the cnestnut-sldaij warbler, yellow-breasted chat American gotditoch, and
                        field spairow.  Several birds more typical of later sueeessfcral forest Including (he red-eyed
                        vireo, btaek.«id4Mte warbter, hooded warbler and Kentucky warbtef also occur In the
                        euiover area, especially around Its perimeter.
    
                        3.3  Endangered and Threatened Species
    
                        3.3.1 Plants
                        Review of tie TVA Natural Heritage and the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage
                        Program databases revealed that Inree tedsraly listed and 37 additional state-SsW plant
                        species am known tan Campbell and Scott Counties, Tennessee (Appendix 1). Trrase
                        species lists termed -bii
                                                           fitotoma rasgMw
                                                           Synaptomys caop&rf
                                                       InNoodof
                                                      Management
                                                                                     In Need of
                                                                                     tn'Meed'oF
                                                                                     in Meed of
                                                                                    Managemsnt
                                                       In Need of
                                                      Management
                                                                                                    Managametit
                                                                                                      Ccmcsun*
                                                                                                     Endangered
                                                                                                    Management
                                                       tnWwJof
    ,	.,,.  -,.,.			   .-   MKngggaunt  ......
    •Management Concem Is a non-raflBlatory status hdfcaSns sonoem tor the species.
    
    Eight protected spades of birds 
    -------
                        A colony of red-cockaderl woodpeckers occurred in the eastern portion of RBWMA from at
                        toast the 1870s Wo the early 1980s, this species requires large anas of mature to old
                        growth pines.  No suitable habitat exists In the vicinity of Braden Mountain, and ttie
                        woodpecker is now considered by TWRA to be extirpated from the Slate. There an two
                        raws of Bewick's wren In Tennessee.  The Appalachian race formerly nested In Campbell
                        Coynty, however Its numbers have dropped drastically. The Appalachian Bewick's wwn no
                        longer exists in much of east Tennessee. The Bewicks wren Is reported from middle and
                        west Tennessee, where It occurs In open woodlands, upland thickets and fencerows In
                        agricultural areas (Nicholson 1997;.  This species has also recently declined in numbers.
                        Neither subspecies cf Bewick's wren is expected to occur In the project area.
    
                        Four state-listed species of birds potentially occur in the vietoity of tie project am*.
                        Swainson's warblers are rare summer residents of RBWMA. The  species Is occasionally
                        observed along Cove Cre«k. The Swshson's wattter is associated with extensive thickets
                        of rhododendron or in thick vegetation along waterways. Limited suitable habitat exists in
                        the project area. Peregrine faicons iikely migrate through tha project area. The species
                        historically nssted on cifls In eastern Tennessee. The species likely nested wittln 18 mtea
                        of Braden Mountain In 1950s (Nicholson 1997).  Exposed hkjhwalls at Poteet Gap would
                        provide marginal habitat lor this species. Sharp-shinned hawks are uncommon in the area,
                        but couid be found in th® project area year round. It is most numerous during &e fail and
                        spring, when the species migrates through the area.  It typically nests in pines within mixed
                        pine-hardwood forests, and forages in open forests and forest edges. Bam owls prefer to
                        nest in semi-forested bluffs, hdlow trees, and old buildings.  HighwaBs In the Poteet Gap
                        area represent suitable nesting habitat for this species.
    
                        Two state-listed species of warders, the golden-winged and the cerulean, nest In Bis
                        project area.  The goiden-wnged warbler is fairly common in the Royal Blue area and
                        occupies old fields and revexjetated surface mines with a ground cover of grasses and
                        forbs, dumps of shrubs, and scattered trees. Potentially suitable habitat for this bird occurs
                        on a reclaimed surface mine a short distance NNW of Poteet Gap; no golden-wings were
                        observed in this area or elsewhere within the ISraden Mountain mine permit area. The
                        grass/forb ground cover on the recently logged southern portion of the Bradan Mountain
                        sit® is not extensive enough ta provide habitat for fha goidefcwinged warbler.
    
                        The cerulean warbler is a common summer resident of mesic hardwood forests in the
                        Cumberland Mountains.  It occupies mixed age to mature stands, usually with an open
                        understory and scattered canopy gaps. It reaches some of its highest rangewide densities
                        In the Cumboland Mountains (Nicholson 1f 97) and Is ons of the most numerous songbirds
                        on RBWMA (Nicholson unpubl. data).  Cerulean warblers have been reported on 8 bird
                        census plots containing suitable forest habitat on or adjacent to RBWMA. Their density on
                        these plots ranged from 5 to 61 pairs/100 acres (12 to 125 pate/100 ha) and averaged 25.8
                        pairsrtOO acre* (64 pairs/100 h») (censuses  puWlsrted in AuOuboa flew Notes and
                        American S&tfs; Nicholson unpubt. data).
    
                        During May and June 2002, cerulean warblers were recorded at 26 of 43 point counts
                        conducted in the Bradsn Mountain n*e permit area. The proportion of counts recording
                        cerulean warblers, S0%, is very similar to tie proportion of a larger sample of point counts
                        (220 of 357,62%) censused In the portion of RBWMA west of t-TS in 1998-1997.  Assuming
                        that the proportion of point counts recording cerulean warblers is Indicative of fte proportion
                        of the area occupied by cerulean warblers and the average density within occupied areas is
                                  25.8 pairs/100 asms, about 104 pairs of cerulean warblers likely occur within the 66S acre
                                  Braden Mountain mint permit area.
    
                                  Several protected species of bats are known from Campbell and Scott Counties. Eastern
                                  big-eared bats form colontes In hotow tr»«s, crevices in sandstone blufte, cisterns, and
                                  abandoned buildings. Eastern small-footed bats roost in abandoned mines, under rocks in
                                  talus slopes. In crevices in bluffs and expansion joints in bridges. Both species forage In
                                  forested habitats end usually hibernate in oaves. Suitable roosting and foraging habitats for
                                  big-eared and small -footed bats are present to the Braden Mountain area.
    
                                  The endangered gray bat Is known turn Campbell and Scott Counties.  Gray bats occupy
                                  caves throughout the year.  Summer roosts are usually formed in cavc-s near water.  Gray
                                  bats typically fciraos over larger streams, rtwrs, and reservoirs. During winter months, they
                                  migrate from their summer colonies to hibernate in cooler caves.  Gray bats have been
                                  found hibernating in New Mammoth Cave, approximately 7 miles from Braden Mountain.
    
                                  The endangered Indiana bat form* small roosts under the exfoliating back of dead trees
                                  during summer mon$t& Several species of trees that have flaky bark, such as whits oak
                                  and shngbark hickory, are also used as roost sites. Roosts Mas may be found in riparian
                                  or upland forests new streams. There are only a tew small maternity colonies known from
                                  Tennessee. No colonies are known from the RBWMA, but forested areas in the project
                                  area are suitable far Indiana bats. Indiana bats hibernate in caves during winter months.
                                  Approximately 85% of the total Indians bat population roosts in 7 caves north of
                                  T&nnessss. The remainder of foe population forms smslt colonies in caves throughout the
                                  species range. Including several sites In Tennessee. A small colony hibernates in New
                                  Mammoth Cave.
    
                                  Abandoned coal mine portals can provide potential htbwnaUng sites lor both the gray bat
                                  and ths Indiana  bat  One such site, on a northeast slope of *)» southern portion of the
                                  Braden Mountain ate, was surveyed In January, 1999. The site was found to be too warm
                                  to b® used as a  gray bat or Indiana feat hibemaculum. Two otrter portals occur on
                                  abandoned mine benches at about 2300 foot elevation; one of these is on ths northwest
                                  steps of trie southern porBon of th® Braden Mountain sits and the otiw la on the east slope
                                  of the northern portion of the Braden Mountain site. Due to the lack of open water
                                  resources and the took of roosflnfl caves, gray bats are not likely to roost or forage on the
                                  Braden Mountain site.
    
                                  Several species of stats-feted small mammals are reported from Campbell and Scott
                                  Counties. Smoky, common, and soufceastem shraws have am typically found In cooler,
                                  motet forests with a eiiek-ieaf litter layer and moss-covered rocks, fallen togs, and other
                                  woody debris. ThaaesmaB mammals are usuaBy found in association with owsks,
                                  streams, or moist areas. Smr8i®ast«n shrews are less constrained by habitat.
                                  requirerrwnts than other shrews and can be found in a varWy of habitats. Most habitats In
                                  the RBWMA are suitable for these species, especially smoky and southeastern shraws.
    
                                  Allegheny woodrats are typteaBy found along rock outcrops, in caves or mines, usuafiy in
                                  f ornstad areas having a high degree of woody debris and teaf litter. Th«e are no records of
                                  woodrats from th» project site, however, suitable habitat for this species exists atong the
                                  many forested highwalls and rock outcrops on the Bradan Mountain site.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-799
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                        Woodland Jumping mice, hairy-Wad mote, and bog lemming exist In suitable haWtais on
                        thaRBWMA. The species am ususly«»ctmt8dw!tti moist habitats. Jumping mice are
                        found in forested or brushy areas along streams at ttie margins of wefjand habitats. Hairy-
                        tailed moles In the v!dn% have bom wllscte! under decomposing top In boss, moist soil
                        (ABsbrooks at al. 1983). BOJJ temirtngs have ate) bean cotoeted in simitar habtets. These
                        species are expected to exist In suitable habitats In the project area.
    
                        3.3.3 Aquatic Animals
                        Activities In the proposed mine poririt area could affect several named perennial and
                        Intermittent streams ftat support atjiatie lite. A saareh of fce TVA Regional Natural
                        reported torn Campbell and Scott CounSss (Table 2). This section provides briaf
                        descriptions of ihe stabs of these species in the project area.
    
                        TaWa 2. Endangered, threatened, or otherwise listed aquatte animals reported from
                        Campbell and Scott Counties, Tenne
                        Common Hams
                        Cumhatlaniten eornbahea
                        Green fofossam pesrlymusse!
                        LrUIewing peariymusse!
                        Cumberfaml bean
                        Emerald darter
                        Ashy darter
                        Arrowdartar
                        CMmbedand Johnny darter
                        Palazone shiner
                        Tippeeanoe darter
                        Si5v@i|aw Minnow
                                                  Scientific Name
                                                  Epioklasmabreviaans
                                                  Sploblasma tomtom
                                                  Sfteosfbma Spp&c&oo&
                                                  Phoximts
                                                  cumterfantfensis
                                                                           State status
                                                                           Endangered
                                                                            In Need of
                                                                           Managemant
                                                                            in Need of
                                                                           Management
                                                                           Endangered
                                                                           Endangered
                                                                            in Nead of
                                                                           Management
                                                                            InNesdcf
                                                                           Mariageinent
                                                                                             federal
                                                                                             Status
                                                                                           Endangered,
                                                                                           Endangered
                        The ermraM darter, arrow darter, and blackside dace have all been recently reported in
                        Terry Crsek, a tributary to Bk Pork Creek, aid In Straight Fork Creek and its Jake Brand)
                        tributary. The headwater portions of these streams drain portions of the proposed mine
                        permit area. None of these spades, or other listed aquatic species, have been reported
                                  from 
    -------
                      Laudem* and Ciceretto 1998). it Is not Known from streams In tie Straight Omsk, Cove
                      Creek, or Bk Fork drainages, and Is not lk«ty to occur In any steams potentially Impacted
                      by (Ms project
    
                      The ashy darter Is (mown from several trtbutsrfas to the New River nearthe project area.  It
                      Is typically found to small to medium upland rivers with bedrock or grwel substrate and
                      staflglsheurwrtspnter and Stames 1993).  It te also known from a fwofter tributaries to
                      the Cumberland Riveras wen as a few tributaries to the Tennessee River in Tennessee'and
                      Kentucky.
    
                      The rosytes shiner typlcaly Inhabits large weeks ana small risers with dean water and
                      substrates consisting of rubble, boulder, or bedrock. Although this speetas Is more tolerant
                      of sillation  HIM ottior related spedes. It is particularly  susceptible to degradation of water
                      quality ratsuHng from sKatton, tade runoff, and add mine drainage fcom coal mines and
                      poor land use practices. The subspecies of routes shtow that occurs on the Cumberland
                      Plateau (Notropis rubelhs rubsilus) is particularly threatened by habitat degradation.
    
                      3.4  Surface Water and Aquatic Ecology
                      Tha proposed mlna area is located within the Cumberland Mountains subprovlnee of the
                      Cumberland Plateau physiographic province. Larger streams In this Kjbprovtnce tend to
                      have moderate to low gradients and flow In well defined valleys. Examples include Elk Fork
                      Creek, Buffalo Creek, and Cove Creek. Smaller streams drain mountain slopes and tend to
                      have moderate to htjjh gradients and a substrate of boulders, cobble, and gravel. Many
                      streams in the Cumberland Mountains have been degraded by slttafcn and add mine
                      dralnaga from unreclaimed or pooriy reclaimed coal mines.  This situation has amefcrated
                      somewhat In recent years. Otherwise, waters In the subprovince tend to be soft and tow In
                      dissolved nutrients.
    
                      The proposed mine sits Is located within the headwaters of three watersheds:  Buffalo
                      Creek, Sk fork Cmk, and Straight Fork. A portion of th» haul  roads within the proposed
                      mine permit area are within the headwaters of a fourth watershed, Cow Creek. Buffalo
                      Creek, through its Rockhouse Fork, CoWns Branch, Uek Branch, and Crabtrae Branch
                      tributaries, drains the west tide of the site. Buffalo Creek Is a tributary to the New River.
                      Bk Fork Creek, a tributary to Clear Fork Cumberland River, drains the  northeast portion of
                      the site via Its Terry Creek, SMhouse Branch, Frogpond Hefcw, arej Hudson Branch
                      tributaries. Much of the southern portion of the ste drains to Straight Fork as wefl as Its
                      Jake Branch and Cross Branch tributaries. Straight Fork Is a tributary to Buffalo Creek.
    
                      Water use  classifications of the streams draining Me proposed mine permit area are fish
                      and aquatic life, recreation, irrigation, and livestock watering and wildlife. Cove Creek has
                      to  additional use classification of industrial and domestic water supply. There am no
                      surface water users within or adjacent to the proposed mine permit ana. The closest
                      domestic groundwater resource is about a mile from the proposed mine site and much
                      lower than  potentially affected coal seams.
    
                      A 3.9 mile stretch of Elk Fork Creek near jellioo is listed  on the state of Tennessee's 2002
                      draft Clean Water Act 303(d) list m partially supporting use classifications (TDEC 2002).
                      The causes of these exceedances of water quality standards are siiiation and other habitat
                      alterations  resulting from abandoned mining.  Straight Fork Creek and Its tributaries are
                      also listed on ft® 303{d) list as partially supporting "* dasslfcaflons.  The causes of these
                                   exceedances of water quality standards are pH and other habitat alterations, resulting from
                                   resource extraction and habitat modification.
    
                                   The portions of these steams wit* the mine permit area aw Intermittent or wet weather
                                   conveyances which are dry most of the year.  Five of the eight fritwmiBent streams were
                                   towing or wet during June 2002. Evidence of aquatic lifa (caddisflies, mayflies.
                                   chlronomids was present during June 2002 In an Intermittent tributary to Frogpond Hollow
                                   on the northeast slope of the northern portion of Braden Mountain, and in an intermittent
                                   tributary to Jate Branch on the east stops of tie southern portion of Braden Mountain, The
                                   Frogpond Holiow tributary flows from several separate channels which converge on an
                                   orphan mine bench and the Jake Branch tributary flows from a pond on an orphan mina
                                   bench. A few ponds, some of which are ephemeral, occur on orphan (34., abandoned)
                                   mine benches within the mine penult area. These ponds are occupied by aquatic insects
                                   and several spedes of amphibians.
    
                                   The aqyaSe community In Cove Creek at trite 18.2 (about on» mt» above Cove Lake) was
                                   sampled by TVA In May 2000. The fish assemblage, comprised of 15 spocins, was rated
                                   fair compared to what would be expected in such a stream under ideal conditions; the
                                   benthic assemblage (bottom-dwelling invertebrates) was rated good.
    
                                   Results of surface water quality monitoring within potentially affected streams are presented
                                   in the 1999 mine permit application (Sattlff Coal Company 1999) and In Cumulative
                                   HydrdoglO Impact Assessments prepared by OSM (OSM 1999). Water quality In these
                                   streams Is described as reasonably good. Coins  Branch, Rockhouse Fork, Cross Branch,
                                   and Jake Branch show Impacts front past coal min&ig based on moderate to high
                                   concenfratiQns of suifate (up to 1 SO mg/l). pH levels In sampled streams are near-neutral
                                   (5.5 - 8.0}.  Total dissolved solids, dissolved Iron, and dissolved manganese levels are
                                   beiow Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards except for the Straight Fork
                                   watershed, where both total dissolved soBds and dissolved rhanganese standards are
                                   3.5   Managed Areas and Ecologically Significant Sites
    
                                   The land surface of the Braden Mountain area to within the 43,620-acre Royal Blue Wildlife
                                   Management Area owned by the TWRA. TWRA purchased the area in 1981 after leasing it
                                   for many years *e» several previous owners. Trie WMA Is managed for hunfag and other
                                   forms of outdoor recreation Including wMlfe observation, off-road vehicle operation, hiking,
                                   and heraa riding (TWRA 2001).  Several habitat rranafl«W«nt projects have been
                                   undertaken in cooperation w» organizations such as Quail Unlimited, the Na«onal Wild
                                   Turkey Federation and he Slate Division of Mine Reclamation.
    
                                   Popular game spedes on RBWMA «M whits-taHed dw»r..wiW turkey, rutad grouse,
                                   raccoon, and squirrel. TWRAbeaanreleastag^kwRWvMAInauWaspartofanelk
                                   restoration project centered on the Cumberland Mountains and adjacent parts of ths
                                   Cumberland Pktesu.
    
                                   The Smoky Mountain segment of the Cumberland Traii, a linear state park, runs through
                                   RBWMA, At Its closest point, tie Cumberland Trail Is about 7 miles from «ie proposed
                                   mine permit area.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-801
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                         RBWMA is also one of two publicly owned Bads within the Southern Cumberland
                         Mountains Important Bird Area (ISA), which encompasses 141,000 acres in four counties
                         (National Audubon Society 2002a).  Th« Southern Cumberland Mountains ISA te notable
                         for its high populations of the cerulean warbler and trio golden-winged warbler, as wall as
                         the presence of many alter species of migrant and resident birds. The !BA program Is an
                         international effort to identify the most important areas tor malntahhg bird populations and
                         focus conservaaon efforts on these sites {National Audubon Society 2002b). It Is
                         administered In the U.S. by the National Audubon Society and In Tennessee is
                         administered by TWRA In eooperaSon with the Tennessee Orrtfcotosteal Society and two
                         Audubon Chapters.
    
                         The Cumberland Forest Public Hunting Area (PHA), a rnosHy forested area of 76,006 acres
                         owned by International Paper, adjoins mush of the west sids of RBWMA. PHAs are
                         managed through a cooperative agreement between land hoMing compasses and TWRA.
                         Forest lands owned by International Paper are managed to provide lumber, paper, clean
                         water, Improve wildlife habitats and to create recreational opportunities for the pubiic. In
                         August 2002, TWRA announced its acqu&sltlon of this property through a lolfit effort with
                         The Conservaflon Fund, Renewable resources Inc., and International Paper.
    
                         Stinking Creek, a tributary to the Dear Fork Cumberland River, Is listed on the National
                         Rivers Inventory maintained by the National Park Service.  It Is described in the  Inventory
                         as a rural, scenic stream flowing through the unique Cumberland Blade geologic formation
                         (NPS 2002). The headwaters of Staking Creek are about 2 miles east of the project area.
                         None of the proposed mine permit area drains to Stinking Creek.
    
                         3.8   Visual Resources
                         Ths physical, biological, and cultural features of an area combine to mate the visual
                         landscape character both idanfifSaole and unique. Scento Integrity Indicates the  degree of
                         unity or wholeness of the visual character. Scenic attractiveness is the evaluation of
                         outstanding or unique natural features, scenic variety, seasonal change,  and strategic
                         locate. Where and how the landscape Is viewed will affect the more subjective
                         perceptions of Ss aesthetic quality and sense of place. Views of a landscape are described
                         in terms of what is seen in foreground, mlddleground, and background dis^nces. En the
                         foreground, an area within one naff mile of the observer, details of objects are easily
                         distinguished in th© landscape. In fit® middleground, normally between a mile and four
                         mJes from the observer, objects may be distinguishable but tfieir details are weak and they
                         tend to merge into larger patterns, Datafe and colors of objects h the background, the
                         distant part of the landscape, are not normally discernible unless they are especially large
                         and standing alone.  Th« Impressions of an area's visual character can have a significant
                         Influence on how it is appreciated, protected, and used.
    
                         Landscape character gives a geographical area Its visual and cultural image, and consists
                         of ths physical, btotogkal, and cultural aUrlbutes that makes each landscape identifiable
                         and unique.  The general landscape character of fte proposed mine permit area is
                         described in the following paragraphs.
    
                         The northern portion of the Braden Mountain area is situated between Wesley Gap and
                         Braden Gap. It is heavily wooded, Smiting viewsheds to adjacent land areas. Bsvatlons
                         range from about 1850 to 2700 feet at the site of a former lookout tower along the highest
                         rldga. Access to the site Is from the south off of Highway 83 at Poteet Gap or from the east
                                  off of Highway 297 at Bk Gap. Both access toads are unimproved; traffic along these
                                  roads to limited to seasonal hunters, off-road vehicles, and other recreation users.  Then
                                  aw no residents In the Immediate mine area; a few occupied houses occur along Highway
                                  297 near Bk Gap.
    
                                  Narrow abandoned surface mines surround much of the area at about the 2300 foot
                                  contour. These mines are mostly revegetate
    -------
                       included shovel testing, was conducted in June 2002 (Pietak and Holland 2002}. Three
                       Isolated Buds, none of which tre eonsfdensd potewisilfy «BgWe forfeSng OR the NRHP,
                       were observed. The survey also MenSfed two rockshelters with a potential for
                       archaeological resources to be present. Phase II testing was conducted at these  '
                       roekshetere in September of 2002, Arewgsdogleal matetW Indteaftw of bitef prehistoric
                       occupation was ooltecsjd at each of tt» rodfsheitBS, which we» doste«t«l as
                       archaeologies! s«e« 40CP134 and 40CP13S. The limited quanSry of material yfeWed
                       insofffdent data to make either rock shelter eligible for listing In the NRHP.
    
                       Thwa are 4 historic properties toted on th* National Register of Historic Muses in Campbell
                       County and 5 in Scott County.  Mono of these properties are located near the project area.
    
    
                                   4  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
    
                       The following secSons describe the likely environments! consequences resulting from tin
                       proposed action. The potential cumulative impacts of the resulting coal mining are
                       described in Final Environmental Impact Statement, Comprehensive Impacts of Permit
                       Decisions Under the Tennessee Axteral Progrt m (GSM1185). In Its note  of adopter) of
                       9* FSS (65 Federal Register 23338. Jam 1,1990J, TVA determined that the potential
                       cumulative environmental impacts of 039! loafing were adequately assessed. Additional
                       Information on potential cymolafive hydrdogic impacts Is presented In 81® Cumolative
                       Hydrologic Impact Assessments prepared by OSM (OSM 1999) and described bolow.
    
                       Under the No Action Alternative, the leasing «nd surface mining of coal In the Bradon
                       Mountain «f»8 «w«W nrt occur and royalttes on the TVA coal would not be paid. The area
                       would confirms to be managed as psrt of Royal Blue VWWIlfa Mansgemenf Area by TWRA.
    
                       4.1   Vegetation
                       The proposed action wou Id result 61 f h.e disturbance of vegetation on about 527 acres of the
                       664.S acre mind permit area. The proposed mina permit area is a mixture of recently
                       harvested forest, dominated by saplings tat strata, abandoned mines in various slagss of
                       revsgeiation ranging from iierbacious and shrub communities to pole-sized forest, and
                       more mature forest dominated by oak-hickory and mixed mesophySc forest types.
    
                       Although no plant communities of state, regional, or global significance occur wfihln ths
                       mint area, the proposed action would mutt in long term changes to site vegetation.
                       Vegetation within areas to be mined as wait as flt areas and sedtowt pofOs, would ta»
                       removed.  As the area is reclaimed, ground cover, shrubs, and trees will be replanted.
                       Most of ths ama will ba r^jlantsd w*i * mixture of grassas »nd Jfcflurnesi «ueh as
                       orchardarass, anniffll rye, teflno clowaf, and r«d etewr,. Portions of ti® area will tao planted
                       with native warm season grassess, in biocks of shrub/tree mixes, or in blocks of deciduous
                       trees dominated by oaks.  Following the completion of reclamation activities and bond
                       release, flw Miegetofen on the mine «te would b® managed by TWRA, (nthastseneaof
                       aott« management, areas of grass snd hwbgoteus coverwould evwiturtly rwert to forest.
    
                       Several invasive, non-native plant specfes aw already established in RBWMA, party m a
                       result of previous surface  mine reclamatior: activities.  Such species considered to present
                       a severe threat to native plant communitias such as sericea lespedeza and autumn olive
                                  would not be used in revogetating the proposed moie. Trie proposed action would not
                                  rasull in the introduction of any invasive spectes to RBWMA.
    
                                  4.2   Wildlife
                                  Under the proposed action, atwut 527 acres would be modified during constoiction and
                                  operation of the mine. Haul roads would occupy 86 acres; most of the haul roads are
                                  existing, and impacts of widening thete roads woaW be minor,  Of fce remalnSjg 44( KBTBS,
                                  about 100 acres are eady successional habitats, at least 60 acres are abandoned mino
                                  areas with earty to mid -successionsi habitats, and the remainder more mature forest.
    
                                  Clearing and mining activitias would result In some direct mortality of slow-movfng animals
                                  and the displacement of more mobile species into adjacent habitats as mining activities
                                  proceed ftmujh BIB mine acea over Ihe course of 7,4 ywrs. This projmsiive movement of
                                  coal removal activities and the subsequent incremsntal reclamation of the disturbed areas
                                  would reduce imp&sts to locad populations 
    -------
                        In summary, the proposed acfion would not result in significant imparts to state-Bated plant
                        spades, and no federally Bated plants would bo affected.
    
                        4.3.2 Terrestrial Animals
                        Under the proposed, action TVA would enter a leaw agreement with a coal company that
                        would result In suites mining of coal on Bmdwi Mounttln. This would result In the
                        modMcatton of about §27 acres of forested and earty suecesslorml habitats over a 7.4 year
                        parted. Of the 22 protected species of ssrrestrtal animals reported torn Scott and Campbell
                        Counties, 16 are known to e>rist or potentially exist on the project sfta.
    
                        The red"Cockaded woodpecker, Swalnson's warbter, Bewick's wren, hellbender, and Black
                        Mountain dusky salamander ware removed from conslderatei due to Bis lack of or the
                        limited presence of suitable habitat tor these speolss on the »te.  PotanHal hfeemaang site®
                        fbr the Indiana bat and the gray bat am provided by abandoned mine portate In the mine
                        permit area. One of these portals was inspected In January 1898 and determined to be
                        unsuitable tor use by hlbematlrtg Indiana bats or gray bats. No evidence of summer use by
                        flray bate was observed during inspeeBons In fts summer of 2002.  The only acttvfcs
                        proposed In the Immediate wldnBy of a second portal on the northwest *iop® of the southern
                        portion of Bfaden Mountain are sedtoient basin and access road corwWeion. These
                        activifles would not signifcantty tSsturb flia porttl.  A third portai, on the east dope of the
                        norSiern portion of Bmden Mountain has a smaB, mostly coSapaed opening and does not
                        appear suitable for me by the Indiana bat or gray bat
    
                        The remaining 16 spades are known to es&t or potenfally exist In earty euceesstenal and
                        forested habitats In tfie project area. Construction and operation of the mine could affect
                        individual specimens of most of these species.  However, impacts to the specie® as a whole
                        are expected to be temporary as most of these species wouM disperse into nearby similar
                        habitats.
    
                        Once reclamation c-ctivitiss begin, species that breed or forage In early successions!
                        habitats such m four-toed salamander, gold«M«flnged warWar, bam owt, Ms-eared and
                        smalWboted bats, southeastern shrew, halry-taled mole, and bog lemming would m-
                        colonize tha area. Local populations of some of these spsciss, particularly !ha golden-
                        winged warbler, would increase, and the reclaimed mine would provide suitable habitat for
                        this warbler (or many years. Forest dwelling species would expericncs a short-term
                        reduction in habitat and local populations of some of Vies® species would be slightly
                        reduced. Up to 69 pairs of cerulean warble-s would to affected within the area of surface
                        mining and fills; thte number represents a  stnall fraction of the population of this sped©® in
                       , the ffflWMA as well as In the Cumberland Mountains.  Porfons of flie mined area would be
                        reforested during reetematton and these areas vwuld provide suteote habitat for many
                        forest-dwelling species. Due to the  large amounts of suitable habitats nearby, Impacts to
                        these species would be temporary and insignificant and their population viability on
                        RBWMA would not be affected.
    
                        During the review ef the OSM Environmental Review of the Gafllff Co*l permit, USFWS,
                        TVA, and TWRA determined that there would be no significant impacts to any federally
                        listed species if certain commitments ware foliowad. These commitments are listed in tie
                        FONSI Issued by TVA in 1998 (TVA 1989) and Incorporated into the currently proposed
                        action. They are designed to establish specific reclamation activities to protect the
                                  endangered Indiana bat and other species of wildlife. With the implementation of these
                                  measures, the proposed action is not likely to adversely effect threatened and endangered
                                  terrestrial animals.
    
                                  4.3.3 Aquatic Animals
                                  Of Hie nine endangered, threatened, or otherwise sensitive aquatic species potentlaBy
                                  occurring In the project area, only the biacksida dace, file arrow dorter, and the emerald
                                  darter am present In streams potengaBy Impasted by mining Bnxten Mountain. These
                                  species are reported from Terry Creek near Hs ccnfluence_with Elk Fork Creek, and from
                                  flie Strafoht Fetk system. The Terry Creek headwaters consist of three steams whose
                                  surface water Is suppfcd by drainage torn the Braden Mountain site; Sflthouse Branch,
                                  Frogpond HoBow, and Hudson Branch. Stra^tt Fork Creek Is supplhd by several streams
                                  that drain the 3raden Mountain area, including Jake Branch, Cross Branch, and Straight
                                  Fork Creek.
    
                                  Potential impacts to these three streams resu&ng from the proposed action are discussed
                                  In the Cumulative Hydroiogic Impact Assessment (CHIA) prepared by  GatJiff Coat Company
                                  In the previous review of this project These potential impacts are discussed In CHIA No.
                                  101 Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) No. 10, Sabarea No. m (Elk Fork  Creek system) and
                                  CHIA No, 84, CIA No. 8, Subarea No. SB (Straight Fork). This analysis considers all
                                  existing and anticipated mining operation and addresses potential cumulative hydrologic
                                  Impacts to CIA 10, Subarea 68 (Bk Fork Creek), and CIA No. 8, Subarea 68 (Straight Fork
                                  Creek).
    
                                  This assessment concludes that while there is slight potential for acid/toxic drainage, and
                                  Increased sediment loads into Terry Creek, SHhouse Branch Frogpond Hollow, and
                                  Hudson Branch In ihe Sk Fork system, and Jake Branch, Cross Branch, and Straight Fork
                                  In the Straight Fork system, the effects world be minimized by measures to be
                                  implemented during active mining, and during reolarnatiort ef-the site.  Surface-water
                                  monitoring of these steams, and of the settling basins above these streams, would be
                                  conducted In accordance with MPDES permit requirements to ensure that water quality
                                  Impacts to receiving streams are minimized
    
                                  This hydrotogica! analysis indicates tat water quality in these streams should remain within
                                  acceptable limits and would not significantly esceed conditions favored by these species.
                                  Therefore, this proposed mintnf activity would Bksly result (n only short-term, Insignificant
                                  impacts to aquatic life In Terry Creek and Straight Fork, Indtodlns Waekslde dace, arrow
                                  darter, and emerald darter.
    
                                  Corstruettan of the haul roads would have potential to impact populations of bteekmlde
                                  dace, arrow darter, and emerald darter in »e Straight Fork system. These potential
                                  Impacts would rasult primarily from run-off of sit generated by rosd construction arid
                                  maintenance activities.
    
                                  Construction and maintenance of the haul road would be performed In accordance with
                                  appropriate Best Management Practices. Use of measures to control  run-on" from the haui
                                  road, and to minimize ground disturbance during construction would Ikefy result In only
                                  Insignificant Impacts to blaekslde dace, arrow darter, and emerald darter in Straight Fork,
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-804
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                       4,4   Surface Water, Groundwater, and Aquatic Ecology
                       Potential Impacts to surface water and aquatic ecology resulting from the proposed mining
                       activities include Increases sediment In surface runoff, meid/taxio drainage, altered flow
                       regimes, and Impacts to streams from construction of hollow fills. PotsnBal Impacts to
                       groundwater Include changes In availability and flow regimes, and changes In water quality.
    
                       Runoff from the proposed mine site woujd drain into three watersheds (Straight Fork, Elk
                       Fork, and Buffalo Crwek) and runoff from a part of the proposed haul roads would drain Into
                       a fourth watershed (Cove Creek). OSM (1899) has prepared Cumulative Hydrotogic Impact
                       Assessments (CHIAs) for these four watersheds. No surface water users or groundwater
                       users void be affected In any of the four watersheds.
    
                       Measures Incorporated into the mine plan to mhtatfte hydrolofltc Impacts Include use of
                       hay bales and filter fabric fence, installation of sediment baste with controlled discharges,
                       periodic sampling of water in sediment basins and chemical treatment as nacessary.
                       Although the majority of the strata to be disturbed by mining exhibit a positive net acid base
                       accounting (U., have sufficient buffering capacity to prevent acid production), the coal
                       seams are potenBslly acid producing- The proposed  mine plan Includes a hydrploglc
                       reclamation plan and a toxic material handling plan. Mined coal would be promptly
                       removed from the site and overburden would be blended whan backfilled to minimize
                       potential addle problems. Sediment In basins would be sampled prior to removal and
                       treated according to the mine plan. Sediment basins would be retained following
                       reclamation at the discretion of TWRA.
    
                       Groundwater quality In ttie proposed mine area is highly variable and Iron and manganese
                       concentrations sometimes exceed EPA standards for public water systems.  Any Impacts to
                       groundwater quality would be localized and not affect groundwater users.
    
                       The CHIAs show that Impacts to surface water would be insignMcint  Within each of the
                       four watersheds, there would be a smell Increase in sediment loading during mining.
                       Following mining, the sediment yield load value would decrease to levels similar  to or less
                       than pre-mlnlng values. pH values would b» unotianged or slightly decrease; the greatest
                       change would occur in the Elk Fork watershed, whore the minimum anticipated pH would
                       be 7.3, a near-neutral value within acceptable EPA limits for domestic water supplies and
                       freshwater aquatic life.  Increases in total dissolved solids, dissolved iron, and dissolved
                       manganese levels would be c-mall and anticipated concentrations would remain within EPA
                       standards in the Elk Fork and Buffalo Creek watersheds.
    
                       Total dissolved solids and dissolved manganese concentrations In the Straight Fork
                       watershed presentty exceed EPA standards under flow conditions; these problems are
                       caused in targe part by drainage from dd mine openings In the Big Mary coal seam. The
                       proposed mining, which includes reclamation of orphan  mine areas, would not result in
                       further degradation of Straight Fork.
    
                       A few short segments of Intermittent streams and wet weather conveyances, as well as a
                       few small ponds, would be directly impacted by mining activities. Stream channels would
                       be restored during nedanatton, and no long-term changes in runoff are anticipated.
                       Sediment basins would replace habitat currently present In ponds. Overall Impacts to
                       aquatic ecology would be insignificant.
                                  4.5   Managed Areas and Ecologically Significant Sites
                                  The proposed action would result In the operation of a coal surface mine wlftln the Royal
                                  Blue WMISe Management Area. This would affect wildlife habitat and recreational use,
                                  including hunting and off-road vehicle use, wfMn the proposed mine permit area. The
                                  proposed mine permil area comprises a small poition of RBWMA (less tr:an 2%) and tfis
                                  revegstatton plan was developed with the assistance of TWRA. The main roads Into the
                                  area from Highway 63 at Pcteet 0ap and from Highway 29? at Elk Gap would remain open
                                  to the public. The Gunsight Mountain road, which passes through the southern portion of
                                  the Braden Mountain area, may bo closed during active mining operations.  Impacts to )he
                                  RB WMA are expected to be temporary and Insignificant.
    
                                  No impacts to the Cumberland Forest Public Hunting Area, or to Stinking Creek, listed on
                                  the National Rivers Inventory, are anticipated. Impacts to the Southern Cumberland
                                  Mountains Important Bird Area, which Includes RBWMA and other nearby areas, are
                                  expected to be temporary and insignrficant.
    
                                  4.6   Visual Resources
                                  Visual consequences are examined In terms of visual changes between the existing
                                  landscape and proposed actions, sensitivity of viewing pcfnts available to the genera!
                                  public, their viewing distances, arid visibiSty of proposed changes. Scenic Integrity
                                  indicates the degree of htactness or wholeness of the landscape character. These
                                  measures help identify changes In visual character based en commonly held perceptions of
                                  landscape beauty, and the aesthetic sense of place. The foreground, mWdleground, and
                                  background viewing distances were previously described In the affected environment
                                  section.
    
                                  Site preparation and initial mining activities would adversely impact the visual landscape
                                  character of the proposed rrtne permit area by removing format cover, modifying landforms,
                                  and increasing truck traffic along local access roads. Some fiil areas would have a series of
                                  stair-stepped plateaus with somewhat gentler slopes Man presently exist These features
                                  would increase adverse visual contrast, wh9e reducing unity, coherence, and harmony in
                                  the landscape during the Initial construction period. Scente integrity would be  lower. Most
                                  of these visual impacts would lessen over time as the area is reveystated.
    
                                  Some proposed mining operations would ba visible to recreational users of the Braden
                                  Mountain and Limestone Ridge areas of RBWMA, Portions of the mine area may also be
                                  briefly visfcte to motorist* on  Highways 83 and 297, as well as Interstate 75. The mine area
                                  would ba In Hie middteground or background of views from these roadi, and visual delate
                                  would be weak. Views from these  highways already include Nghwalls of unreclaimed
                                  mines, as weS a* efemenls such m communication towers and, on Interstate 75, WBboards.
                                  Overall visual Impacts would  be insignificant and mostly short-term,
    
                                  4.7   Cultural Resources
                                  A Phase I Cultural Resource survey of the APE identified two roetehetJws with a potential
                                  to contain archaeological sites. Further Investigations cf these areas were conducted and
                                  two arcraeotogioal sites were Identified (40CP134 and 40CP13S). Material from these sites
                                  was considered insignificant  and neither stw Is recommended as potentially eligible for fte
                                   NRHP.  TVA has determined that tfie proposed project would have no effect on any historic
                                   properties on or eligible for NRHP fisting.  A letter of TVA's findings end determinations was
                                                              20
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-805
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                       senftotl»T«r»asa®S»a»Hi»tofePrwserva«i>iiO«wron<»!*«1S>20ffi, Similar
                       tetters were sent to fts Eastern tend erf fie Cherokee Indians on October 23, 2002.
                                        5 SUPPORTING INFORMATION
                       5.1   Literature Cited
                       Alfsbrooks, D. W., D. K. Fowler, and I, J, Fowler.  1883.  Notes on the r»iiy4ait«d mole
                             (Panacalaps tum/eri) In the Cumberland Mountains of Tennessee. J. Tenn. Aead.
                             Science 5853-24
    
                       Baird, A, L Devours, M. MoShae, 0. Miter, and C. Wtnlray. 1998.  Campbell County.  Pp.
                             117-118 In C. Van West, ed., The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture.
                             Tennessee Historical Society, RuBedge HI Press, Nwhvtte.
                       Binnteker,  M. D.  1898. Scott County. Pp. 831-S32 in C. Van Wett, ed., The Tennessee
                             Encyclopedia of History and Culture, Tennessee Historical Satiety, Ruflsdga HBI
                             Press, Naslwlfe.
    
                       Braun, E. L. 1950. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Btelastan Company,
                             Philadelphia
                       Etnter, D. A., and W. C. Stames. 19S3. The fishes of Tennessaa. Univ. Tennessee Press,
                             Knoxvllls.
    
                       Fenneman, N. M.  1938. Physiography of tf» eastern United States. MeGraw-Hi Book
                             Company, Inc., New York.
                       Gatllff Coal Company.  1999.  Bradsn Mountain Mine No. 16,  Permit Application No. TN-
                             012.  Submitted to Office of Surface Mining,  Reclamation, and Enforcement,
                             Knoxvllla, Tennessee.
    
                       HInkte, C.R., W.C. MoComb, J.M. Safisy, Jr. and PA Sohmalzer. 1983. Mixed Me»phyBe
                             Forests. Pp. 203-2S3 In Martin, W.H., S.G. Boyce,  and AC. Echtemacht, eds.
                             Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities,
                             John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Maw York.
                       LatKtermiik, E. L.,  and Cicerello, R. R. 1SS8. Upper Cumberland River Drainage, Kentucky
                             Fish Collection Catalog (1982-1994). Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission,
                             Frankfort, Kentucky.
    
                       National Audubon Society. 2002a. Tennessee's Important Bird Amas Program.
                             Available:  http:gwww.audubort.oiiflftilfoVlbaftn.html
                       National Audubon Society. 2002&. What is an Important Bird Areas? Available:
                             htto:an«iw.audubonjarcfelr/imi/w.natur»seivt,Ofg/axplomr.
                             (Accessed: Septembers, 2002).
                               Nicholson, C. P.  1987. Alias of the breeding birds of Tennessee. Univ. Tennessee Press,
                                     Knaxvlle.
                               O'Bara, C. J. 1980. A status survey of the upper Cumberland Johnny darter, Efheostoma
                                     nigmm susanae. Project report, U.S. Fish and WMife Service, Office of
                                     Endangered Spades, Asheviile, North Carolina.
                               Office of Suiface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.  199S. Environmental Assessment
                                     and Finding of No Significant Impact - Qatfiff Coal Company Braden Mountein Area
                                     No.  16, OSM Permit No. TN-012.  Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
                                     Enforcement, KnoxviSo, Tennessee.
                               Ptetak, i. M., and J, L. Holland.  2002. Phase I Archaeotogteal Survey of 400 Acres on
                                     Braden and Adkins Mountains, CatnpbeEl and Scott Counties, Tennessee. Prepared
                                     by TRC,  lite.  Report on  Ale in Hie Cultural Resource Group, Tennessee Vaiioy
                                     Authority, Norris, TN.
                               Smalley,  G. W.   1984.  Classification  and evaluation of forest sites In the Cumberland
                                     Mountains. USDA Forest Service Gen. Teen. Rep, SO-50, New Origans, Louisiana.
                               Tennessee Department of Environment »nd  Conservation.  2002. Draft year 2002 303(d)
                                     list. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water
                                     Polution Control, NashvBle.
                                     htto:?/wvw.stete.tn.ugfeTivlronm6nfe>go/20023oaddraft.Klf (Accessed September 3,
                                     2002).
                               Tennessee Valley Authority,  1981. Rapid restoration of biological  productivity to coal
                                     surface mines: Annual biological monitoring report.  Division  of Land and Forest
                                     Resources, Norris, TN.
                               Tennessee Valley Authority.  1999.  Finding of No Significant Impact - Gatllff Coal
                                     Company Braden Mountain Ansa No. 16 Tract No. ^EKCR-ML, Campbell and Scott
                                     Counties, Tennessee. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxvllle,
                               Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). 2001. Royal Blue Wildlife Management
                                        & [Brochure/Map]. Nashville, TN: TWRA.
                                                                                                                                                                            23
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-806
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                    S.2   Preparers
                    John T, Barter, Jr.
                    J Leo Collins
                    Nancy D. Fratey
                    Groton, James G. (contractor)
                    Travis HBI Henry
                    Charles P. Nicholson
    
                    George E. Peek
                    W.Chett Peebles
                    Erin E Prteterd
                    Carolyn L. Wefts
                    Richard W.Yamet
     Contribution	'   '
     Endangered and Threatened Species-
     Vegetation, Endangered and Threatened Species
     Managed Areas and Ecologically Significant Sites
    'Vegetation, Endangered and Threatened Species
     Wildlife, Endangered and Threatened Species.
     EA Compilation, Wildlife, Endangered and
     Threatened Spades
     Aquatic Ecology
     Visual Resources
     Cutea! Resources
     Vegstalon, Endangered and Threatened Spades
     Cultural Resources
                             Appendix 1
    
    Endangered, threatened, or otherwise listed plant species known to occur in
                  Campbell and Scotl Counties, Tennessee.
    Cenuuon ttsR*e
    Alabama grapefem
    Alder-leaf buckthorn
    American barberry
    Barbara buttons*
    Bristle fern
    Canada liiy
    Capillary beaknish
    Climbing fumstory
    Cumberland rosemary
    Cumberland sandwort
    False foxglove*
    Sinseng
    
    Goldenseal
    
    Qreen-and-gold
    Kentucky rosin-weed
    Lady-stlpp«r*
    Meehan mint
    Northern white cedar
    Ozarkaunchtower
    Pale corydalis
    Panic-grass*
    Pink lady-slipper
    Pondweid*
    
    Rockeastle aster
    Roundieaf bitter-cress
    Roundleaf famefiower
    Sandreed grass'
    SmooWeaf
    honeysuckle
    Souttem rein orchid
    Spike-rush*
    Spotted oamt-root
    Slonecrop*
    Sullivantia
    Sweet-fern
    Tawny cotton-grass
    Virginia spiraea
    White snakercof
    WIW ginger*
    Wlteh-ader*
    Wood lily
    Scientific name
    BoftjKsfcfum jaramnt
    fSnmnus alnlfella
    Herberts cnnadensis
    Marshallis gmottHora
    Trfdmmanes boscMamm
    Utum eanadsnsa
    Rtiynchospava capfitee&a
    Adlumia fungosa
    Conradina vertfcSafa
    Amnaria cutnberiand»ft&i$
    AuFBQlaria patuta
    Panax qulnquefotfus
    
    Hytfmslis oanadensis
    
    O»y«ogonwn vtgManwn
    Sfipftfum wasiot&ns0
    Cypripedium kentuckiense
    M^&h&nia cofrtata
    Thuja ooeHentalls
    Melanthium wood//
    Coryiiatis ternpatvimns
    Psntom enslUium
    Gypriptdluffi Ksole
    Potamagotan
    tennesseensis
    Aslor ssxicaste/lii
    Caniamlne mtijniiifolia
    Titoum tersSUIum
    Calamovitfa areuata
    ionf<»redfo*a
    
    PUanttmm tava var flava
    Bsocftaris 4ntem»tfc
    Cora/torfi/za macu/ata
    Sedan nevff
    SuiUvantia sullivantii
    Oomptonla pervgrina
    Bfepftomm virgMeum
    Spiraea virgin/ana
    Ageratina lucias-brjuniae
    Hexasfyfls oonfrw*a
    Fothefgilla major
    Ulium philadelphicum
    Federal status State status
    Threatened
    Endangered
    Spedal Concern
    Endangered
    Threatened
    Threatened
    Endangored-P1
    Threatened
    Threatened Threatened
    Endangered Endangered
    Threatened
    Special Concern-
    CE
    Special Concern-
    CE!
    Threatened
    Endangered
    Endangered
    Thmateoed
    S[SSSal Concern
    Endangered
    . , Endangered
    Special Concern
    Endangered-CE*
    Threatened
    
    Endangered
    Special Concern
    Threatened
    Endangered
    Special Concern
    
    Special Concern
    SpeeW Concern
    Threatened
    Endangered
    Endangered
    tndat^ered
    Threatened
    Threatened Endangered
    Threatened
    Special Concern
    Threatened •
    Endangered
                                                      24
                                                                                                                                                                25
    MTM/VF Draft PEtS Public Comment Compendium
                                                        A-807
                                               Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
              "~n» common nan» feftsd Ls routing appted to mere than one mtmter el a* gmw.
              * Endan0ered-P - endangered, potentially «*pated.
               Special Concem-CE « apedai concern due to oorameidal etploitaSon.
              3 EndangeraJ-CE • enttongered due to commercial exploitation.
                                                                                               BIRDS OF
                                                                                  CONSERVATION CONCERN
                                                                                                    2002
                                                                                           ILS. Fish aad Wildlife Service
                                                                                       DWsion of Migratory Bird Management
                                                                                                Arlington, Virginia
                                                                                                  December 2002
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-808
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                                               i '
                                                                                                      Appendix 8. StsaaMEjr of Species Ooamenfiss on BCR, USFWS Region, and National Lists ia
                                                                                                      BCC 2002, AnngBd ASpfaatefeaJij' by Commas Grasp
                      BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN 2902
                              •'  •     -• ••'•                     •
                                    U.S. Fiifc «nd WMifc Serviee
                                 Division of Migwfory BW Management
                                        Arlington, Virginia
               Pn/ferrti citation;
               U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servke. 2M2, Btate of oonsirvafion concern 2002, BMsionof
               Mi^atoty Birf Managaueat, Arlmgton, Vfagtai*. 99 pp. [Ottttae vasion available at
    Matft®, Comnton
    Makes
    M*M
    Mauah:0, Maui
    Mbatross, Black-footed
    Albatross, taysan
    Amakini, Hawaii
    Amakihi, Kauai
    Araakihi, Oahu
    Art, Smooth-tolled
    Anianiau
    Apapan* .. .. , 	
    tatctet, Cassh's
    Auklst, Whiskered
    4vecet, American
    iearttes-TjnwjnulAt, Northern
    Bscaid, Rose-tiiroaled
    Bideni, Americsn
    BlackMrd.Ru^
    BI«f*W, f cfcdorad
    Btads-Htwli, Cenwion
    Bobolink
    Bobby, Stowm
    60019, Masked
    Booby, Red-footed
    Banting, Lark
    3un«ng, McKay's
    ButWns, Painted
    liuming, Varted
    Chickadeo, Black-capped
    CTiuc(M»i!Fw*tois
    ;oot1 Ca.lbbean
    Soimomnt, RBd^ioed
    Crake, Spate*
    Crahe, Yskwrtressted
    Crossb;!!, Red
    Cuckoo, Black-billed
    CMdSsjfciflmvB
    Cwcfejo, Y9ltow*ted
    ;ur!sw, Brfsfio-lhighed
    Outtai.ljori-bilieil
    Dlckcisssl
    BCRs
    37
    37
    87
    5,32,67,68
    S7.88
    BT"''" 	 '" ^
    67
    P
    31
    W
    57
    fc
    1
    IB
    34,3«,37
    &
    11, ta, 31, 37
    52,24,287*
    9, fS, 32, 33
    34,35
    12.1S.2S
    69
    69
    69
    18, «, 34, 39,36
    1.2
    86, 21 , 26, 27, 31 , SS, 36,
    87
    26,34,36,38
    la
    Bt 25, 27,28, 39, 31
    99
    J.2
    to
    59
    28
    !iJMLSJ2i!!__
    31
    I.S,iaiB,32,»34,36
    2,«r,88
    5,9,10,11,17,18,18,21,
    32,33, 36, 36,37
    17,22,23,36
    3SFWS Regtes
    iff-:. __ ^_
    1W
    is,
    1feM, 7
    
    flfc)
    1« . .......
    lfl>) 	 -
    #w
    IffiJ 	 „___
    1») . .. . . .
    
    ?
    
    2
    2
    ...
    
    3
    i(«<> 	 v':." •;
    2
    3,8
    4(b>
    4(B) 	 _
    ^ 	 - - -
    a
    r
    2,4fa)
    2
    
    s,^>
    *!B} ., __ . 	 	 	 ._ .
    
    1(6)
    ttt
    
    3,8
    *^» 	
    1JW,2 , 	 ,.
    l(b,o!, 7
    lta),2.4(a),6
    3,6
    •laSmrai
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    X
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    X
    
    
    Sic
    
    
    X
    
    
    |X
    
    It
    JC 	
    X
    X
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-809
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    3w*K<*«, Shott4jttt«)
    Duck, Masked
    puck, Ratify
    Dunlin
    i«Bl«, doldin
    EgnM, Rsddlsri
    Bep«te
    Faleon, Psrearlne
    Fateon, Prailria __
    Farteal, Rufous
    Flicker, Glided
    FlyoaWier, Acadian
    Rycatehsr, ewMxeasted
    Fjycaldw, Olwe-sidsd
    :lycaich8i', Puerto f^can
    Flitcatcher, Sclssor-lailsd
    Frigatebird, Le»ef
    Frigatebitd, Magr.Sicecit
    FrulfrOovs, Crtrfjson-crovBW)
    :rult-Dove, Marry-calored
    ftjl-Dove, Mariana
    Godwit, Bar-tatted
    Qodwt, rt«is«x*in
    Sodwlt. MsrblBd
    Qdtton-Plow, Amertean
    QoWen-Pliwsr, Paelfte
    eoWBndi, Lawwnce's
    3os,.. ^
    r
    2,3,4(aS,5,7
    1(a),3,4!a),C6,7
    2,8,7
    ffi£LI ._ 	 ^.-. 	
    1W
    _*,
    
    Ifc!
    tfcl — 	
    2,6
    2,6
    2-
    
    m 	 .,- 	
    ^ i
    
    
    
    
    X
    (
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    X
    
    
    
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    X
    
    X
    X
    
    
    
                                                             79
    •tawk, SwaSnson's
    H*wk,WMM-M«i
    Hem,lMeetu*
    Honeyeaier, WaRled
    HamrningbW, 6R»d-Wte4
    Hummingbird, Bu?f-be'.;ied
    "kimmincibird, Costa's
    HummhgbW, Uidfer
    lummingbird, Rufous
    Ms, White
    iiwi
    fayf Pinion
    Kestrel, American
    Cite, Mississippi
    Kite, Swaliow-iailsd
    frt«la, Micronesiad
    'toddy, Biuc-gray
    'iiihateh, Brown-headed
    **aWi, P»"y
    Omao
    Oriole, Aitemira
    Oriole, Audubon's
    Oriola, Baltimore
    OrWs, Greater AnfiNsai
    Oriole, Hoodsd
    OriolvOrehafd
    Owl, Burrowing
    8,10,11,18.19,82,38
    w 1J 	
    8, 21, «,»,», 31
    68
    34
    3% 97
    34
    M.3S
    MS
    31,37
    W
    16
    25, 2?, 31
    *.»
    26,2^27, 31, 3?
    
    S, 27, »I*!,MLSJL
    98
    8
    jzr.«,«
    1i, 14,17,18, 18, M, 21,
    H, 36,36
    10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 30, SS,
    36
    3,1fljjl,2a,24,25,26
    g
    2.3.5
    is •
    i8
    I.4 '
    !L2.S
    1,2,5
    aa
    a
    »~
    57,68
    is, a, s
    fa
    sr
    36
    38,37
    30
    38
    JS,38,37
    80. 22, 25, St. 27"
    », 11, 18, 17, 18,27, 31,
    33,33,35,38
    ttk3,» 	
    
    ^ ,-,-,, .
    
    
    
    
    2
    
    
    w
    
    
    
    zT^l ' ' '
    
    1te2,4«,S 	
    
    ««)
    «!»*} 	 - 	
    2,6
    2,6
    p,4(a,7 .
    
    ?
    
    
    
    7
    7
    w
    
    
    I*. «
    2.4(c
    
    1W . .. , ,
    2
    2
    
    *(»)
    2
    
    i,a4,6
    >(
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    X
    
    
    
    X
    X
    X
    
    X
    K
    X
    X
    X
    
    X
    
    
    
    X
    x-
    X
    
    
    
    X
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-810
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    Owt,E«
    Owl, FSammaSated
    Owl, Larta-earwi
    CM, Northern Saw-whet
    O^M, ^lort-eared
    Owl, Spotted
    Oysiematcrwr, Aiwifcan
    Qystereatcria', Sta*
    Pawl», ftefftem
    Parute, Treptoat
    Pelioan, Amwtew White
    g«ln>i,«aisk-cai>P«d
    P*W. Herald
    Petrel, Ptowitx
    Pehil.TahM
    Pewee, Greater
    PC-WTO, Lesser Antiilean
    Phatarope, Wilson's
    Pigeon, Rad-bind
    Pl8«ri, Whits-crowned
    Pintail, VMhlte-cheekBd
    Pipit, Spragwrt
    Plover, Mountain
    Plover, Snowy
    Plover, W!fson'»
    PwIrte-Chlckw^Lesser
    Pyjmy-Owt, Farraginous
    Pyrrhuloxia
    Quail-Dove, Bridled
    (Safl-Bsw, Kay. Wea
    Rat, Black
    Rail, Buff-banded
    Rail, Yefcw
    Rttorbffl
    Sage-Grouse, Greater
    Sage-Grouse, Gunnison
    Sandenmo
    Sandpiper, Suf-breasted
    20,33,34,35,36 j
    i, 9, 10, «, «, la, 34,38
    23
    28
    11.18,17,22,23,24,28,
    26, a, 30, 37,87,88
    15, 32
    27, 36, 31, 37, 68
    i_5,32
    »,27
    36,3?
    28
    27,31 .
    68
    88
    58
    94
    68
    9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19,
    22,23
    38
    31.69 .
    69
    11,18,17,18,19,20,21,
    25,34, 3S, 3f,jj?
    10, 10, 17, 16, 19, 20, 32,
    33,34,35,36
    B, 10, 16, 18, 19, 27, 31,
    33. 34, 35, 36, 37, 89
    l», 30, 31, 37, «L _^
    18,19
    3«,»
    36 	
    69
    89 	 „_
    19,22,27,29,30,31,32,
    33, 37, 6i
    5« 	 " 	 "" """'"
    9,10,11,12,14,26,27,
    31,37 :
    14,83
    9
    10
    yStikE— — —
    8,11,12,13,18,19,20,
    21,22,23,24,25,26,27,
    88,30,31,36,37
    fe 	 _
    !«tt.2,.«.
    
    
    J,4|aj,S,6
    
    ,*».5
    ft!.?
    
    t 	 ^_ ..
    
    fes .. „. ,
    
    p .
    m _ 	
    
    ^j 	 _^_...
    8,6
    2
    «%M. ...... 	 ,
    P., __H,,._««, .,
    STe
    I(a),2,6
    1(a), 2, 4(a,bS, 8
    ^ 1 » -T~
    441»,1>I. 	 .,
    Jl6 . „. • -
    L. . .... — ,.
    
    i4M .. .. ,..„ •
    $M
    1(a), 2, 3, 4(a,l)), B, 6
    
    1(a),2,3,4(aJ.S,6
    | 	 . 	 ,±|J,
    L . mitl „ „
    8 	 	
    
    t, 3, 4(«X S, 6, 7
    
    t
    
    
    X
    
    X
    <
    
    
    
    X
    
    X
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    X
    9<
    X
    X .
    
    X
    Stn^^s.Pujple
    Sandpiper, Rock
    Sandpiper, Somipa!mated
    S»«ip"p8f, SoBfcay
    Sandpipsr. SSil
    Sandpiper, Upiand
    Sand(t!p»r, VWite-rumpad
    Sapsucker, R[?(J-naped
    SapwdMT, Wffiamson1*
    Sapsucker, Yeliow-beliied
    Screeoh-Owl, WhistotBt)
    ScratKlay, Island
    Shearv^iar, Audtbo.-.'s
    Sheanvater, Oirislnias
    Shrike, Loggerhsad
    SMkeWll, Rjl
    Skimmer, Black
    Sparrow, Bocfinian's
    Sparrow, Baird's
    Sparrow, Black-chinnod
    Spanow, Bothrt's
    Spanow, Blower's
    SparrowT Cassln's
    Spanw*, fieu
    Sparrow, Grasshopper
    Sparrow, Harris's
    sparrow, Hen^OTV1®
    Sparrow, Is Conte's
    Sparraw, N»I«on'» Shsrp-iatod
    Sperrow, Rufous^rowned
    3pant)w, Rufous-winged
    Sparrow, Sage
    Sparrow, Saltmarsh Sh2rp4£ii2d
    Sparrow, Seaside
    %3srrow, Sor^
    Sparrow, Vasper
    StarSng, Samoan
    Storns-P®tr«l,Ashy
    Stomi-fWrel, Bamtjumped
    Stornrf'rtisl, Pol^wian
    Stom)-Pe»Ml, Trtearn's
    14,30
    1,2,4,1
    27,31,69
    t, », 11, 18, 18, 19
    12, 22, 23, 24, 2S, 26, 27,
    31, 88, 37, 68
    10, 11, 12. 13, 17, 22,
    23, 28, 29, 30
    11
    10,17
    S, 10, 18, 16
    28
    34
    32
    27,31,69
    37,68
    9, 10, 11,20,21,22,23,
    31, 32, 33. 35, 36, 37
    6S
    27,30,31,32,33,37
    22, 24, a^, 27, 28,29, 31
    11,17,34,3$
    32, 33, 34, 3S
    34,37
    9,10,17
    18,19,20,35,36
    20,21,22
    11,17,22,34,37,69
    18,20,21,26,36
    11,12,13,21,22,23,24,
    26,26,27,28,29,30,31,
    37
    11,12,17,19,20,21,22,
    24,25,28,27,37
    11,14,27,31,37
    20
    33,34
    9,16,33,34,35
    27, 30, 31
    27,30^31,37
    32
    3
    eg
    32
    67
    ;s
    (7
    !S-
    7
    m
    $
    2,3,4(a,b)
    3,5,8
    
    Ka),®
    1(a),e
    
    2
    
    4(a,b)
    
    1{a), 2, 3, S, e
    1(0)
    1{a},2,4(sS,5
    2,3,4(a)
    2,6
    )
    ]
    1(a!,«
    2,6
    
    4(fa), 6
    2 1
    2, 3, 4(a), S, 6
    2,3,4(a),8
    2,.3,4(a),5,6
    
    
    >
    4(8), S
    a,4(a),S
    
    
    
    1Wr 	 	
    Kb)
    1(0)
    1ft!
    
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    
    x 	
    X
    
    
    X
    
    
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    X
    
    X
    X
    
    
    
    X
    X
    
    
                                                             81
                                                                                                                                  82
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-811
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    SurUrd
    Swamphen, Puiple
    Swift, Black
    SwMet, WWtMumped
    Tern, Atetrtan
    Tern, Arciic
    Tfnxabck
    Tati, Caspian
    Tern, Common
    1 cm. Elegant
    Tern. Gi**iW '
    Tern, Least
    Thrasher, Bandire's
    thrasher, Crissat
    Thrasher, Curva-Ufad
    rhra*t»f, Le Coma's
    Thru*, Btekneirs
    Thrush, Wood
    Towhee, Spotted
    rrogort, Segant
    TropicbM, Red-Mfled
    Traplebird, VVMt»«ed
    Turnstone, Black
    Yerdm
    Vireo, Bel's
    Vireo, Bteck-whbkmd
    yirao, Gray
    Vtao, Puerto ftioan
    Warbfsr, Adelaide's
    Warbler, AreBc
    *»rbter, Say-breasied
    Warblsr, Steckpoll
    lAtarBw, Steek-ihroated Blua
    Wa*!er, Black-airoaled Gray
    Warbler, BIscMhroaled Green
    ^rbtsr, BHia-s^nged
    Warbier, Canada
    Wrirbler, Cape May
    Warbter, Carutean
    vVarhler , Ctiostnul-sided
    sfearttsr, Colima
    WsrrttBr, Connactiout
    Warbler, ^rt*woods
    2,4,5
    89
    6A«J!SLi)
    tWJ 	
    
    2,3,4(a), 8
    4(«J 	
    1(a),2,fi
    4^b)
    4ft.)
    7
    6
    7
    3,4(b)
    2
    
    3 -I
    3,S . . _ . .
    3
    Z.3,4(t). 8
    
    2
    3
    «b) __ .
    X
    
    i 	
    
    &__
    
    
    
    X
    
    xt
    X
    (
    X
    
    <
    x 	
    X
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    X
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    X
    
    
    
    X
    Warbler. GoldSrt-winged
    W«bl8r, Grace's
    KVarblw.Kantaoky
    Warbler, Gilve
    Warbler, Prairie
    Warbler, Prolhonotary
    Wartiiar, Red-faced
    Warbler, Swatason's _
    Wartjlcr, VirainiE's
    Warbter, Worm-eaSng
    Wsrbter, Yell™
    WarUer, Yellow-throated
    Waterthmsh. Louisiana
    WaterthiuA, ttorfcem
    Whimbrt
    WhijHKior-wl
    Whistling-Duck. Wes! Indian
    WilMyi«,BrMIed
    White-eye, Ooldan
    iVillef
    Woodpecker, Arizona
    Woodpedwr, tSfa
    Woodpecker. Ladder-backed
    Woodpecker. Lewis's
    Woodpecker, Red-headed
    Woodpecker, Whita-hMded
    tfi^eri, Bewick's
    s/*«n,Ca<*a
    Wren, Mareh
    W»n, SsdB®
    Vellowiegs, Greater
    Ye!fowlN3s^, ^kmimon
    12,13,23,28,30
    18, 34, Si
    20, 21, a, 23,28, 28, 28.
    30,37
    34
    24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
    69
    20,21,22,26,26,28,29,
    37
    34, 3S
    21,24,25,28,27,28,29,
    37
    9. 10. 14
    a, 22, 24, S, 28, 30, 69
    31,33,68
    31
    22,24,25,28,69
    as
    2, 3, 4, 6,9, 16, 12,1 3, 14,
    27,80,31,32,83,37
    13,22,24,28,29,30
    %
    i8
    68
    11
    04
    S3'
    20
    «,9.10.1S,16.17,18,32I,
    34
    11,13,19,21,22,23.24,
    25,26,28,30,31,37
    5,8,10,18,32
    22, 24, &27, 28, 28, 37
    32,38
    30
    13, 23, 28, at, 30, 37
    a, 23
    32 ...
    3,4W,8_ j
    2
    2,3,5
    2
    2,3,4(a,b),5
    2,4(8)
    2
    2. 3.4(a% 6
    «
    2, 3, 4(8,1)), 5
    4)
    1(0
    1W
    
    a
    
    
    1{a),2,6
    2, 3, 4(8), 6, 6
    1W.6
    s,*),5,e 	 _. .
    
    
    2,8
    
    
    X
    X
    ><
    
    X
    X
    
    X
    
    X ,
    
    
    X
    
    X
    X
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    X
    
    
                                                                                                                                 84
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-812
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                             FWS Comments on9/2Q/02 Daft of Chapter IV Mteotfiyes')
    
               The Pish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the September 20 draft of Chapter TV for the
               MTM/VFBIS. We previously proposed a foar-attamatrve scenario that included consideration
               (not selection) of at least one afcensalive.to restrict, or otherwise constwln, most valley fills to
               ephemeral stream reaches by employing the significant degradation or advance identification
               (ADID) provisions of me 404(b)(l} Guidelines.' Our intent wis to provide for consideration of at
               least one alternative that "developed agency policies, guidance, and coordinated decisIon-EiaJdag
               processes" and minimized the impacts of mountaintop mining and valley filling on witters of the
               U.S. and fish and wiMBfe resources; a two-put goal established by the settlement agreement that
               we beEeve the three^tefnativemitm^hiaaed to accomplish. Our proposed approach was
               subsequently voted down wMiin 4« Esecutive Committee' in part because a decision appears'to
               have been made that even relatively minor modifications of current regulatory practices are now
               considered to be outside the scope of the EtS process. The current three-alternative fiamework
               was adopted, but incorporated only a very limited ADID concept that does not meet our  • .
               objectives. The September 20 diafi retains the deficiencies contained in th* previous flroe-
               altamative framework, and the iill draft of Chapter IV confirms our concerns.  Therefore, we
               continue to object to the use of this  approach. However, tiace the agencies are proceeding based •
               oa adoption of this approach, we do mot believe that elevating this issue for higher level review
               would be helpfcl or productive.  The fcUowJng general comments are intended to provide you
               oaly with our sense of how problematic the proposed alternatives framework has become.
    
               Now that the basic concept has been more fully elaborated in the September 20 write-up, it is
               painfully obvious to us that 4tere an no differences between the three action alternatives that can
               be analyzed in a NEPA context Table IV-2 (Comparison of Alternatives) underscores this
               fundamental shortcoming:  Each of the three action aJternatives,offers only meager
               environmental benefits (thus a "two-star rating," as with a budget hotel or B movie), and there is
               no difference between them - even in iheir degree of meagemess.  The relative economic eftect!
               of these alternatives are similarly indistinguishable. The reader is left wondering what genuine
               •actions, if any, the agencies are actually proposing.
    
               Table IV-1 states {hat the alternatives would "minimize" the adverse effects of raoontaSntop
               mining and valley fill construction; the "analysis of alternatives" section states that "all three
               alternatives will result in greater environmental protection that will fiilfill the agencies BIS
               objectives." As we have stated repeatedly, it is the Service's position (hat the three "action"
               alternatives, as currently written, cannot be interpreted as ensuring any improved environmental
               protection, as stipulated to the settlement agreement, let alone protection that can be quantified or
               even estimated in advance for purposes of a NEPA analysis.  Without providing clear indicatioa?
               of how the Corps would evaluate projects and reach decisions through either the  nationwide
               permit or individual permit processes, and how the SMCRA agency would make its decisions
               under Alternative 3, the public will not be able to deduce whether impacts to waters under any of
               these alternatives would be any different tt«m the no action alternative. Furthermore, the results
               of implementing individual action items whose "actions" do not produce an outcome ("will
               continue to evaluate," "will work with the states to establish," "will continue to assess," "will
               continue to refine"), and of developing "Best Management Practices" whose use will be
                         volnrtaty, are not likely to effect qnarfflable, "or «Svea recogntabte, improvements in
                         environmental protection.
    
                         As we have already d i scussed ad nauseum, NEPA regulations describe the Alternatives section
                         as "the heart of the environmental impact statement" which, fa combination with the Affected
                         Environment and Environmental Cousequericcs'sections, should "present the environmental
                         impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues
                         and providing t clear basis for choice among options by the dedsionmaker and the public."
                         Even after considering the necessarily broa4 ptogBttaiaatic nature of this document,-we have
                         clearly failed to meet these standards.
    
                         The E!S technical studies carried out by the agencies — at considerable taxpayer expense — have
                         documented adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, yet the proposed alternatives
                         presented offer no substantive means of addressing these impacts. The alternatives and actions,
                         as currently written, belie four yews of work and the accumulated evidence of environmental
                         harm, and would substitute permit process tinkering fox meaningful and measurable change.
                         Publication of a draft EtS with this approach, especially when the public has seen earlier drafts,
                         will further damage the credibility of the agencies involved.
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-813
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
               Figure 1. Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica oeivlea) Summer Distribution Map.
               The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis, Relative
               Abundance Map 1966 - 2002. USGS 2003.
                                                          BBS limit
                                                           101
                                                           31 to 100
                                                           lIt»SO
                                                           4 to 10
                                                           2 to 8
                                                           Qae ia4 Below
                                                           Hone Counted
               These maps indicate the number of birds se»n on BBS routes, grouped Into
               convenient categories of relative abundance. The maps predict the average
               number of birds of the species that could be seen in about 2,5 hours of
               birdwatehtng along roadsides (by very good birders). They are based on mean
               counts on BBS routes over the Interval 1982 -1996.
                                                                                                        CERULEAN WARBLER (DsmsoiCA CSROLSA) MtaROHABriAT AND
                                                                                                       LANDSCAMHUsrviL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS IN SOUTHERN WEST
                                                                                                        VIRGINIA IN RELATION TO MOONTAINTOP MINTOG/VALLEY FILLS
                                           Final Project Report
    
                                             December 2002
    
    
    
                                               Submitted by:
    
                                 CATHY A. WEAKLAND AND PETRA BOHALL WOOD
                              West Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
                                      TJSOS Biological Resources Division
                                 and West Vfrpnia University, Division of Forestry
                                     P.O. Box 6125, Moigantown, WV 26506
                                               Submitted to:
    
                                      USGS Biological Resources Division
                                           Species-At-Risk Program
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-814
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
               CCRDUMN WAWSL» (fiamtoioi ouczst) MIOKMABETAT AND LANDSCAF&ISVEL HABITAT
                     CHARACTERISTICS JK sorasi* wrar Vftaao* w KOATIOS TO MOOWAIMW
               CATOT A. WEAKIAWB AHD PETRA BORAH. WOOD, West Virgtata Cooperative Fish and
               Wildlife Research Bait, USGS, BRD m& West Virginia University, Divisiou of Forestry, P. O,
               ABSTRACT
    
                   The Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica ceruka) is a ^jeeies of conservation concern fn eastern
               North America, where declines in its population have been documented over the last several
               dec«4es. Both halite fragmentation and increased edge may negatively impact Cerelean Warbler
               populations.  A high proportion of this species' population occurs in forested areas of southern West
               Virginia, where it may be thretteaed by loss and degradation of forested habitat ftom moutitatetop
               mining/valley fills (MTMVF). We examined the impact of forest fragmentation (m particular the
               effects of fragment size and response to edges) on Cerulean Warbler densities from a landscape
               perspective using territory mapping techniques and geographic information system (GIS)
               technology.  Specific objeetives were: (1) to quantify Cerulean Warbler territory density and indices
               of reproductive success in forests fragmented by MTMVF mining and in relatively intact blocks of
               forest, (2) to quantify landscape characteristics affecting Cerulean Warbler territory density, and (3)
               to quantify territory-level characteristics of Cerulean Warbler habitat  The study area included
               portions of 4  counties in southwestern West Virginia. Territory density was determined using spot-
               mapping procedures, and reproductive success was estimated using the proportion of mated males
               as an index of reproductive performance. We quantified landscape characteristics {cover types and
               fiagmenation metrics) from digitized aerial photographs using Arcview* with the Patch Analyst*
               extension and measured raierohabltat characteristics on spot-mapping plots.
                   Territory density of Cerulean Warblers was greater in infect (4.6 ten/10 h») than fragmented
               forests (0.7 terr/10 ha), although mating success of males was similar in both (60%). Habitat
               models that included boflj landscape and mfcroaabrtat variables were the best predictors of territory
               density. The best model Indicated that territory density increased wilh increasing snag density,
               percent canopy cover >6-12m and >24ro, and distance irom mine edge. Models for predictstg
               microhabitat use at the territory level were waak, indicating that rmcrohtbitat characteristics of
               territories were similar to habitat available on spot-mapping plots. The species did not appear to
               avoid internal edges such as natural canopy gaps and open or partially-open canopy roads.
               Territory placement on ridges was greater than expected and in bottomlands (ravines) and west-
               facing slopes less than expected based on availabUiiy in both intact and fragmented forest.  In
               fragmented forest, 92% of territories occurred only in fetfments wrSi ridgetop habitat remaining.
               Preference for ridges suggests that MTMVF may have a greater impact on Cerulean Warbler
               populations than other sources of forest fragmentation since ridges are removed in flu's mining
               process. Generally, our data indicate that Cerulean Warblers are negatively affected by
               mountaintop  mining from loss of forested habitat, particularly ridgetops, and from degradation of
               remaining forests (as evidenced by lower territory density in fragmented forests and lower territory
               density closer to mine edges).
                         INTRODUCTION
    
    
                             The Cerulean Warbler (Dendmica eenlea), a species of concern in the eastern United States.
    
                         occurs at high densities in southern West Virginia.  Cerulean Waiblera have been declining in many
    
                         parts of their range (Sauer et at. 2000), and southwestern West Virginia may represent a significant
    
                         source population for this species in the eastern United StMes'(Rosenberg and Wells 2000). A
                         recent states assessment by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that the population is
    
                         declining at "precipitous rates" and that the primary threat to the species is loss of habitat (Hamel
    
                         2000). The assessment also suggests that successful management will depend upon managing high
                         quality habitat in forested landscapes (Hamel 2000).  It is estimated that 47% of the Cerulean
    
                         Warbler population in North America occurs in the Ohio Hills physiographic  area (Rosenberg
                         2000), which include put of southern West Virginia. Partners in Flight (PIF) Identified the
    
                         Cerulean Warbler as priority species for conservation  in the upland forest community of the Ohio
    
                         Hills and Northern Cumberland Plateau physiographic sreas (Rosenberg 2000, C. Hunter, personal
    
                         communication), the 2 areas within which our study sites fall. This species also is listed as being at
                         Action level II (in need of immediate management or policy range-wide) by PIP (Rosenberg 2000).
                                A current potential  risk to Cerulean Warbler populations is the coal mating technique of
    
                         mountaintop mining/valley fill (MTMVF). These extensive surfeee mines can impact areas on the
    
                         order of 2000 ha in size, converting » landscape that is predominantly forested to a landscape of
                         predominantly early successtetal habitats with remnant forest fragments (Wood et al.  2001). It is
    
                         imperative to understand how these landscape-level changes could impact Cerulean Warbler*, a
    
                         species that inhabits large tracts of mature deciduous forest with large, tall trees (Harrtel 2000). The
    
                         species appears to use edges of small canopy gaps within large tttcts; however, the use of openings
    
                         and edges needs further study. Other high priority research needs include occurrence  and density of
                         this species relative to landscape characteristics, especially in relation to forest fragmentation,
    
                         habitat preferences in relation to vegetation structure, and response of populations to land
    
                         management activities (Hamel 2000).
                             Fragmentation and loss afforest habitat from a variety of huaitn-tsduced disturbances are
    
                         major issues in wildlife conservation due to negative eflects on t number of wildlife species,
                         including Cerulean Warblers.  Because West Virginia is predominantly forested, it provides
    
                         important habitat for forest interior songbW species that require large tracts of unbroken forest
                         Mauntaintop mining/valley til! sets back successional stages, essentially converting large areas of
                                                                                                                                                                                 2
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-815
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
               mature hardwood forest to early sucoesiona! habitat Forested valleyi located below the target end
               seams and beyond the reach of the valley fills often appear vegetartvety similar to nearby
               contiguous tracts of forest, but at partially surrounded by actively mined or reclaimed areas
               resulting in large amounts of edge habitat These edges may attract known nest predators, such as
               American Crows (Corvta braehyrkjmcltoty and Slue Jays (Cyanocitta crisuta), and t known nest
               parasite, the Brown-headed Cowbird (fitolotkms asr), which may negatively affect songbird
               populations by reducing productivity (reviews by Yahner 1988, Paton 1994).
                     The current federal astas assessment indicates tlut "habitat destruction, frapneataflon, and
               modification oa breeding and nonbreedag areas" are most likely responsible for the decline of this
               species (Basel 2000), "The major effect ofMIMVF Ott Cerateaa Warblers is the loss and
               fragmentation of forested habittt. Fragmentation may negatively affect forest-dwelling songbirds
               because of isolation effects, area effects, edge ef&sts, and competitive species taterjtetkms (Finch
               1991, Fa»borg et al, 1995). In a forested landscape, tapnentetion results from timber harvests,
               roads, powerlines, stand diversity, and natural canopy gaps.  This is a much finer scale than occurs
               to agriottaral areas, where forests appear as islands in a set of crops and/or ptsturelsnd.
               Fragmentation in » forested landscape might be viewed as "Internal" or soft fragmentation, whereas
               fragtnentatta in an t^fcuftural landscape raij^it be viewed as "external" or hard fragmentation
               (Btenter 1990). Fragmentation in an agricultural landscape is often permanent, but frapnentgtion in
               forested landscapes k usualy temporary (Faaborg et tl, 1993). Fiaborg et al. (1995) wrested that
               the btter type of fragmentation is less severe to forest birds than permanent fttgmeatatton, bat
               nonetheless, "detrimental effecs still exist" For example, Duguay et al. (2001) found that the
               number of Wood Thrash fledgltogs produced tn cteareuts was tess than in unharvested forest, but
               the number produeed was still high moogh to prevent fte ctesrcuts fews being sink habitat.
               Weakland et al. (2002) found that the abundance of some tjrest ulterior species declined after
               diameter-limit harvesting, but the abundance of most species was not affected when * large
               diameter-limit (>45cra) was used. There are no pablMted studies doeumentto| the effect of
               MTMVF on forest-dwelling  songbirds «s forests are lost and fragmented due to tntoing activities.
               Thus, it is unclear whether or not MTMVF acts as an internal or external fiagmentaUon event to
               songbird species.  The severity of the habitat toss/fetpneatatiott will depend on whether MTMVF
               areas are re-forested or if they are allowed to remain in early sttges of succession. Even when
               natural succession occurs on reclaimed MTMVF sites, it can be very slow due to soil compaction
                         and lack oft seed tank. Non-timber post-mining tad uses such as grating or development will
                         result it permanent fragmentation of forest habiats.
                                During 1999 and 2000, we quantified the effects of MTMVF on songbird populations
                         (Wood et al, 2001). Using point count methodology, we found Cerulean Warblers at relatively high
                         abundances in both intact (47 point count stations) and fragmented forest (36 point count stations).
                         They were detected at 62% of Intact forest point counts and at 44% of fragmented forest point
                         counts. However, the number of fragmented forests that we were able to sample (8) was relatively
                         low, and we did not sample a large range of different-sized fragments. Additionally, presence of an
                         individual does not imply that it bred ftere (Van Home 1983).
                             In 2001 and 2002, we re-sampled our existing study sites and quantified Cerulean Warbler
                         density using territory mapping techniques.  Territory mapping can  be a more accurate and precise
                         method of estimating bird abundance (Blbby et al. 1992) and allowed us to make inferences
                         concerning the relationships between bird density and habittt and landscape variables.  We also
                         added study sites in additional forest fragments resulting from MTMVF to assess the effects of
                         fragment stee and edge type. We measured  rnicrohabitat characteristics in the field and landscape
                         characteristics from aerial photographs and related these to Cerulean Warbler territory density. Our
                         specific objectives were: (1) to  compare Cerulean Warbler territory density »nd an index of
                         reproductive success in forests fragmented by MTMVF mining with those in relatively intact blocks
                         of forest in  southern West Virginia, (2) to quantify landscape characteristics affecting Cerulean
                         Warbler territory density, and (3) to quantify territory-level characteristics of Cerulean  Warbler
                         habitat.
    
                         MBTHOW
                         Stttity Sites
                                Our stody sites were located in mature forest surrounding three mountaintop mine/valley fill
                         complexes within three watersheds in BOOBS, Logan, Kanwha, and Ftyette counties. West Virginia
                         (Figs. 1-4).  One mine complex (2003 ha) in Kan«wha and Fayette counties was in the Ohio Hills
                         physiographic province; the other two (1672 and 1S19 ha) were in the Northern Cumberland
                         Platetu,  These sites were used in our previous study of the impact  of MTMVF on terrestrial
                         wildlife in 1999 and 2000 (Wood et *). 2001).
                                Intact forest sites were relatively large, urrfnrgmented areas  of fcwst that were undisturbed
                         by mining activities but located near reclaimed MTMVF complexes, either within the same
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-816
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
              watershed as Hie reclaimer site or to an adjacent watershed. Although these sites were relatively
              contiguous forest, they did have some breaks in canopy cover flam streams, roads, powerlines; and
              natural canopy gaps. Some intact forest sites were located in close proximity to MTMVF areas, but
              no intact forest site shared more than one edge with an MTMVF area. We defined fragmented
              forest as a tract of forest located within * MTMW complex and primarily surrounded by reclaimed
              mine land. Because these tracts are often kmg, narrow peninsulas of forest, they generally are
              surrounded by reclaimed laad on at least three sides.
                     The intact and fragmented forest areas are comprised mostly of mature hardwood species
              including oaks (Qwtrcus spp.), hickories (Carya 8pp.), tnliptree (Uriodtndfon tulipi/eni), American
              beech (Fagus grandtfalia), red maple (Acer rubntm), sugar maple (A. sacchanm), tnd white ash
              (FrtKlnas ema-lcmd). These stands are second growth forests that appeared to be approximately
              60-80 years old.  Although forested,  these stands may have been periodically disturbed over the list
              several decades fiom firewood cutting, single tree harvesting, thinning, and understory forest fires.
              Surveys&ltttg
                     IB 2001, we established six intact'forest plots (two within each watershed) and 19 ptets in  15
              fragments. Two additional aitsct plots were added to the study in 2002.
                     We surveyed Cerulean Warblers using a territory-mapping technique called spot-mapping
              (Bibby et al 1992). Plots were placed near the center of 15 forest ftagsttots ranging from 1-290 ha,
              allowing as to examine territory density relative to fragment size. In 2 larger fragments, two 10 ha
              plots were established, 1 near the center and 1 adjacent to a reclaimed grassland mine edge to
              examine response to major edge type (Table 1). In the largest fiagment, 3 plots were established, 1
              adjacent to edge (10 ha), 1 interior on a mid-slope (7.5 ha), and 1 along a stream (10 ha). In
              fragments <10 ha in size, the whole  fragment was surveyed for Cerulean Warbfcrs; tiierefore plot
              size was equal to fragment size (Table 1). All intact forest plots were 10 ha to size.  Although intact
              forest plots were at least 100 tn from fte mine edge, they still contained tatenal edges due to the
              presence of roads, streams, and natural canopy gaps, giving us tin opportunity to assess the effects
              of these edge types on Cerulean Warbler densities.
                     Each fragmented forest and intact forest plot was surveyed at least 10 times front the first
              week of May to lw6ftat Sampling
                             We quantified rntcrohabitat characteristics within etch plot using modified methods from
                         BB1RJD (Martin et. al 1997) and James and Shugart (1970).  We established two 0.04-ht quadrats
                         per hectare In each territory-mappteg plot. Quadrats were systematically distributed approximately
                         every 50 tn throughout the plot (Ratti and Carton 1994), except st sites that were used in our
                         previous study In 1999-2000. We used existing rnlcrohabiw information from these sites (sampling
                         methods were the same in both studies and habitat conditions had, not changed) and only collected
                         additional microhabitat measurements if the sample size was <2 cptad»ts/h». One 0.04-ha quadrat
                         was established at the center of each territory.  Measurements included tree densities and diameters,
                         density of snsgs >8 cm dbh (diarneter-at-breast height), canopy height, aspect, percent slope, and
                         percent canopy cover and ground cover as measured using an ocular tube (James and Shugart
                          1970). Snags were defined as standing dead trees >8 cm in diameter with no live foliage present.
                              We also determined the distance from the center of the territory to the closest edges using aerial
                         photographs, compass, and pacing. Internal edge types included the following: open-canopy road,
                          partially-open canopy road (including sfcidder trails), development (i.e. houses, buildings, etc.),
                          river or stream, tnd natural canopy gap. Open-canopy roads were those that were not overtopped
                          by trees and from which open sky was oteerved.  Partially-open canopy mads were overtopped by
                          trees and revealed little open sky. Natural canopy gaps were openings created by snags and/or
                          windfalls.  Mine edge was  considered an external edge and was measured at the territory-level only
                          when mine was the closest edge type. The mean of quadrat measurements for each variable for each
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-817
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
               plot was used in statistical analyses. Microhabitat measurements also ware made at Cerulean
               Warbler nests using the methods described above.
    
               landscape Analyses
                  We quantified landscape characteristics by digitizing georeferenced copies of the 1996-97
               National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP) photographs for our study areas into 7 land use/land
               cover categories: mature deciduous forest, mature mixed coniferous/deciduoos forest, grassland,
               barren, shrub/pole, water/wetlands, and developed. Roads, trails, and streams were overlaid on
               cover maps to examine territory placement relative to these canopy gaps. Fragment sfee was
               measured from aerial photographs. Final maps were corrected to reflect changes since 1996.  We
               used tee maps to calculate the amount of each cover type within 1  km of the center of etch study
               plot and to calculate fragmentation indices that may predict Has density of Cerulean Warblers,
               Fragmentation indices included contrast-weighted edge density (Appendix 1), core area of mature
               forest, area of fragment or continuous forest (within 2-km of the plot center), and distance from
               mine edge. We used a 100-m buffer to calculate core area and edge density. Areview®
               (Environmental Systems Research Institute 1996) with the Patch Analyst* extension (McOarigal
               and Marks 1994, EMe et al. 1999) was used for all landscape analyses.
               Statistical Analyses
               Habitat  Models
                  To  develop habitat Models, we followed the recommendations of Bamham and Anderson
               (1998) who advocate an information-theoretic approach, which is based the principle of parsimony.
               This principle implies that a model should be as simple as possible with respect to the included
               variables, the model structure, and the number of parameters. They recommend the use of
               Kultbaek-Leibler information and Aikaike's nrfbrmation criterion (AIC) as the basis fbr modeling
               rather than null hypothesis testing. With this approach, one selects a set of candidate models prior
               to examining the empirical datt.  The a priori models are selected based on previous knowledge of
               the species in question. Variables are dropped or combined before modeling with the actual data.
               When little is known about the system In question, a large number of candidate models may be
               examined in an exploratory analysis. As Burntam and Anderson state, this method emphasizes
               thinking about the set of candidate models, excluding those variables that probably are not relevant
               to the species, and looking for potentially important variables ta the literature. Models are
               evaluated by comparing relative AIC values among models and by examining Aikaike weights to
                         determine the probability of etch model being selected fer the given dtfa relative to all the otters
                         (Burnham and Anderson 1998).
                             Habitat available for Cerulean Warblers was evaluated 3 ways: at the microhabitat level (plot),
                         landscape level, and the territory level. We began model selection at the microhabitat and
                         landscape levels by first examining the frequency distribution of Cerulean Warbler territories,
                         which was found to be a Poisson distribution (Neter et. al 1988). We then modeled the relationship
                         between territories and habitat variables using Poisson reg-esston (Stokes et al. 1995).
                             Microtabitat variables included in the candidate models were density of large trees (>38 cm
                         dbh) and snags, distance from the closest edge, and canopy cover in 4 height classes (Table 2). We
                         excluded understory stem densities, ground cover, and low canopy cover (<6 w) which likely have
                         little Influence on habitat selection by this canopy-dwelling species. Average canopy height also
                         was excluded. Since Cemleans are known to select the tallest frees as singing perches, we felt that
                         including this variable would bias the results.
                             At the landscape level, variables were combined or excluded based on known preferences of
                         the species or because they were highly correlated to one another.  The area of mature deciduous
                         forest was removed from the analysis because it was highly correlated to core area of mature forest
                         Cover of shrub/pole, grassland, wetlands/ponds, and barren were combined  into one cover cltss
                         (mine) to help reduce the overall number of variables in the model because the species is  not likely
                         to select any of these habitats.  Landscape variables included in the candidate models were mine
                         cover, mature mixed conifer/deciduous cover, development cover, as well as 4 fragmentation
                         indices (Table 2).
                             Because  little is known about Cerulean Warbler habitat use to West Virginia and there is no
                         information regarding landscape effects from mountaintop removal on this species,  we proceeded
                         with an exploratory analysis and examined a large number of candidate models (n=488) using a top-
                         down approach by starting with the full model and deleting variables (Burnham and Anderson
                         1998). The fell  model included all 14 microhabitat and landscape variables  (Table 2). We then
                         calculated AiC  values with a correction factor (AlCc), because our sample size to parameter ratio
                         was <40 (Burnham and Anderson 1998). Models examined included all 14 univariate models,
                         microhabitat-only models, landscape-only models, and combined models with both microhabitat
                         and landscape variables.
                             To examine territory-level habitat use, we developed logistic regression models from use/non-
                         use data  with the same variables used in microhabitat analyses.  Use data were measurements taken
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-818
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
              at the center of territories ^primarily singing male core areas or nest sites). Non-use data were
              measurements taken on subplots that fell outside the areas used by tinging males, as determined
              from spot-maps (Figs. 5*14). Two sets of logistic regression models were developed. Tfte first used
              data from all vegetation subplots in all plots. The second used data onry from plots where Cerulean
              Warblers were found, to exclude plots where Cerulean* may not have been detected because of the
              landscape.  We selected the 5 best models from a set of 20 candidate logistic models initially
              developed from knowledge of Cerulean Warbler htbitat preferences from the literature and from
              consulting with others who study this species. AICC values were used to select the 5 best models.
              CodpadsOES betweert treatments
                  We used ehi-square analysis (Zar 1999) to examine the difference between the used and
              available habitat in fragmented and intact forest.  We then calculated Bonferroni 95% confidence
              intervals (Neu et al. J974) for the proportion of occurrence in each habitat category and compared
              them to the available habiM.
              Cerulean Warbler density relative to slope, aspect, and edges
                  Cerulean Warbler territory placement relative to slope position, aspect, and edges was
              examined using chi-sqoare analysis (Zar 1999} and Bonferroni 95% confidence intervals (Neu et a}.
              1974). The occurrence of Cerulean Warbler territories in each category was determined by using
              the position of the center of the territory. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were calculated
              to examine the difference between the proportion of occurrence and the proportion of available
              habitat in each category.
                  We measured the area of each spot-mapping plot that was ridge, mid-slope, and tow-slope to
              determine the proportion available for each slope position. The expected number of territories in
              each category was determined by multiplying the total number of territories by the proportion of
              available habitat b each category. Ridge was considered the area of the plot at the peak with little
              or no slope. Low stope was the area of the plot that was at the foot of the slope <25 m from a
              stream or creek bottom. Mid stope was til the area between the low stope and the ridge.  We
              determined the area of each.plot that faced east (0-180*), and west P>180-3S9°), as well m the area
              in ridge top snd bottomland (bat have no slope and thus no aspect. Aspects could not be broken
              down further because of small sample sizes.
                  We used chi-square (Zar 1999) to compare use and availability of edge types. Edge type use
              was the closest edge to each territory. We determined the availability of edge types using data from
              the non-use vegetation quadrats. The proportion of quadrats in each closest edge category was
                          considered available edge nabhat. The expected total number of territories was the product of the
                          total number of observed territories tnd the proportion of edge types available in each edge
                          category. We compared the proportion of edge types available between fragmented and intact
                          forests using a paired t-test (Neter et al. 1988).
                          Mating succeaj
                              W« attempted to observe mating and reproductive behavior on sill plots to 2001, and on a sub-
                          sample of plots in 2002. Initially we planned to rank male reproductive success using the
                          reproductive index score of Viekery et al. (1992), However, because these birds stay relatively high
                          in the canopy, females are notoriously secretive, and few active nests were found, the reproductive
                          index score was not effective for use with our data.  However, we present findings for ail males that
                          were followed and observed for at least 60 min.  Males were considered msted if a female was
                          observed on the territory, the male was observed feeding fledglings, or the male sang the "whisper"
                          song, which is only sung fay mated males (J. Barg, pars. comm.). Males were considered unmated if
                          they never sang the whisper song, females were never observed on the territory, fledglings were not
                          observed, and the male had a high rate of singing.
    
                          RESULTS
                          Treatment Comparisons
                                 We mapped 14 territories on  175.3 ha of fiagfnett«d forest in  2001 and 10 in 2002 (Figs, 5-
                          11) for an average territory density of 0,7 territories/10 ha.  In intact forest, we mapped 24
                          territories on SO ha in 2001 and 40 on 80 ha in 2002 (Pigs. 12-14) yielding a mean territory density
                          of 4.6 territories/10 ha. The proportion of observed tatitaries was less in fragmented forest and
                          greater in intact forest than fba proportion expected  based on the habitat available in each treatment
                          (Table 3, Fig. 15),  Seventy-three percent of all territories were in intact forest, although only 28.5%
                          of the total area surveyed was intact forest.  Territory density was over 6 times higher in intact than
                          fragmented forest.
                          Mieraltobitat and Landscape Models
                                 The 5 best habitat models were combined models that included both microbabitat and
                          landscape variables (Table 4), All 5 models included 3 microhabitat variables (percent canopy
                          cover >6-12 m (Fig. 16), percent canopy cover >24 m (Fig. 17), and snag density (Fig.  18)) and the
                          landscape variable distance from mine edge (Fig, 19) as predictor variables. All variables were
                          positively related to Cerulean Warbler territory density. The best model had an Aikaike weight of
    
                                                                     10
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-819
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
               0.58 relative to the other 4g7 models, indicating that it bad a Sg% probability of being chosen given
               she data. The aeat best model had a much lower weight, of 0,09.  Although djsisnee from mine
               edge appeared to havs a weak relationship wlfc density wh» all distances were aojained, a closer
               inspection of the data showed a strong relationship up to 500m from the mine (Fig. 19).
                   The best microtabitat model contained snag density, percent canopy cover >6-12 m, and
               percent canopy cover >24 m as predictor variables, but had alow we%fat (w <0.01) compared to the
               combined models. The best landscape model contained tret of mature naked conifer/deciduous
               forest and core area of mature forest (Pig, 20) as predictors but also had a very low weight (w
               <0.01). Area of fragrnent/cantinuoiis forest also was one of the better predictors (Fig. 21),
               Terrttaty~la>et Models
                     To identity mierohabitat characteristics thtt Cerulean Warblers may use for placement of
               thefr territories wMita a plot, we developed logistic regression models comparing territory and
               available sites. The 5 best models developed fixsm all plots and only from plots with Cerulean
               Warbler territories all had low Aikaflte weights fTtble 5) indicating that these variables are poor
               predictors of Cerulean Warbler territory placement. Mftaas and standard errors for these variable*
               indicate only a small difference between non-use subplots and territory subplots (Appendk 2),
               which may not be biologically significant.
               Density relative to aspect, sfape position, mid edgtss
                     For sli plots combined, ridge habitat use by Cerulean Warblers was greater ttan availability
               whereas ntid slope habitat use was less than availability (Table 3, Fig. 22). The proportion of
               occurrence on low slopes did not differ from what was available.  This trend was the same in both
               fragmented  and  intact forests (Table 3).  Territory density was over twice m high on rfdges than on
               low and mid slopes (Table 3).
                     The proportion of Cerulean Warbler occurrence was less ton the proportion available on
               west-facing slopes and bottomlands and greater than what was available 01 ridgas; it did not diflfer
               from what was available on east-feeing slopes (Table 3). Again, this trend was similar between
               intact and fragmented forests. Density was twice as high OB ridges than east-facing slopes 'and 4
               times greater on ridges than west-facing slopes and bottomtonds (Table 3).
                     Whan territories in fragmented and intact forest were combined, territory placement  in
               relation to closest edge type was different from expected p2»36,t2, df-4, PO.001) based on edges
               svwlable on the territory-mapping plots (Table 6), Territories were adjacent to streams fcss than
               expected and adjacent to partially-open canopy roads greater th«n esqsected (Table 6). The
                         distribution of closest edge types did not differ between fragmented and intact forest (t<0,01, df"4,
                         P=l,00) (Fig. 23), so a similar pattern of selection was observed in each treatment.  In both
                         treatments, territories were adjacent to streams less than expected and adjacent to partially-open and
                         open canopy roads greater than or equal to expected.
                                Most territories (63%) crossed either an open or partially-open canopy road/trail (Figs. 5-
                         14). The mean distance to the closest internal edge was 30.3 m from a territory center and 34.4 m
                         from a non-use subplot (Table 7), Both the logistic and the Poisson regression models showed a
                         negative relationship between Cerulean Warbler territory presence/denstty and distance from closest
                         edge indicating that  they preferred areas closer to internal edges. TWO territories in very small
                         fragments were not included in analyses of closest internal edge because their closest edge was an
                         external (mine) edge.
                         Mating Success
                                We were able to follow 10 males in fragmented fores (on 6 plots) and 30 males in intact
                         forest (on 6 plots) in the 2 years of the study to determine mate status.  Of the 10 males that were
                         followed in fragmented forest, 60% were confirmed mated based on the presence of a female on the
                         territory or observations of the male feeding fledglings, whereas 40% were assumed utunated, based
                         on singing behavior and no observed female on the territory.  Similarly, in intact forest, 60% of the
                         30 males observed were assumed to be mated based on observations of females with the male
                         (30%) or because of "whisper singing" behavior (30%). Forty percent were assumed to be umrttted.
                         Males were observed feeding fledglings on 1 fragmented forest plots and I intact forest plot. One
                         of these males was in one of the smaller fragments (9.4 ha), that had a considerable amount of edge
                         habitat.
                                Four nests were found, 1  in 2001 and 3 in 2002. Three nests were in intact forest and 1  was
                          in fragmented forest. One nest was successful, 2 were unsuccessful (possibly due to abandonment
                         after severe weather), and 1  fate was unknown. Habitat chaaewisties around nest sites are
                          summarized In Table 8,  Nest tree species were northern red oak (Queraa ntbra), tuliptree
                          (Lirtodtndnn talipi/era), american basswood (ftfto ameriama), and  bittemut hickory (Catya
                          c&rdifoymes).
    
                          DISCUSSION
                                Our data indicate that loss and fragmeaHititm of forests by MTMVF mining to southern
                          West Virginia is negatively affecting populations of Cerulean Warblers. Cerulean  Warbler territory
                                                                                                                                                                                   12
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-820
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
               density was lower in fcgws fragmented by mining than ia intact forests. Both mterohabtat and
               landscape components are important tk^ors influencing territory densities.
                      Consistent predictors of territory density tt ft« mterohabitat level were percent canopy cover
               >6-12 m, >24 m, and snag density.  Previous research indicates that Cerulean Warblers prefer a
               canopy divided into distinct vertical layers in flood plain forests of North Carolina, where toll, old-   •
               growth trees dominate the canopy (Lynch 1981).  This bird typically nests at hei^its between 4.6-
               18.3 m (summarized in Hamel 2000), and thus it is not surprising that Cerulean Warbler territory
               density was higher ia stands with a high amount of canopy cover from >6-12 m. Preference for
               areas with canopy cover >24 m is in agreement with studies that fijutid Ais speeias in areas with
               large, tall trees and a dense upper canopy (Lynch  1981, Robbitis et at 1992, Oliarnyk 1996).
               Additionally, Harael (2000) suggests that the vertical distribution of foliage may be more important
               than individual values of canopy cover at different heights, lias, it is not surprising that canopy
               covers at 2 height classes were identified as predictors of Cerulean Warbler density. •
                      The preference for a high density of snags is likely related to the apparent preference for
               arras with gaps in the canopy as noted by other researchers (Olitrayk 1996, Oliarnyk and Robertson
               1996). Snags likely contribute to the complex canopy structure apparently preferred by Ceraleans
               by opening the canopy allowing developmeat of understory trees and by increasing heterogeneity of
               the canopy. Further, our data indicate that Cerulean Warblers in our study area are not avoiding
               internal edges.  We often observed both males and females in or near canopy gaps, such as open and
               partially-open trails and roads and natural tree fall gaps. Two of the 4 nests we observed were
               within 10m of a canopy gap (a natural tree fell gap and a partially-open canopy road).
                      Landscape factors also were signifietnt predictors of Cerulean Warbfer territory density.
               Distance from mine was positively related to density, particularly within 500 m (Fig. 19), indicating
               that Ceraleans are avoiding the large-scale edges produced by the mines. Cerulean density also was
               positively associated with core area of mature forest (Fig. 20) and area of fragment (Fig. 21),
               indicating a preference for large-blocks of mature forest similar to findings of Robbtos et al. (1989)
               and Robbins et al. (1992). Density  was negatively associated wfth aret of mixed conifer/deciduous
               forest, which is primarily composed of Eastern hemlock. (Tsuga ctmademin) on our study sites.
               This result also is not surprising given that this species is known to be restricted to mature
               deciduous forests (Hamel 2000),
                      Results at the territory level  were inconclusive. Our data indicate that there was little
               difference in microhabitat between territories and non-use areas. It is possible that Cerulean
                          Warbler habitat is not limited within fte mixed mesophytie forests of southwestern West Virginia
                          and that suitable areas are not being occupied. Males may settle where others are already present
                          aad form loose "colonies" (Hamel 2000).  If this is true, then Cerulean Warblers would exhibit a
                          clumped distribution across the landscape, and it would appear that suitable habitat is not being
                          used. Our data suggest that Cerulean Warblers may follow this pattern (Fig. 5-14).   Single males
                          occurred on only 3 plots where Cereiean Warblers were present..
                                 Other studies identified large-diameter trees as being important for Cerulean Warblers
                          (Robbins et el. 1992, Olitmyk 1996,  Hamel et al.  1994). We did not find tree diameter to be an
                          important predictor of Cerulean Wtrbler occurrence. We often observed clusters of territories on
                          ridges with  "small" trees relative to tree size in other areas of the forest.  Our data suggest that tree
                          size may be toss important far Cerulean Warblers in West Virginia than in other areas. Hame!
                          (2000) suggested Sat tree diameters and heights may not accurately reflect Cerulean Warbler
                          habitat and cannot be extrapolated tmong areas because these metrics are a fimction of topography,
                          soils, and the site on which the forest is growing.
                                 Both slope and aspect influenced Cerulean  Warbler territory placement in  our study.
                          Territories were found more than expected on ridges. Brooks (1908) was the first to  note the
                          tendency of Cerulean Warblers to occupy breeding territories at or near the top of hills in West
                          Virginia.  Researchers in Indiana also have observed a similar trend fa territory distribution (K.
                          Islam, personal communication).  Researchers with the Cerulean Warbler Atlas Project (CEWAP)
                          in West Virginia also found Ceraleans to be more prevalent on dry slopes and ridges; approximately
                          65% of their sightings were in these areas (Rosenberg et. al 2000). Ridgetops may have structural
                          features that aamct Cerulean Warblers. Our data indicate that plots with ridgetops may have higher
                          densities of snags (<"-2.57, dp*21, P-0,01) than plots without ridges.  Thus canopy gaps, which
                          may be important for Ceruleans, likely are more prevalent on plots with ridges. However, neither
                          canopy cover >S-12 m or >24 ra differed between  plots with ridges and those without ridges.  More
                          research is needed to determine the factors on ridges that attract Cerulean Warblers.
                                 The preference for ridges could result in significant impacts on Cerulean Warbler
                          populations in the MTMVF region. Because ridges are removed with this type of mining, Cerulean
                          Warbler preferred habitat is lost.  This could b« one &etor contributing to lower territory densities
                          in forests fragmented by MTMVF mining.  The majority of Cerulean Warbier territories in
                          fragmented forest plots were on those that had ridges remaining. Of ftagments without ridges, only
                          2 out of 7 had Cerulean Warbler territories (mean=0.17/10 ha), compared to 6 out of 8 with ridges
                                                                                                                                                                                   14
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-821
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
              that had Cerulean Warbler territories {mean=«Q,9S/10 ha). On tact plots, tto* with ridges had a
              mew territory density of 6.0/10 ha compared to 0.80/18 ht on ttiose without ridges. Analysis of
              point counts from our earlier study of MTMVT mining also indicates ttot Cerulean Warblers were
              found greater than expected at points on rMges (WeaUand gad Wood, unpnb. data), thus,
              continued removal of ridges iin soutijeen West Virginia by fyTTMVF mmiag could have serious
              negative eflects on Cerulean Warbler populations.
                     The preference for placing territories on ridges also has JmpKeattons tot using BBS data for
              monitoring populations. Most BBS routes in flii» part of West Virginia are ran primarily along
              valleys, where territory density is likely lowest; therefore density or abundance estimates based on
              BBS data are Ifloely underestimates. However, we have found that Cerulean Warbler abundance at
              off-road point counts hi West Vkgtain generally allows a simitar pattern to BBS trends, although
              abundance estimates cannot be compared directly (Weakland et al. in review).
                     One limitation of our study was lack of Wormation on breeding success. Attongh we
              anticipated  difficulty in finding Bests, we had expected the reproductive index of Vietay et. al
              (1992) to be more efltoive. Although we were not able to follow all of the males that we snapped
              on the plots, our data do provide some tosight fete reproductive performance. The proportion of
              mated males is likely to be an underestimate rather than an overestimate, Since males we classified
              as unmated could have had a female flat we did not detect However, based on evidence of nesting
              and sittings of fledglings, it appears that Cerulean Warhferi are breeding  in both intact and
              fragmented forests in southern West Virginia «nd that the proportion of mated nudes (60%) is
              similar.
                     Researchers from Ontario who mistaetted males on our plots captured 5 males in fragmented
              forests and  14 to intact forest. In fttpiented forests, 40% were second-year (SY; le. 1-year-old)
              males, and  in intact forests, 21% were SY birds (K. Qiryan, unpub. data). Although fte data are
              limited, they suggest that Cerulean Warblers are breeding successfully in this area, but SY birds
              may be displaced into frapnented forests, which may be less suitable habitat
    
              SUMMARY
                     In conclusion, both landscape and mlerohabitat fectors are influencing Cerulean Warbler
              density in southern West Virginia. Cerulean Warbtets appear to prefer ridgetops wi&ta large
              blocks of mature forest with a M^i percent canopy cover trom >6-12m and >24m,  and a high
              density of snap. They do not appear to be avoiding internal (soft) edges such as roads «ad trails,
                                                         15
                         but do appear to be avoidftg the external (hart) edges wetted by mining. Generally, MTMVF
                         wining reduces the amount of forested habitat available for use by Ceralean Warblers »nd is
                         lowering the suitability of the remaining forest habitat as evidenced by tower territory density in
                         fragmented forest and near mine edges. Because of the targe size of most MTMVF areas, it is
                         possible that they may have negative effects on populations of the Cerulean Warbler ttiat require
                         large blocks of artfragmeatsd forest for breeding.  Loss of ridgetop habitat appears to be particularly
                         important in reducing territory density. The 3 MTMVF complexes on our study areas totaled 7,244
                         ha with approximately 76% in grassland habitat, 14% shrub/pote. and 10% fragmented forest
                         (Wood et al. 2001).  If we assume (hit this ares was approximately §0% Intact forest before mining,
                         take into account flat some fragmented forest remained after mining, and use a mean territory
                         density of 4.6 territories/I Qha to intact forest and 0.7 Jerrttories/lflha in frajpnented forest, then
                         potentially 2,625 Cerulean Warbler males could have been displaced by these 3 mines. However, at
                         this point we do not know if nesting success {lifters between intaet and fragmented forests or among
                         different slope positions. So, although territory density may be higher in intaet forest and on
                         ridgetops, fledging success miy not necessarily be higher than other areas.
    
                         ACKNOWLEBGEMEOTS
                               Funding for this study was provided through the.Species-at-Risk program of the USOS,
                         Biological Resources Division.  We thank staff of Arch Coal and Cannelton mining companies for
                         logistical support and for access to fteir properties. Arit Land Company provided field housing.
                         We also thank the field technicians who assisted with data collection: S. Bosworth, A. Carroll, J.
                         rhrtman, M. fenes, S. Mtreaetti, J. Simmons. R. Dettmers, T. Muir, K. Rosenberg,  and C. Tibbott
                         provided help&I comment! on aa earlier draft of this manuscript,  The West Virginia Cooperative
                         Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (BRD/USGS) provided field vehicles, access to compaters. and
                         logistical ind administrative support.  WVU Division of Forestry also provided logistical and
                         administrative support.
    
                         LITERATURE Crrs)
    
                         Bibby, C. J., N. 0. Burgas, and D. A. Hill 1992. Bird census techniques.  Academic Press Inc.,
                                San  Diego, Ca.
                         Brooks, E. A. 1908. Notes from West VirfMa, Auk 25:235-238.
                                                                                                                                                                               16
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-822
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
              Bumfaam and Anderson 199$. Model selection and inference: a practical arfbanstion-thoeietic
                    approach.  Springer, New York, N. Y.
              Duguay, J. P., P.B. Wood, and 3. V. Nichols. 2001.  Songbird (tendance and avian nest survival
                    rates in forests ftagmented by diflerent siivicaltural treatoents.  Conservation Biology 15:
                    1405-14J5.
              ElMe,P.C,,RempelR.S.,andA.P.Carr.  1999. Patch Analyst0 User's Manual. Ontario Ministry
                    ofNaftral Resources, Northwest Science aad Technology, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.
              Environmental Systems Research Institute.  1996. Using ArcVlew* GIS.  Environmental Systems
                    Research Institute; Redlands, Ca.
              Faabratg, J., M. Brittin^aam T. Donovan, and J. Blake.  1995. Habitat fiagjmeatafen i» the
                    temperate zone. Pages 357-380 fn Martaj, T. E. and 0. M. Finch, Eds.  Ecology and
                    Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. Oxford Universfty Press, Ox&rd and New
                    Yoifc.
              Finch, DM.  1991. Population ecology, habftat requirements, awl conservation of neotropical
                    migratory birds. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report KM-20S.
              Gibbs.J.P.andJ.Ftaborg.  1990. Bstimattag fte viability of OvenWrd and Keitecky Warbler
                    populations in test fragments. Conservation Biology 4:193-196.
              Htmel, P. B,, W, P. Smi4, R. 3. Cooper, and C, A. Woodsoa. 1994. Empirical prediction of
                    habitat variables of Cerulean Warblets in bottomland hardwood Sweats. ABSTRACT. Paper
                    presented at First North American OmM>olo($etl Conference, Misseula, Mont
              Hamel,P,B. 2000. Cerulean Warbler status assessment.  U. S, Fish and Wildlife Service.
                    http:/Avww.fWs.gOY/r3pao/iTOj5erv/<»dan|i^^
              Hunter, M. L., Jr.  1990. Wildlife, forests, and ^forestry: principles of managing forests fer
                    biological diversity.  Prantice-Hall, Enflewood ClitS, N,  J.
              James, F. C. and H. H. Shugait 1970. A quantitative method of habitat description. Audubon
                    Field Notes 24:727-737.
              LyncM.M. 1981. States of the Cerulean Warbler is the Roanoke River basin of North Caroitaa.
                    Chat 45:29-35.
              McGarigal,K., aad B. 1, Marks. 1995, FRAGSTATS: spattol pattern analysis program for
                    qutnlirytag landscape structure. U. S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW -351.
                        Martin, T,E,, C, Paine, C.l Conway, W. M. Hockacbka, P. Ate, and W. tokins. 1W7. BBtRJD
                               Field Protocol. U.S.G.S., Biological Resources Division, Montana Cooperative Fish and
                               Wildlife Research Unit, Mtssotila, Mont.
                        Neter, J., W. Wasserman, and G. A. Whitmore. 198S. Applied statistics. Allyn and Bacon. Inc.,
                               Boston, Mass.
                        Neu, C. W., C, R. Byers, and 1. M. Peek. 1974. A technique for analysis of utiltarion-avaitabiliiy
                               d«a. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:541-545.
                        Oliamyk, C. J. 1996. Habitat selection and reproductive success of Cerulean Warblers in
                               southeastern Ontario. M. S. Thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
                        Oliarnyk, C. J. and R, I Robertson.  1996. Breeding behavior and reproductive success of Cerulean
                               Warblers to southeastern Ontario. Wilson Bulletin 108:673-684.
                        Paton, W. 1994.  The eflwa of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence?
                               Conservation Biology 8:17-26.
                        Probst, 1. R. and J. P. Hayas.  1987. Pairing success of Kirtland's Warblers in marginal vs. suitable
                               habitat Auk 104:234-241.
                        Ratti, J. T. and E. 0. Ganott 199S. Research arid experimental design. Pages 1-23 iBBcohoutT.
                               A, Ed. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats.  The Wildlife
                               Society, Bethesda, Md.
                        Robbias, C. S,, D. K. Dawsen, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding
                               forest birds of the Middle Atlantic states.  Wildlife Monographs 103.
                         Robbins, C. S., J. W. Fittpatrick, and P. B. Mamel.  1992, A warbler in trouble: Dendroka cmtlta.
                               Pages 549-562 in Hapn, J. M. Ill and D.  W. Johnston, Eds. Ecology and conservation of
                               neotropical migrant todbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
                         Rosenberg, K. V. 2000. Partners in Flight landbird conservation plan: physiographic area 22: Ohio
                               Hills, unpublished draft.
                         Rosenberg, K, V., S. E. Barker, and R. W. Rohrbaugk 2000. Aft atlas of Cerulean Warbler
                               populations. Final report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service., December 2000.
                         Rosenberg, K. V., and ). V. Wells. 2000. Global perspectives on neotropical migrant conservation
                                in the Northeast: long-term responsibility vs. immediate concern. In Boaney, R, 0. N.
                                Pashley, R. J. Cooper, and t. Kites, Eds. Strategies for bird conservation: the Partners in
                                Flight planning process. Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop, October 1995,
                                                        17
    MTM/VF Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
    A-823
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                    CapeMiy.NJ. Proceedings RMRS-P-W.  Department of Agriculture, U,SJ>.A. Forest
                    Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah,
              Sauer, J. R_ J. B. Bines, I. Thomas, J. Fallen, and 0. Gough. 2000, The North American Breeeiifig
                    Bird Survey, Results sad Analysis 1966 - 1999. Version 98.1, USGS jPataxent Wildlife
                    Research Center, Laurel, Mi. htto;//«»w.mbf-pwe.i»gS40V/bbs/bfa8.1itnil
              Stokes, M. B., C. S. Davis, and G, G. Koch, 1995.  Categorical data analysis using the SAS System.
                    SAS Insittate, lac. Caty.N.C,
              V. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001.  Mountttotop removal aintag/Va!l«y fill
                    environmental impact statement (preliminary draft). D.S. B fJi. Region 3, Philadelphia, Pa.
              V»nHome,B. 1983.  Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife
                    Management 47:893-901.
              Victory, P. D, M. L. Hunter, and 1V. Wells. I992. Use of a new reproductive index to evaluate
                    retotiofish^M between habitat quality tad breeding success. Auk 109:697-705.
              WeaHand, C, A., P. B. Wood, and W. M. Ford. 2002. Responses of songbirds to dtameteMimit
                    cutting ia the central Appalachians of West Virginia, USA. Forest Ecology and
                    Management 155:115-129.
              WeaMand, C. A., P. B. Wood, G. B. WQBmt, J. P. Daguay, T. DeMeo, and J. Nichols. In wvfew.
                    Cerulean Warbler habitet diaraoteistics in West Virginia.
              Wood, P. B., C. A. Weakland, and J. W. Edwards. 2001. MotBtttintop removal mining/valley fill
                    environmental impact statement technical study: terrestrial vertebrate (breeding songbird,
                    raptor, small mammal, Jwrpetofanaai) populations of forested and reclaimed sites. Final
                    project report 15 Jan. 2001
              Yahner, R.H. 1988. Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation Biology 2:333-
                    339.
              Zar, J. H. 1999.  Biostatistical analysis,  fourth edition. Prentice Hall, "Upper Saddle River, N. J.
                        Table 1.  Mine sites, trettrtients, study plots, and size of plots used to map Cerulean Warbler
                        territory densities in southern West Virginia in 2001 and 2002.
    Treatment Mine Site
    Fragmented Cannelton Center A
    Center B
    Center C
    Jim Hollow/Hughes Fork
    Daltex Hurricane
    Beech Creek
    Jenny
    Monclo
    Warehouse* I
    Warehouse #2
    Hobet Lavender Fork
    Big Horse Creek
    Stanley Fork East
    Stanley Fork North
    Stenlev Fork West
    Total
    Intact Cannelton A
    B
    C
    Daltex Ptgeonroost A
    Pigeonroost B
    Oidhousc Branch
    Hobet Ballard Pork
    Spring Branch
    Tots!
    *of
    Plots
    i
    1
    2
    3
    1
    1
    2
    1
    1
    . S
    2
    2
    1
    1
    1
    21
    1
    t
    1
    I
    1
    \
    I
    I
    8
    Plot sizes Forest Size
    ftal Jw)*
    8.6
    9,4
    10.0
    7.5. 10.0, 10.0
    10.0
    10.0
    10.0
    19.7
    1.0
    2.8
    10.0,10.0
    10.0,10.0
    11.6
    9.7
    5.0
    175.3
    10.0
    10.0
    10.0
    10.0
    10.0
    10.0
    10.0
    10.0
    $6.6
    8.6
    9.4
    36.0
    290.5
    4S.5
    15.9
    20.3
    19.7
    1,0
    2.8
    153.8
    113.6
    11.6
    9.7
    23.9
    
    1079
    752
    926
    1177
    1211
    S28
    789
    930
    
                        * Forest size for fragments is the actual size of the fragmew and for intact forest it is area of
                        continuous forest within 2-ta of the plot center.
                                                       19
                                                                                                                                                                        20
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-824
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
             Table 2. Mlcrohabitat am landscape variables used to model the territory density of Cerulean
             Warblers in southern West Virginia,
    Variables
    Microhahitat
    Percent Canopy Cover.
    >6-12m
    >I2-i8m
    >18-24m
    >24m
    Density of trees >38 em dbh
    Density of wags >8 em dbh
    Distance to closest edge
    Landscape
    Area of:
    Reclaimed mine
    Mature mixed conifer/deciduous
    Development
    Contrast-weighted edge density
    Core area of mature forest
    Area of fragment/continuous forest
    Distance to mine
    Code
    
    
    CC6-12m
    CC12-18m
    CC18-24m
    CC24m
    TressSScm
    Snags
    DstSdge
    
    
    Mine
    MstMix
    Devei
    CWED
    CoreAret
    ForArea
    DstMtoe
                                                                                                          Table 3. Occurrence and density of Cerulean Warbler territories in fragmented and intact forests, at different slope positions, and
                                                                                                          aspects in southwestern Vest Virginia,
    Tol
    1 regiments
    Fragmented
    iittuct
    Stop! PtftthM
    Att flea
    Low
    MM
    RMge
    Fragftented forest
    Low
    MM
    RWge
    Low
    Mid
    Ridge
    Aspect
    Alt Flat
    East
    W«t
    Ridge
    Bottom
    tmf, of No.
    iotslta CERW
    Total da J0,») Otefved
    
    350,6
    140
    
    
    32,2
    344.4
    114
    
    19.2
    152.4
    79
    13
    92
    35
    
    
    W8.8
    145,6
    114
    32.2
    
    0.715
    0.285
    
    
    0,846
    fl.702
    0.232
    
    0.855
    0.710
    0.225
    0.0»
    0.657
    0.250
    
    
    0.405
    0.»7
    0,232
    0.066
    
    24
    M
    
    
    5
    M
    44
    
    1
    12
    II'
    4
    26
    34
    
    
    37
    5
    45
    1
    No.
    CERW
    Expected
    
    63
    25
    
    
    6
    62
    20
    
    1
    17-
    6
    6
    5!
    22
    
    
    36
    26
    20
    6
    Prep, of
    observed in
    each area
    
    0.273
    0,727
    
    
    0.055
    0.440
    0.505
    
    0.040
    0.480
    0.440
    0,076
    0.3»4
    0,500
    
    
    «.407
    0,055
    0.4*4
    0.022
    55% Confidence
    Interval fo^"
    
    
    0.180
    0.634
    
    
    -0.002
    0.315
    0.3JO
    
    -O.OW
    0.355
    . '0,3(6
    0,009
    0.272
    0.375
    
    
    0.278
    -0.005
    0.352
    -0.016
    Upper r if
    
    O.J66 84.98 1
    OJ20
    
    
    0.1 12 37.J3 1
    0.5J4
    0.631
    
    0.089 5.64 2
    O.«05
    0.564
    0.142 23.32 2
    0,516
    0.625
    
    
    M55, 48.45 3
    0.115'
    0414
    0.060
    Tetrliorie
    /"-value /lOta
    
    <0.01 0.7
    4.6
    
    
    <«.«! 1.6
    I.I
    3.9
    
    <0.lfl 0.5
    0.5
    1.4
    P<0,001 3.8
    2J
    9.4
    
    
    P
    -------
    Fragmen/W £ of est
    East
    West
    Ridge
    Bottom
    Imact Forest
    EM
    West
    Ridge
    Bottom
    
    13«,8
    1 15.8
    19
    19,2
    
    62
    30
    35
    13
    
    0,350
    0.330
    0.225
    0.05$
    
    0.443
    0,214
    0.250
    8.093
    
    12
    1
    11
    0
    
    25
    4
    34
    I
    
    9
    8
    6
    1
    
    28
    14
    16
    6
    
    0.480
    0.040
    0.440
    0.000
    
    0.37J
    0.06:
    0,500
    0.030
    
    0.349
    •0.01 1
    0310
    0.000
    
    0,252
    •0,002
    OJ69
    -0.015
    
    0.611 12.J9 3
    0,091
    0,570
    0.000
    
    0.506 28.19 3
    0.123
    0.631
    0.075
    
    <0,01 0.9
    0.1
    1.4
    0.0
    
    l'<0.001 4.0
    1.3
    9,4
    1,5
     proportional use Is accepted or rejected (Neil et al. 1974).
                                                                                                                            Table 4. Independent variables for the 5 best combined, microtabitat, and landscape Poisson
                                                                                                                            regression models «s«d to predict Cerulean Warbfer territory density in southern West Virginia,
                                                                                                                            with their AICc values, ? AICc values, Aikatke weights (w). Mid mnk (out of 488 models). The
                                                                                                                            '4-' and'-' signs before eash variable indicate the direction of the relationship between the variable
                                                                                                                            and territory density.
    Models
    Combined
    +CC6-12m,
    +CC6-12m,
    +CC6-12m,
    -t-CC6-12m,
    +CC6-I2m,
    
    
    •KX24m, +Snags, +DstMine
    +CC24m, +Srags, +DstMine, -MatMix
    4CC24rn, +Simgs, ^DstMtae, iCoreArea
    +CC24m, -fSnags, +DstMine, +FragArea
    +CC24m, +Snags. -i-DstMine, +Devel, -MatMix
    AICc
    -38.46
    -34,64
    -34.34
    -32.89
    -32.75
    ?
    0.00
    3.82
    4.12
    5.56
    5.71
    w
    0,58
    0.09
    0.07
    0.04
    0.03
    Rank
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
                                                                                                                             Microhabit.it
                                                                                                                              -)-CC6-i2m, +CC24m, 4-Sntgs
                                                                                                                              •MX&"l2m, +CC24rn, +Snags, -DstEdge
                                                                                                                              •HCC6-12rn, +CC24m, +Snags, -t-TreesSScm
                                                                                                                              +CC6-12m, +CC24m, -HSnags, -KTreesSteffl, -DstEdge
                                                                                                                              •fCC6-12m, +CC24m, +Snags, -CC12-18, +Trees38crn
                                                                             -26.31   12.14  <0.01  36
                                                                             -25.34   13.12  0.01  41
                                                                             -24.94   13.52  <0.01  46
                                                                             -24.16   14.30  <0.01  52
                                                                             -24.13   14.33  
    -------
               Table 5.  Th« 5 best micwtabtet tagistfc regression naodeb used to predict Cerulean Watbler
               presence in southern West Vogiab, wWi ftefe AICc vttoes, t AICc vstaes, and Aitaike
               weights (w). The'+> and'-' sifas before each variable indicate the direction of ttie relationship
               between fhe variable sad territory density.
                          Models
                                                           AICc
                          All plots
                           +CCI8-24m
                           +CC18-24m,+Saags
                           -DsiEdge
                           •fCC24m
    
                          Only plots with Cerulean Wartters
                           -KXl8-24m
                           -Bsffidge  .
    467.18    0.00
    467.75    0.57
    467.81    0.63
    468.35    1.17
    468.48    130
                           +CC12-lSm
                           +Trees38om
    413.99
    414.00
    414.09
    414.19
    414.34
    0.00
    0.01
    0.10
    0.19
    0.85
            0.15
            0.11
            0.11
            0.08
            0.08
    0.13
    0.13
    0.12
    0.12
    0.08
                                                                                                                 Table 6, Qeeutrenee df Cerulean Warblers (CERW) adjacent to different closest interatl edge types in southwestern West Virginia.
    A»sitat»)itsr.
    Test/Edge tyjia
    A [mob
    Natural ggp
    StfeSIB
    Partially Ojsen road
    Open mad
    >2 Types
    FraiJatBfeiJ forest
    Hataral pp
    Stream
    Partially open foad
    Open road
    >2 Types
    MM forest
    Natural gap
    Stream
    Partially open f2 Types
    Kumber
    !|yadmJs
    
    33
    131
    1M
    »
    17
    
    D
    91
    W
    49
    12
    
    »
    40
    «
    30
    5
    Proportion
    te.)
    
    0.084
    8.352
    0.319
    0302
    0.043
    
    0.052
    OJ»
    OJIJ
    O.ltS
    0.0«
    
    0.142
    0.214
    0.32J
    «aj
    0.03S
    CERW
    Expected
    
    7
    29
    26
    1?
    4
    
    1
    8
    ?
    4
    1
    
    9
    n
    20
    13
    2
    CKRW
    Observed
    
    tt
    5
    40
    27
    1
    
    1
    1
    16
    3
    0
    
    9
    4
    14
    24
    1
    Prop. 0f
    ObMfved
    if,)
    
    8.120
    0.060
    8.482
    0.315
    0.0 1 1
    
    0.048
    J.04J
    0.7M
    0.143
    0.000
    
    8.145
    O.OS5
    6.387
    WI7
    0.016
    95% Confidence
    leterva! fi)rpi"
    towssr
    
    0.«J«
    -0.007
    0.341
    0.193
    -O.OW
    
    .0.072
    4.072
    O.J23
    ^.053
    0.000
    
    0.038
    •OMt
    OJ2J
    »JM
    -o.oa
    Uiiiwr ^
    
    0.212 -' 3«J2
    0.127 <
    O.S23 >
    0.457
    0.043
    
    0.16? 1195
    0.167
    1.000
    0.33»
    O.Q09
    
    0.340 * 21.50
    O.M5 <
    O.J4S
    k*w >
    0.057
    df />-v«to
    
    4 <0.001
    
    
    
    
    
    4 ).
                                                     25
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                 A-827
                                                                                                                    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                                                   Tnhte 8,  Me«i«!»d«Mj!}ti«t«mjB(SE)oftnfCerotein
                                                                                                                   Warblers (n-3) in southern West Virginia.
    Ttble 7, Mean distance (m) of Cerulean Warbler territory centers (ti-83) and non-use subplot centers (n=392) from the closest
    
    internal edge in fragmented forests, Intact forests, and combined forests in southern West Virginia,
    Fragmented Forest
    Non-use
    Edge Types
    Natural Gap
    Stream
    Partially-open canopy road
    Open-cttopy road
    More than one type
    Any edge
    n
    13
    98
    79
    49
    12
    251
    Mean
    27.3
    32.0
    20.1
    77.1
    39.2
    37.1
    Territory
    n
    1
    1
    16
    3
    0
    21
    Mean
    50.0
    15.0
    12.5
    68.3
    -
    22.4
    Intact Forest
    Ita-nse
    it
    20
    40
    46
    30
    5
    141
    Mean
    18.5
    28.5
    22.6
    42.2
    68.0
    29.5
    Territory
    n
    9
    4
    24
    24
    1
    61
    Me««
    14.3
    27.5
    20,0
    54.4
    20.0
    33.0
    Combined
    Non-use
    n
    33
    138
    125
    79
    17
    392
    Mean
    22.0
    31.0
    21.0
    63.8
    47,6
    34,4
    Territory
    a
    10
    5
    40
    27
    1
    83
    Mean
    17.9
    25,0
    17,0,
    55.9
    20.0
    30.3
    Variables
    Aspect Code
    Slope (%)
    Distance to closest edge (m)
    Nest Height (m)
    Stem Density (no./ha)
    <2,5ctn
    >2.S-8 cm
    >8-23 cm
    >23-3§cm
    >38cm
    Snags >8 cm
    Canopy Cover (%)
    >0.5-3 m
    >3-6m
    >S-12m
    >!2-18m
    > 18-24 m
    >24m
    Mean
    0.9
    473
    20.0
    15.8
    
    6916.7
    541.7
    408.3
    141.7
    116.7
    241.7
    
    13.3
    25.0
    31.7
    36.7
    45.0
    30.0
    SB
    0.5
    1.9
    10.4
    3.3
    
    2387.4
    1S0.2
    93.9
    65.1
    104.4
    41.7
    
    7.3
    11.5
    1«.4
    18.6
    13.2
    16.1
    Range
    0,5-1.8
    45-51
    5-40
    9-20
    
    2625-10875
    250-750
    250-575
    25-250
    0-325
    200-325
    
    0-25
    5-45
    0-55
    0-60
    25-70
    5-60
                                                 27
                                                                                                                                                      28
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-828
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    Figure t.  Location of (ho Hobet, Daltex, atrf Oanaelton monntnintop mine «ompletes in soBtlern Weit Vir^nk
                                                                                                                                                                  N
                                                                                                                                                 4 KRMMtMt
                                                                                                   Figure 2, Aerial photo showing flit location of study plots on tnd near the Cswiellon mine complex. Plot boundaries trc to red.
                                               29
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-829
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                  N
                                                                                                                                                                  N
    Figure 3, Aerial photo showing the location of sttidy plots on and near the Date miie complex. Plot boundaries are in red.
                                                                                                     Figure 4. Aerial photo showing the loation of study plots on and near the Hotel mine complex. Plot boundaries are in red.
                                                                                                                                               32
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-830
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                 A
                                                                                                 Figure 6. Fragmented forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2002 at the Cannelton Mine.
    Figure 5, Fragmented fcrest plots mi Cerulean WsrWer territories to 2001 and 2002 at the Cinneion Mine.
                                              33
                                                                                                                                           34
    MTM/VF Draft PBS Public Comment Compendium
    A-831
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                          1 Kllomiten    L\
     Figure 7. Fragmented forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 Mid 20b2 at the Daltex Mine.
                                                                                                 Figttre 1 Fomented ftresi plats and Cewtetn Warlfer ttrrttoriei in 2001 and MM at the Data Mine.
                                              35
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-832
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    Figiire 9, Fmgmented forest plots and Cerulean Warbler Srrltories to 2001 and 2002 «i tte Hobet Mine.
                                                                                                  Figure 10. Fragmented fcrest plots aid Cerulean Warbter territories In 2001 and 2002 at the Hobet Mine,
                                              37
                                                                                                                                           38
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-833
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                             ;eitfferMreffiii0!is
                                                                                                    Figure 12. Intact forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2002 at the Cwwelton Mine,
     Figure 11. Fragmented forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2M2 at the Hobet Mine.
                                                                                                                                               40
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-834
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
     Figure 13. Intact forest plots «d Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2002 at the Daltex Mine,
                                                                                                  Figure 14. Intact ferea plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2081 and 2002 it the Hobet Mine,
                                               41
                                                                                                                                           42
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-835
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                        Fragmented Farest             Intact Forest
                                           Treatment
                                    • Observed i Expected
     Figure 15, Observed aid expected number of Cerulean "Warbler (CERW) territories per 10 la in fore* fragmented by MTMVP
     mining and in intact fcresfs in southern West Virginia 2000-2001, Expected number of territories are based on the amount of
     available habitat.
                                            43
                                                                                               (0
                                                                                                  12
                                                                                                  10
                                                                                                   8
    
                                                                                              1   6
                                                                                              I
                     45           55          65          75           85
                                 Percent Canopy Cover >6-12m
    
            Figure 16, Relationship between Cerulean Wntoler (CERW) territory density and percent canopy cover >6-l2m.
                                                                                                                                   44
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-836
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
          12
       ra
       £
       O
           «
       •1  •
       UJ   i .
       O   /
                  *     »
                                  »   « »
             0               10              20              30
    
                          Percent Canopy Cover >24m
    
    Figure 17. Relationship between Cerulem Watb!er{CERW) territory density and t»re«rt sswopy cover >24m.
                                                                                             20
                                                                       100
                      40            60            80
    
    
                               Snags/ha
    
    Rpr« 18, Relationship between Cerulean Wsrbier (CERW) telritory density »d «g density (standing tod trees >8 em dbh).
                                          45
                                                                                                                              46
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-837
                                                                                                                                           Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
               a.)
    
                b.)
    12--
    10 -
     8-
     6-
     4-
     2-T
     0
                   14
                   12-
                   10-
                    s -
                    6
                    4
                    2
                    0
                            800    1000   1SOO   2000   2500
                               Distance from Mine Edge (m)
                                                3000
                              100     200      300     400
                               Distance from Mine Edge (m)
                                                                500
                                                                                                    12
                                                                                                m
                                                                                                |  10
                                                                                                1   8
    0)
    i
    LU   2
    O   l
                                                                                      4-
                                                                                        0         50        100       150       200       250
                                                                                                   Core Area of Mature Forest (ha)
                                                                            Figure 20. Relationship between Cerulean Warbler (CERW) territory density and core area of forest (forest > 100m from an edge).
             Figure 19. Relationship between Cerulean W«Wer (CERW) territory density and distance ftorn
             mine edge at a) til distances, and b) distances 
    -------
      12
      10
        8
        6
        4
        2
        0
          0         250        500         750       1000       1250
                        Area of Fragment/Forest (ha)
     Figure 21, Relationship between Cerulean Warbler (CBRW) territory density and 'area of forest fragment or area of continuous fore
     within 2-hn of plot centers.
                                                 49
                                                          Mid
                                                     Slope Position
                                                  | • Observed • Expected]
                                                                       Ridge
                      Figure 22. Observed and expected number of Cerulean Wai-bier (CERW) territories relative to
                      slope position in a) fragmented, b) intact, and c) both fragmented and intact forests combined in
                      southern West Virginia. Expected territories arc based on the amount of available habitat.
                                                                                                                                                  50
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-839
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                                                            Appendix I. Contrasts and weights used to calculate the contrast-weighted edge density1.
                                                                                                                                       Ecotone Contrasts
                                                                                                                                                                                      Weight
                     Natural      Stream
     Partially    Open road   >2 Types
    open road
               Mature Deciduous - Mature Mixed Conifer/Deciduous     0.00
               Mature Deciduous - Grassland                        1.00
               Mature Deciduous - Barren                          1.00
               Mtttire Deciduous - Shrub/pole                       0.50
               Mature Deciduous • Water/wetland                     0.25
               Mature Deciduous - Developed                       1.00
               Mature Mixed Conifer/Deciduous - Grassland            i .00
               Mature Mixed Conifer/Deciduous - Barren              1.00
               Mature Mixed CoitiferyDesiduous - Shrub/pole           0.50
               Mature Mixed Conifer/Deciduous - Water/wetland        0.25
               Mature Mixed Conifer/Deciduous - Developed           1.00
               Grassland - Barren                                 0.25
               Grassland - Shrub/pole                              0.50
               Grassland - Water/wetland                           0.25
               Grassland - Developed                              0.25
               Barren -Shrub/pole                                 0.75
               Baron - Water/wetland                              0.25
               Barren - Developed                                0.00
               Shrub/pole -Water/wetted                          0.25
               Shrub/pole - Developed •                            0.75
              _ Water/wetland -.Qeyetopeif	0.25	
    
    * Edge is the sum of the perimeters of all habitat patches,  Edge density (m/ha) is amount of edge
    relative to ttie landscape area. Contrast-weighted edge density allows edges of dlHerent types to
    contribute varying amounts to this metric. We%te represent the magnitude of contrast between
    adjacent habitat patches. Ecotones were given weights relative to differences in vegetation
    structure.
                                         Closest Edge Types
                                         i Fragmented S Intact
    Figure 23.  Distribution of closest edge types in forests fi-agtwnted by MTMVF mining and intact forests in southern West Virginia.
                                                     51
                                                                                                                                                                  52
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                           A-840
                                                          Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                                                                                 Appendix 3,  Means and standard errors of microhaWttt and landscape variables in fra0netned
                                                                                                                 forests (n™15) and intact forest {n»8) to southern West Virginia.
     Appendix 2. Means and standard errors of raicrotebitst variables at territory centers in fragmented (rrf3) and intact forest (n™62)
     and at non-use subplots (fragmerrted=272, intaet-140)
    Territories
    Fragmented
    Variables
    Aspect Code
    Slope (%)
    Distance to closest edge (m)
    Average canopy height (IB)
    Percent CanoBV Cover:
    >0,S- 3 m
    >3-6m
    >6-12m
    >12-18rn
    >18-24m
    >24rn
    
    <2.5 cm
    2.54cm
    >8-23 cm
    >23-38 cm
    >38cm
    Snags >8 cm
    Mean
    1.0
    38.4
    22,6
    18.5
    
    34.8
    J9.3
    «6.5
    69.8
    46.1
    8.7
    
    SB
    0,1
    4.9
    6.3
    1.0
    
    5,1
    6.0
    4.4
    5.1
    6.5
    3.2
    
    9462.0 2725 3
    809.8
    33! 5.2
    1065.2
    413.0
    630,4
    97.8
    241.6
    118.9
    78.0
    84.5
    Intact
    Mean SE
    1.5 0.1
    47.7 2.1
    33.2 4.1
    17.6 0.4
    
    34.8 2.9
    53.6 3,1
    68,6 2.6
    62.7 2,7
    45.2 3,2
    19.0 3,0
    
    66335 fii5.7
    698,8 60.8
    3438.5 177,6
    954.9 93,3
    532.8 55.2
    586.1 75,4
    Man-use Subplots
    Fragmented Intel
    Mew
    1.0
    38,d
    38.4
    19.*
    
    45,1
    64.6
    68,7
    61.5
    34.2
    11.3
    
    SE
    0.0
    1,3
    2.5
    0.3
    
    1.5
    1.4
    1.3
    1,5
    1.8
    1,3
    
    f204.5 451.6
    852.0
    403.4
    96.4
    41.5
    48.9
    37.1
    13.6
    3.7
    2.1
    2.8
    Mean
    1.1
    44.7
    29.5
    18.5
    
    37,3
    57.6
    64.5
    61.3
    46,2
    17.9
    
    SE
    0.1
    2.1
    2.8
    0,4
    
    U
    2.1
    1,7
    1,8
    2.0
    i.S
    
    6797.9 508.2
    859,0
    343.1
    97.7
    47.2
    49.3
    57.7
    13,5
    4.7
    3.7
    4,7
    Combined
    Territories
    Mean
    U
    45.0
    30.2
    17.9
    
    34.8
    54.6
    67.5
    64.4
    45.7
    16.8
    
    73W.7
    722.1
    338.5
    101.5
    49.7
    59.7
    SB
    0.1
    2.1
    3.4
    0.4
    
    2.5
    2.8
    2.2
    2.4
    .2.9
    2.4
    
    863.9
    51.4
    14.4
    7.5
    4.6
    5.9
    Non-use
    Mean
    1.0
    40.7
    35.4
    19.4
    
    42.4
    62.2
    67.3
    61.4
    39.6
    13.5
    
    6407.1
    834.4
    382J
    96.9
    434
    49.0
    Si
    0.0
    t.i
    1.9
    0,2
    
    1.2
    1.2
    " 1.0
    1.1
    1.4
    1.1
    
    343.9
    31,3
    10.1
    2.9
    1.9
    2,4
    Fragmented Forest
    Variables
    Microhabitat
    Aspect Coda
    Slope (%}
    Distance to eioswt edge (m)
    Average canopy height (m)
    Percent Ctnopv Covet :
    >0.3-3i»
    >3-6m
    
    >!2-t8m
    »8-24m
    >24m
    Stein Densiii^ (no./im>.
    <2.5cm
    2.5-fcm
    >8-23cm
    >23-38cm
    >38crn
    Snags (>tern)
    Landscape
    Barren
    Grassland
    Shrub/pole
    Water /wetlands
    Mature deciduous forest
    Mature mixed eonife/dedduoui forest
    Developed
    Praamronsttoii tasto:
    Contrast-weighted edge density
    Core area mature forest
    Distance to mine edge (m)
    Are* of ftagmenyintact forest
    Mean
    
    0.9
    41.5
    35.3
    19.6
    
    41.4
    64,5
    67.7
    63.4
    40.0
    9.8
    
    5821.3
    877,0
    392.9
    96.4
    41.6
    51.7
    
    5.5
    146.0
    47.7
    2.0
    91.1
    14.0
    6.5
    
    43.0
    25.6
    113.3
    51.0
    SE
    
    0.1
    2.8
    4.3
    0.6
    
    3,5
    3.0
    2.1
    2.9
    4.8
    2",7
    
    517.2
    $7.5
    29.4
    6,4
    4.8
    4.5
    
    1.0
    16.1
    10.1
    0.3
    9.6
    1.7
    3.1
    
    3.1
    6.0
    14.5
    20.4
    Intact Forest
    Me*n
    
    1.2
    45.6
    28.8
    18.1
    
    35.5
    56.9
    66.0
    61.2
    46.7
    18.5
    
    7191.3
    796.2
    350.2
    95.9
    4S.O
    54.1
    
    3.5
    31.5
    12.0
    0.4
    247.0
    13.3
    5.0
    
    24.8
    193.4
    957.2
    961,7
    SE
    
    1.3
    5.1
    4.8
    2.2
    
    6.1
    6.8
    6.3
    6.1
    5.6
    6.7
    
    1226.5
    11 $.3
    53.9
    IU
    6.7
    8.5
    
    2.1
    32.8
    5,6
    1.4
    38.9
    4.3
    2.4
    
    4.6
    33.8
    295,2
    176.7
                                                  53
                                                                                                                                                     54
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-841
    Section A • Organizations
    

    -------
                               A,\fFR!( A\ 13RU CONSFRYANCY
                   K-^sa^ Secretary of Affir^y ft* Gvjf
                                       \ We- t Vu
                                              iai to i^«£ racmtam top t
                    f 1«reti
                           ^i difltl fill rl ovo \000 sterns ot iwyjitsjio to^ & the last was1 Tlw
                           ^ci!|» is^is!^;-vg! ^f 1S5^ 000 asji-t*? ft* matinre decjdiiow teest oa mmtitt&ia
                  i^ , W^^'swit o! i rr¥ "^s«ffip ^ib*^ FiafhiSF tfcj* Ocsw %ster Ac
                  •-  ^Ji,?  * r*.tj. n1^ fer iurt sr^e: sc'sfi?1* -m«t "fet's, Uje curuw »s^ svf R^J
                                          wit ^a'te !>•! is
                           I fat Policy
    1-9
                                                                                                                    X
                                                                                                                                                        7   > I «   Jft < &*
                                            if ru «i w d
                                           jn •.< s I f
                                                                                                                                     * i  k i
                                                                                                                                     , f »J
                                                                                                                         E *   .  V Y" ^  hC JftKf
    
    
                                                                                                                         YvJii' lsisn'.efitk>« is
                                                                                                             1-9
                                                                                                                                                                                                   4-2
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
              A-842
    Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
    ----- Original Msssag® ----- --
    Promt G-srald k'in&grad  [malltc:gw^afocbirds.erg)
    Sent: Monday, January 05,  2004 10:14  AM
    To: Trctt,  Katharine L
    Subject: ST'QP Destruction of  Entire Ecosystems fr
    Rftieova I/ Valley Pill-SG Groups Protect
                                                                       Mountain Top
    Dear Ms. Trott:
    
    The DEIS is woefully inadequate to address the massive and permanent
    ij^acts  on avian species,  other wildlife and fish,  and the entire
    ecosystem at risk from  the projected loss of ovar 380,000 acres  dt
    high-quality forest to mountain top  removal coal mining in Tenne$s&<§,
    West Virginia,  Virginia,  and Kentucky, fhis  forest destruction and
    concomitant valley fill is the greatest federally  permitted land use
    alteration occurring in th& United States. The* projected  destruction
    
    detailed in th& draft EIS and %?ould occur aver the nsxt ten  years.
    
    The EIS process has been usurped by Interior Deputy Secretary Griles
    order to  rejtcove all environmental alternatives from the DEIS-  As
    outlined in th® attached  letter ir&m 50 national and regional  groups,
    the DEIS is -grossly defective and  needs to foe r«s-written.  We urge you
    to act to fc@rad.nats issuance of n&w  nsountaintop mining permits until
    an
    EIS is ccmi£>l«fced and adopted, as required by  BBPA.
    
    The Army Corps of Engineers has continued to issue mountain tap
    rsisoval/valley fill Clean Water Act permits for coal mining,  despite
    the
    failure  to complete an EIS. In Tartnesses alone,  permits by the Army
    COE
    have been issued  for the removal and fill of over 5,0&0 acres  of
    mountain tops in the last, year,
    
    Vie foelievs that NEPA requires such a moratorium as ths environmental
    impacts  are* so massiv© from the projected removal of 380,000 acres of
    mature deciduous  forest an mountain tops an-d the placement of  £111 in
    stream valleys. Further,   the Clean Water Act dictates individual
    permits should be required for such  major actions and thus,  the
    current
    use of nationwide permifca is illegal,
    
    The DEIS is so defective- that it fails tc substantively discuss the
    significant impacts on th® &ntijr*3 suits -of Partners in Flight priority
    mature  forest birds within the EIS study area e.g., Cerulean Warbler,
    Louisiana  water thrush,  Worm-eating Warbler, Kentucky Warbler,  i«5oo4
    Thrush,  and  Yellow-throated Vlreo, All of these bird species are also
    classified as Birds of  Conservation Concern fay the U.  S.  Fish  and. "
    Wildlife Service within the  Appalachian Bird Conservation Region,
    which
    overlaps the araa considered in the  draft EIS. Ths destruction of the
    380,000 acrsss will result in a lose of 137,836  Cerulean Warblers (ESA
    listing petition pending}  the n*sxt 
                                                                                                                    fSee attached file:  MtnTopMiningCSMtientsSOOroup-sJanS -
                                                                                                                                                                                                              1-5
                                                                                                                                                                                                               1-13
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                            A-843
                                                         Section A - Organizations
    

    -------
                                                     Citizens
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium                   A-844                                        Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    

    -------
    Michael Abraham
                                                                               David Brandon Absher
                                                       REC'D  AUS 2 1
            304 Royal Lane
            Blacksburg, VA 24060
            August 12,2003
            Mr. John Forren, US EPA
            1650 Aroh Street
            Philadelphia, PA 19130
            Dear Mr. Forren:
    
            PLEASE, PLEASE STOP MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING!!!
    
            Mowntaintop Removal mining is devastating huge swaths of land in Southern West
            Virginia and elsewhere throughout the mid-App»lacMws. Each lite is irreversWy and
            substantially harming the forests, streams, wildlife, and communities nearby. I envision
            no circumstances under which it should be allowed to continue.
            Sincerely,
    1-9
             fichsel Abraham
            bikemike@swva.net
    
                                  ..g.iSAAjjigM»..f. .|tfit.../*A.A./SA.	^v>i^t.t>\t^i.-A4tjjg| F^jft*.flt** ^ sj-
                                                                                                                                                       ff*fr
                                                                                                  1-9
                                                                                                                                                                               1-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
             A-845
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                          MarkAbshire
    i.C
    
    
    :
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ('
    
    
    (_
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    A J 1 x i , V '11 il ..i1*
    
    4 i> j , ,
    ft£ t.^Wi^nAS. «|«W«Le, U .la\Uy tills P,4
    ^**(W«««»Sjpj.
    
    
    
    
    m\(.>», rycmlU u«vU *n^» u-» 4'^V'Vj- '
    «W.»?< «£ mau(Ao6 t*Aifta«i AftA «0\Uv < '
    fllU^T" l u: ii, Jt u.f>ff ^cjw^^jt j«» UJ i
    a ' 4 «^^ a «.* I ^ »*i,v ' d I^L *
    f(^, j^ ,,«,,u vCv-ruStt, »'^V!.A? B u i 	
    Mwni.'-fWi H-»^ tU" ••""It <"• A« «ft4!/4.j^i,V.A
    ,V f{ opil,'/.' lfli*f ti- '^ ,,1/i.j^' nf U*i'^ I
    4-Les/fj<»< u«yii U rek *#Ju tn. .A-,4 Wn.«* t
    Pfaj«5-»j. t/iU rLvi<«<; t*n» tt.jOu$4 "TUty <*ft- -o- 1
    a!/i ^CAM /»eett» R«K W l\PSLik4/ Jiy iLp
    ^ooj ^|ift(ryTV?v it'*ar^!' "tnM^A <7^W
    n t 4-1, ft/,j» * n«P a. iiUv^ 
    01/20/20040
    PM
    I was botn m and grew up t
    returned: for a vkit aa<4 did ti
    c~ttviiK>fiiTi0jit ttor tnc people
    Mark Abshire
    
    
    ier/R3 A.JSEPA/US on Ot/23/3004 0^r42 AM — -
    ellsoii To: R3 Mountaintop^EPA
    cc;
    Subject: Strip Mining
    4:16
    ic first few ye»rs of my life in the Appalachtai-i Coal country. Recently I
    ot recognise mast of my area. This type of mining is not good for the ]_ »y
    there. Please stop it.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-846
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Lorraine J, Adams
                                                                            Knox Adler
                              REC'D PEC 2
           US.
               f /Mr.
                 Aft
            -7k,
                                                 VpflA^UTL/
                                                $rt£»f
    -------
    GeertAerts
                                                                                                               LeeAgee
              — Forwarded by David Ridcr/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:59 PM	
    
                           Gccrt Aerts
                                          cc:
                                          Subject:  RE: Draft niountMntop jernoval mining EIS.
                           01/02/2004 02:28
                           PM
              January 2, 2004
    
              Mr, John Fotreti
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
              1650 Arch Street
              Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
              Dear John Fotreti,
    
              i want fnoimtaintop removal mining limited,
    
              I want the EPA to consider alternatives that reduce the environmental
              impact of monntaintop removal.
    
              Sincerely,
    
              Geert Aerrs
              17635 Henderson Pass Apt 723
              San Antonio, TX
              USA
    1-5
                                           Mr. Forrea,
    January 12,2004
                                             I am writing to let you toow fhtt I am tmeqoivocaUy AGAINST mountaintop removal
                                           mining, the resulting valley fills, end my changes that would weaken the already minimal
                                           laws and regulations that protect dean water. Coal companies should not be allowed to
                                           dump milting waste into our streams and waterways, tie buffer zone of 100 feet jg a
                                           minimum distance to avoid negative impacts OB water quality in Kentucky. According to
                                           the feted government's (EPA) own Environmental Impact Statement many hundreds of
                                           miles of streams throughout Kentucky and central Appalaohi a have already been
                                           negatively impacted by such dumping. Please do not vote to continue or worsen this
                                           pracfica I do not mpport Alternatives #1,2 or 3 contained within the HS report None
                                           of these options will protect our water or our coi&Mtmities.  Instead of doing tilings the
                                           old, destructive way, why not aggressively pursue alternative, renewable sources of
                                           energy to ensure clean water, a healt&y enviro&meM asd safe communities for ibture
                                           generations.
    
                                           Sincerely,
                                           LeeAgee
                                           LoaisvlHe,Ky 40218
                    1-9
                    1-10
                                                                                                                                                                                            1-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                     A-848
          Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Sandy Ahlstrom
             ^U*LgjQLa7XLb^^
    
                        L!!£^^
    
                                      ^
    '£^^<^n^^-'^^y^2U^M^i^i^^^e^2^,
                                  4t*rLa-.~.
                               ^
                             j»i«i«4^^6*2^i%(l&^l^i222Ma^a^fei
                                                                     i
                                                                     .....
                   &MM-
                                              g^^
                                                                        1-9
                   L^kJ
                                                                                                                                           ,
                                                                                                                         ~~_r«~,)r^^~      ^^^^   --,,^r~^ -,,a«r^^f-
    
                                              ^jL^
                                                                                                                                                     \
                                                                             \
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-849
                                                                                                            Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Julie Alaimo
                                                                     George & Frances Alderson
                                        .                           -~j^~.	•••• — - 	
    
    
    
                                                ^
                                                                                                                                    George & Frances Alderson
                                                                                                                                               112 Hilton Avenue
                                                                                                                                                  ft, Maryland 21228
                                                                                                                                              December 14, 2003
                                                                           «EC'D  DEC 1 7;
                                                                                                                 Mr, Iota Barren
                                                                                                                 US Environmental Prot«tfon Agency (3EA30)
                                                                                                                  1650 Areh Street
                                                                                                                 PMladelphkPA 19103
    
                                                                                                                 Dear Mr. Fonw:
    
                                                                                                                 Please include this letter as a comment on the draft EIS OB mountaintop removal coal
                    We have seen tile impacts of surface coal mining in the mountains of western Maryland
                    and southwestern Pennsylvania, and we are very concerned that those destructive projects
                    may be allowed to multiply under current plans of the Bush Administration.
    
                    We ask EPA to reject the "preferred alternative" that eliminates restrictions on the use of
                    mountaintop removal as part of coal mining operations. We understand that the preferred
                    alternative eliminates a role barring disturbance within 100 feet of streams, it places no
                    limits on the size of valley fills nor on the acres afforests that can be disturbed, and it
                    contains no measures to safeguard wildlife habitat.
    
                    We ask EPA to develop instead a preferred alternative that has the following features:
                    •  Measures to reduce the environmental impacts of mountaintop removal.
                    *  Prohibit mountaintop removal where the impacts exceed a certain threshold.
                    •  Restrict the size of valley fills to an appropriate numerical standard, so as to reduce the
                       loss of streams and forests and the wildlife found therein.
                    «  Reqaireconsiderationof alternatives for individual mining projects, so their
                       environmental impacts can be considered on a she-specific basis, including the
                       cumulative impacts of mountaintop removal at different sites.
    
                    Thank you for considering our views.
                                                                                                                                                                                               1-13
                                                                                                                                                                                               1-6
                                                                                                                                                George & Frances Alderson
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-850
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Jonathan Alevy
                                                                                      Deborah C.Allen
                                                                                                                                                                                 AUB
                                                                                  Ky. 42431
       January 2, 2004
    
       Jonathan Atevy
       Hyattsvilte,.Mb 20782
       A while hack I had the opportunity to visit with farmers in all parts of the state of
       Maryland to discuss their managment of nutrients, which,
       as I am sure you are iware, can cause serious environmental harta if used inappropriately.
       After one visit near Cumberland in the center
       of the state a farmer asked me to join him in his vehicle to look at something he thought
       was a mote serious environmental concern.
    
       After driving up the road from his farm just a mile or so, we walked into the woods
       towards a stream, that was shockingly reddish in color,
       almost a bright "Hood red." The farmer attributed the problem to the mining taking place
       at the streams source at the mountain top. I
       believe this type of dramatic damagfc needs to be addressed in a responsibk way and urge
       you to take the necessary care to be sure that
       mountain top mining is restricted so that these severe environmental harms are avoided
       and where damage currently exists, that these
       sites are restored. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
    5-5-2
                                                                                                              Qehotah C Allen,  149 E. Btoadwa^
                                                                                                              John Forren
                                                                                                              U.S. EPA (3ES30)
                                                                                                               1650 Arch Street
                                                                                                               Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
                                                                                                              August 13,  2003
                              Dear Mr. Forren,
    I oppose mountaintop removal and valley fills and any change In the butter zone
    rule. I'm disappointed and angry that the federal government ignored its own
    studies when it proposed weakening, rather than strengthening, protections for
    people and the environment We look to people we have put in charge to
    protect this precious land we ate borrowing for our brief life from the greedy
    who only see profit.
                                                              sincerely yours,
     1-9
    
    1-10
                                                                                                                                               Deborah C. Allan
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
            A-851
                                                          Section A ~ Citizens
    

    -------
    Christopher Ambrose
                                                                              Christopher Anderson
               Chrisamljr@aol.com
                                       To:    R3 Mouniatntop@KPA
                          08/15/03 10:10 AM    cc
                                       Subject: Re: EIS
               A CD is fine. My address is:
    
               Christopher Aisbrose
               7815 Lambkin Court
               Lorton, VA 22079
    
               1 lived ia West Virginia years ago »td, dating 
    -------
                                                                                                                                                        Anonymous
                                                                                                                         ,:•' -A- MI
    
                                                                                                                     ^l»J.^W»«<«^U»««»«^«Wt''.' .••«»'i.'^""" j'vt*'K».•"*"'' :''n/'?|S;-'!/-'''i5'-'•"'.
                                                                                                                                                                1-9
    MTMA/F Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-853
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                 Anonymous
                                                                  1-9
                                                                                                ->.*.d~t>.£AJe~v*>  v-
    
                                                                                                                                        1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-854
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Anonymous
                                                                                                                                                                 Julie Arrington
        Date:
        City:
    12/24/2003
    Brighton
    State:  Co    Zip:    80603-8705
        My review of the DEIS on rnountaintop removal coal mining revealed major conflicts
        with what is called for by the CEQ regs. These regs, as you well know, require that the
        preferred alternative be the one which has minimal environmental impact commensurate
        with project objectives. The regs also requite that the best science available be wed and
        off site impacts be fully evaluated. All feasible alternatives are to be considered. The
        tactic of presenting only far out alternatives atfd a preselected alternative so the
        preselected on. is the best choice 1$ forbidden. This DEIS falls short ort all of these
        requirements. While it does present elements- of good science, it ignores them when
        selecting a preferred alternative. The EPA should designate this DEIS as inadequate and
        require a revised version that fully recognizes all of the environmental and economic
        impacts OB the communities involved. The re.vised DEIS should present the best 4 at 5
        alternatives that takes into full account the results of the supporting studies concerning all
        impacts and project objectives. Most of all, a DEIS is no place to Biter existing
        regulations such a* the placement of fill near streams. As a past Region 6, FWS,
        Environmental Officer for 8 years. I have seen some real onee-over-lightly DEIS's and
        some right devious ones. This DEIS is oni of the worst I have seen.
                                                                             4-2
    — Forwarded by David Rkfet/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/200401:59 PM	
    
                 "araiigtj@casco.il
                 ct" 
    -------
    Gordon Aubrecht, II
                                                                                                                                                                     Harvard Ayers
            Gordon J,
            Date:  1/05/2004
            City:   Delaware
    Aubrecht, II
    
    State: OH    7J,p   43015
            I am unhappy to.learn that the current (BushJ administration plans to continue to let coal
            companies destroy Appateehia with mining practices that level rttounMiiitops, wipe out f 01
            bury streams, and destroy communities despite the wishes of ffl&ay West VjrginiaiB aid 01
            affected by the probable decision to go ahead, J sgree. with msny of Julia Bonds' criticisms
            expressed at the EIS meeting in My, 2003.
    
            According to the administration's draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on mountai
            removal coa! mining, the environmental effects of mountaintop removal are widespread.
            devastating, and permanent. Yet, the draft EIS proposes no restrictions on the size of valk
            thai bury streams, no limits on the number of acres of forest that can be destroyed, no proti
            for imperiled wildlife, and no safeguards for the communities of people that depend on th.
            region's natural resources for themselves and future generations. As has been reported in s>
            places, many residents are afraid that there will be ' noise and dust from blasting, the loss
            steams buried by valley fills and the fear of flooding from overloaded sediment poads or i
            slurry impoundments."  The EIS states that the region has lost 6.S* of its forests to
            niountaitttoppmg, and 724 miles of its streams to valley fills, to the detriment of all Ameri>
            This adversely affects local water quality and alters runoff characteristics. Without new lir
            mountaintop removal, or a return to those measures proposed by the Clinton administratio
            large area of of mountains, streams, and forests will soon be destroyed by mountaintop pjr
            Many state studies have asserted that regulations in place are not being enforced, accordin
            the EIS.
    
            These state measures should be supported strongly by the federal govermriBflt, which acco.
            to my reading the EIS did not recommend. In light of these facts) I urge you to consider
            alternatives that reduce the. environmental impacts of n»untaintop:removal.
    
            Thank you for your consideration on this important issue.
                                                                      1-9
                                                                      1-5
    	Forwarded by David Rider/RS/USEPA/US on 01/50/2004 11:21 AM	
    
                 Harvard A yets
                 p@KPA
                              t>              cc:
                 Subject Mountsintop Removal EIS
                 01/21/2004 11:31
                 AM
    
    Dear EPA person-
    
    I haw taken many trips over the last 10 years fspm my home in the Blue Ridge Mountains of
    North Carolina to the coalfields of West Virginia and Kentucky. I haw flown many times in
    a small piste over the areas that have mcmtwaifttop removal mines. I am also conducting a
    satellite analysis of how much expanse of the appabchian coalfields have been destroyed by
    KTR.
    
    My analysis indicates that about 1 million acres oi West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia and
    Tenness.ee h$ve already fo?en leveled, with much more to come. If the current practice
    continues at today's pK?e, it will truly go from "Almost Heaven, West Virginia,*' to "Almost
    Level, West Virginia." I have sobbed with several other people at a time in the flights, Thest
    people have included svetage people, national Congressional staff, ministers, media, pretty
    much folks from all walks of life.
    
    Also, I have talked to many folks in  the coalfields and spent the night on their floors to gain
    a better understanding of the human tole of MTR. Along with a geologist colleague of mine
    at Appalachian State University, I have investigated a huge mining crack on Kayford
    Mountain, WV, which looms over the valley town of Dorothy. The investigation of the
    geologist indicated that a potential landslide which he saw evidence of could cover the town
    with 200 feet of rubble in seconds from the time it broke loose, killing ail the residents.
    
    I have seen a lot of environmental threats over the country, and I hsve never seen anything
    like the effects of Mountsifitop Removal. 1 therefore urge you to refect the devastation
    currently being caused by this practice and I ask you to recommend restrictions that will stop
    the devastation. 1 urge you not. to do »noth« sharn study that I have come to expect from
    the Bush KPA. Ackeowledg; thut there is tremendous problem to people »nd the
    environment and take the steps necessity to rein in the out-of-c.ont.rol  corporations (Arch,
    A.T. Massey, etc.) and staod up for what's right!
                                                                                                                                                                               9-1-5
                                                                                                                                                                               10-4-2
     MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                             A-856
                                                                                                                                                                                          Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                               Janet Ayward
            Tf you haven't haA the opportunity HI be glad to ptovuk a flight fcr you, who ever yon ate
            sod mtijoae else in EPA A at nnij^it not hoe se«n «4i«t you ttt fegulaling front ti>tt
            Sincerely,
            Hftcvrctd Ayers
            Ptoicssot of Ar
            Appalachian State Univeisity
            Boooe, NC 2840? - 828-262-6381
                                                                                                                                    'D AU6 2
                                                                                                    - .
                                                                                                   : 6 4
                                                                                                                                                                      1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-857
                                                                                                                                                         Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    JimBaird
                                                                                     Ray & Arlene Baker
                T tug^s y'A fitWfr, aftiortjly to !;j« the EIJA ^KVlromssntai  a£#^.?-¥«i**!nt  to  mau;ntalntx-p
                J.'iHs«.A*3L 53 your cTuid*:? ia rul* msfcinvji.  It  la all  ^fc^Hi-  tr.e res-source,  Hew
                r.ai:> thsie be q^^t iou.3 of whether or  not  watet  quality is tMpaeteJ wh«R
                th-s at !:*:«;» Is* burled? I ws*s foutanatis  etiC-ajgh  to visit  t:*«? Cv:2>rle-3t-cri
                ar-a-a in £000 as pait ,->£ s delegation  •>£ th*a, Ks a result ^t ouj: investigatlori vm  d^vf*lcl,\^win^
                r•=••*'"-lut- ior.. hrtp: / ''vjww. i wla, oig/policies/
                S)          The piactic-t* knavjn a-s mountai;iti.p  i'daoval  arid  val 1^-y fi 11 Is
                -ji '^i n-j ^!ii xesal*.itiij in ;..<•*rmai*efif. -JamciOtf  f-v  yjvJ  lo <&, u£ fulfil a:nji
                hi~*civ«31«~r fftreaif.^, ^sp-scial J y in th*? Appal 'achian Mounts.j n«.  Hh© Lf s^gue
                strongly ;ircfe.» th<*t ac vafiances rr w.rtivers to exis-tiny stie-aia b(til:er
                ^rnne r^'^n t ^ment/? of H-^ Snrf~iw
                ara-itel by state a:;d facterai ssq&n*"i&$  for  vallc-y r'il3-s a^^ocl^t-?-:! with
                jj-t&'.atvji^rc'p r~'!aoval minirt-ci.
    1-10
                                OiU
    
                                UteS.
                                                                                                                                                                               'D AlJSfl 42W
                                                                                                                                                                       is
                                         » Tyr|f<^,  a
                                             o^. 1-hls
                                                                                                                                                            animal
    o
     all
                                                                                       as i
                                                                      en «{ «if .
                                                                                                                                                                        8(3
                                                                                                                                                                           «i»
                                                                                                                                                                            HtTT?.
                                                     l«5d
    
                                                          7-2-2
    
                                                      10-3-2
    
    
                                                       6-2-2
                Tha:"vk rcu f'"j±" youir t i-ue .^
                       far);, MD
    MTMA/F Draft PEJS Public Comment Compendium
           A-858
                                         S&ctton A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Isabel Balboa
                                                                                          Jessie Ballowe
          Isabel Balboa
          4018 West 175St
          Tot-ranee, CA 90504
    —- Forwarded by David Rider/RS/USEP A/US 01101/07/200403:32 PM	
    
                  "is »bel_b alboa@ho
                  tmail.com"          To:    R3 Mountaiatop@EPA
                  
    -------
    Carl Banks
                                                                                                      Israel Baran
    T)^e;&Lte£S3e&
    
    
    
                    L
    
    
    
                      QbbtAA£Uwa^Lfev<
    
    
                      rfr**11***^   1-9
                           AA*wy*£*.......
    
                           JuUs^^^
    '****?#&
    
    *^<»/y j,
        ^A^-
                                                                                                  ,
                                                                                                ^&^>
                                                                                                           V
    
                                                                                                                        1-9
                                                                                                                         1-10
    MTMA/F Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                                                  A-860
                                         Sector) /4 - Citizens
    

    -------
    Richard Baskin
                                                                                             Susan Bechtholt
          — Forw&jrkd by David Rider/KS/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:52 PM —
    
                      RBaskin@aoi.com
                                    To:     R3 Mountamtop@EPA
                      01/03/2004 09:44     cc:
                      AM             Subject Strengthen draft BIS on mountaintop re
          Mt. John Forren
          Project Managet
          U,S. Knvironrnentai Protection Agency (3KA30)
          1650 Acch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Email : itiauntmntop«f 3@epa.gov
    
          Dear Me, Parren,
              ears, l&nd reclamation after strip mining has been & rc&ogttissed nee-d. Y^t die extent to
          which the land area is returned to it p re-mining state has been a subject, of great controversy.
          Obviously, the economics ot strip rnniing become that much less viable the more extensive
          thfi eeelaffittion.  Still, there must be a balance between die imitsedtate gains of sttip nikiing
          versus the d^gf&d&tion of th,e area once the strip mining is complete,
    
          Mountain top mmmg is pieticulatly trouhlmg given that it level mountain ft jps, wipes out
          tofvstSj buries stif mis and destroys communities  According to the dratt HIS, ihf
          environmf nta! eilt^ts ot mount sun top removal act widrspicadj devastating; and petmanent
          \Vt tht dt lit t* IS ptopost «* n< > restrictions on ihr stKe of vallf y fills that bitty stf^atns, no
          limits on thi* ttutnboc of K*re^ of fort^t that can b^ n die region's n-atutal leaoiirces
          for themselvf s ind ttituu generations lnst£*ad, the proposed "ptf ff tt-ed Atr-ernative" for
          urtdti ssmg tht1 enormous problems caused by mountamtop removal mining ignores the
          sf iiciu s th«it qu^nfit"). thc^c prcsblf ms Fufthrrmofe, if propo^t s weakening existing
          cnvttf mmtutat piolrs fions and allowing mountatntop ccitioval atjd as^^c^Xt d vallfy tiHs to
          eotitmue at an accelerated rate.
    
          I strongly urge you to amend the EPA's dtalt enTitonmentsl imp&ct staterr^nt  so as to limit
          the effects of h-armfui rnottritamtop £01110^!  mining; Aiternstives must be eon&icfeted that
          reduce the etivii\,>nniendd impacts ot nx>Ufitiiitttop ternoval ai'td tlien implement meas^iteg to
          protect natural resources and communities in Appal achi-% such as restrictions- on the size of
          valley fills to reduce the destruction of streams, forests, wildlife and communities. I utge you
          to immediately amend the draft EIS accorcimgly,,
    
          Since retv,
          Richard Baskin
          2 Roton Ave
                                                                                                                                              PiJ-r/I *'HSEFA/M3
                                                        '^ll^iS^  vf ^f-°pc          Tt
                                M suiit-s*' n1 f svfeP^
                                                       c-Qra>                       cc:
                                                                                 Subject;
                                De-s t ixict: i on Cau sed  By  Mount & 1 n-t-op Eamoval Hi n i n g
                                                       01/12/2004 10:01
                                                       PM
                                Susan S^shtholt
                                S-29G Banner Rd -SS
                                Port OccJiard, UA
                  1-9
    1-5
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
          A-861
    Section A  - Citizens
    

    -------
    Lawrence Beckerle
                  Forwarded by Devid Rlder/R3/USEPMJS on 01/08/2004 09:59 AM —
    
                              Lawrence Becterte
                                     oc:
                                            Subject'  Additional comments on EIS
                              01/06/20041208
                              PM
                   January S, 2004 comments on EIS
                   By Lawrence T. Beckerle
                   PO Box 118
                   Craigsvilie, VW 26205
    
                   Fatal flaws
    
                   EPA did not make proper use of data gathered by US
                   Forest Service from Appalachian and Cumber (and
                   Mountain areas and formerly headquartered at Betes
                   Kentuc! these
    designs sflow dissolve sail* to be flushed out of
    valley fills  Part of this flaw could be corrected
    with organic fitter*, but the regulations require the
    removal of tt«es and other surface organic* before
    placement of ffll material, 0SM snuffed out the use
    of trees and shrubs tor under drains. Now organic
    filters ire not even allowed in ttw aerobic zones of a
    valley fill.
    
    Part of Ms is due to the fact that regulators do not
    make a difference between consideration of the
    stability of the tec® of the valley lilt ftom the
    material behind the face While this may simplify
    things for regulators, it also has tie effect of
    outlawing innovative technologies for improving water
    quality-.  It also outlaws fills that concentrate
    stability features at the most vulnerable are*
    (genwally trie face) and use the rest of the valley
    ri to enhance other parameters.
    
    By contrast to SO % durable rods fill* and chimney
    core dram His, it has been shewn to bs possibteto
    stow runoff in a valley fill and to increase the
                                                                    As a tfiird option a vafcy fill could be used to
                                                                    create cells or a Mnd of dam effect to improve water
                                                                    quality parameters. However the Dam Control Act may
                                                                    need some modtfiottion to allow use of designs that
                                                                    might be currently subject to its restrictive
                                                                    proviseng, but which Btould be exempt to encourage
                                                                    new designs for improving water qualify
    
                                                                    Among the concepts for which bureaucrat® rnight use the
                                                                    Darn Control act as a roadblock are: Internal cells in
                                                                    a valley fill and perched water tables.
    
                                                                    PREVENTION OF AOD MINE DRAINAGE
    
                                                                    Thtea ingredients are required for acid mine drainage
                                                                                                                        13-3-2
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                                            A-862
                                                                   Section A -  Citizens
    

    -------
                  to be produced water, oxygen, and pyrite or similar
                  material. Production of acid mine drainage is
                  maximized when the pyretic material occurs in the
                  water fluctuation zone  Thus there are two logical
                  approaches to preventing production of acid mine
                  drainage
                  1 ) Keep the pyretic material high and dry to teep
                  water from getting to it
                  2} Put the pyretic material beiow the permanent water
                  table to deny oxygen needed by the sulfur oxidizing
                  bacteria
                  Where states regulatory agencies allow only the first
                  approach (West Virginia) tnfittratton of rainwater is
                  discouraged.  Drainage structures resemble those used
                  for highway construction and runoffs rates can be very
                  high.
                  Where state agencies (Illinois) have preferred the
                  second fisted approach infiltration of rainwater is
                  encouraged and drainage structures often resemble
                  those used by farmers to reduce erosion and Increase
                  the productivity of their land. Runoff rates are
                  lowered by such structures It is possible to
                  eliminate storm water runoff with such structures.
                  The flood control benefits can be enormous   But
                  where the emphasis is on the first approach such
                  structures are not allowed.
    
                  Less well-known to state officials is that such
                  structures increase the productivity  of vegetation and
                  the productivity of sulfur reducing bacteria, both of
                  which help to reverse acid mine production However
                  for those that have studied effects of rice paddies
                  that formerly occurred in South Carolina and/or the
                  earthen ceils used for commercially raising crayfish,
                  this is old news
    
                  For farmers interested in ground water recharge and
                  otherwise retaining moisture to increase production of
                  their land such structures are  old news. Most also
                  realize that the increased moisture through the winter
                  months helps increase the freexe-thaw actions that
                  reduce compaction and are thus an aid to increasing
                  rooting depths for plants
                  APPROXIMATE ORIGINAL CONTOUR
    
                  In my work to create topsail material for bond
                  forfeited surface mined land, I have learned the hard
                  way that a 15% slope is the maximum safety limit for
                  trucks to dump sawdust and other materials that we
                  used to make a fopsoil layer.  (15 feet vertical fall
                  in 100 horizontal distance = 15% slope.)
                  With my fanning cooperatefs {Davtd Wtiiams and James
                  Briggs) we soon learned that 25% is the maximum safety
                  limft to operate a farm tractor along the contour of
    19-3-2
    the land,
        28 % slope is the standard steepness for roofs
    on the average home  (The same slope when used by
    homebuflders to put a roof on a house is described as
    a pitch of 3 inches vertical fall for every 12 inches
    of horizontal distance, or as 3 in 12 or 3/12 s)
    
    Being able to safely operate equipment should be a
    concern of everyone who values the life of their
    fellow Christisn  Out some are not satisfied to see
    land put back as ste^p as the ro
    -------
                  Some say 8 picture is worth a thousand words. I wish
                  I had pictures of trucks that rotted over when the
                  operators tried to dump their ioadg on hills steeper
                  than 15% I do have pictures of the land we were able
                  to reclaim I'm including a mere two copies with this
                  letter (I have many more I would like to show you.)
    
                  The land shown in the pictures is more productive than
                  what can be achieved by land with slopes over 15%. It
                  is more resistant to erosion  It is mow resistant to
                  flash flood type runoff*  The very rich two-foot
                  deep layer of topsoil we created is something that
                  future generation* wiH be able to use. The amount of
                  carbon sequestration  that we achieve with this project
                  is higjw (on a psr acre basis) than all other
                  projects that I have heard about
    
                  I am wmindad of the biblical exhortations to lower
                  the mountains, raise the valleys, and praise the Lord.
    
                  * On gentle sloping lands (be it mined land or other
                  high and dry lands) it  is possible to build enough
                  absorption terraces and similar structures that catch
                  and hold flash flood style runoff so that flooding is
                  prevented But it seems that none of the radicals are
                  interested in such proposals.  It seems they'd rather
                  see a continuation of flooding so they can exploit the
                  misery of flood victims to advance their political
                  agendas.
    
                  For a long time the West Virginia Department of
                  Environmental Protection (and its predecessors) used a
                  fifty-foot rule to judge  the return to approximate
                  original contour. This standard had the advantage of
                  being simple and where the contour intervals on
                  topographic maps of several counties is forty feet, a
                  fifty foot rule was dose to the mappings standards
                  used by the US Geological Survey.  However, one
                  problem is that fifty feet can be a lot or a little
                  depending on what context it is used in. Taten out of
                  context, that rule caused plenty of confusion
    
                  {Due to a number of problems the 50-foot rule was
                  meant to be more of a guide. Since it wasn't always
                  "strictly enforced', some thought that OEP had broken
                  the law by not enforcing this rule.
                  But height was not intended by Congress to be the
                  measure of approximate original contour:  The concern
                  voiced by Congressmen from farming states makes that
                  clear. The emphasis from those Congressmen was to
                  restore the agricultural productivity of the land  To
                  do that the land must  be made at least as flat as It
                  was before mining. Congress set 50% as the maximum
                  slope for post mining land Since most of the land
                  (8D to 90% in some) in many counties is in excess of
    13-3-2
    50%, it is not possible to return the land to its
    original heights. Which further emphases that
    Congress was mote interested in returning land to
    usable Map&s, which generally should be at least as
    flat a? what occurred before mining.)
    
    The 50-foot standard was also wrong in that it could
    result in land, that was much stepper than what
    occurred before mining or it could result in land that
    was much flatter.  What would have mad© more sense
    are requirements based on percent slope such as:
    
    0 to 15% should be at least as much of the land is in
    this slope category as occurred before mining.
    16 to 25 % should be approximately as much tend in
    this slope category as occurred before mining.
    25 to 36 % the amount of land in this category after
    mining should not exceed what occurred before mining
    37 to 50% the amount of land in this category after
    mining should net exceed what occurred before mining.
    The provisions enacted by the US Congress showed they
    had a special concern about tend that might bs granted
    to slopes greater than 37 %. J20 degrees is between
    36 and 37%)
    Over 50%. In general Congress prohibited a return of
    land to slopes greater than 60%. even though a
    significant amount of land in some steep mountainous
    counties ranges from 80 to 80 %.
    
    Other states  have been using percent stepe
    classifications as a way to regulate their mining
    industries since and soms even before ths passage of
    SMCRA (the Surface Mining Conservation and R
    act. It seems that What Virginia needs to adopt a
    similar standard. A possible barrier in Wast
    Virginia to passing such a standard is ths confusion
    and legal mess caused by Judge Haden% daclsions.
    Since he is a federal fudge, West Virginia is now in
    some ways as restricted on passing laws with regards
    to mining, as it is restricted on passing laws that
    limit al3ortlon. The consent d&gree entered into by
    those who file the lawsuit and OEP also restricts West
    Virginia's ability to IK things In these cases,
    consent degrees become just another way to deny our
    right to vote on these issues.  Are you not concerned
    about this injustice?
    
    To arrive at some of Ms decisions judge Haden had  to
    not only ignore the intent of the US Congress, he had
    to change a few key definitions, fof example
    
    Waste rock is a term normally used for rook left after
    processing to extract a mineral  Its economic value
    is gone  ft ean b® in a fairly dry form such as rock
    that has been leached to extract gold  ft can be in
    slurry form that is inherently unstable, such as
    13-3-2
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                        A-864
                                                                     Section A  - Citizens
    

    -------
                  slurry from a coal preparation plant  Siurry material
                  is inherently unstable  The materials dredged from
                  rivers and canals are inherently unstable, so the US
                  Congress included dredging material in its provisions
                  on waste rock
    
                  Fill rook is normally used tor rock that is used in a
                  fill  People untrained in construction or mining will
                  often make fiils on their properties  Many times they
                  will copy what they have seen in construction or
                  mining  Sometimes they take shortcuts and end up with
                  problems   A common short cut is to skip doing a
                  durability test on the rock they plan to use in a
                  fill, so that it is no longer select fill as is used
                  in the mining industry  It should also be noted that
                  a valley does not contain the following materials:
                  No acid producing material
                  No gob
                  no siurry
                  no fly ash
                  no mud is disposed of  in valley fill
    
                  Judge Haden% decision on rmuntairtop mining attempted
                  to put a number of untruths into court made teiw. How
                  the decision of the Appeals Court affect {his I'm not
                  entirely sure,  but I would ask that EPA make note of
                  their decision so that those untruths are not further
                  advanced.
                  Comments on EIS (with additional pages since summer
                  03 submission of first page)
                           Pagel
                  By Lawrence T, Becterle
                  PO Box 118,
                  Craigsvitle, WV 26205
    
                  Could better discern what the effects of valley fill
                  were if one knew the percent slope of the land above
                  it and could statistically separate out the effect of
                  steep slopes from the size of valley fills.  The
                  problems being attributed to valley Mis may tie due
                  to the steep slopes above those valley fills. And it
                  is very possible that larger valley fill that  make
                  possible a reduction of steepness of slope on the land
                  above the valtey fiii will have less runoff than  &
                  small valley fill with steeper land above it However
                  without information on the slope of the land, it will
                  be hard for scientist to make these determinations.
                  (The irony is that Illinois, which is much flatter
                  than West Virginia keeps records on steepness of
                  slopes, and West Virginia ignores the issue)
    
                  Slope information needs to be cataloged here in the
                  mountains Just as well
    13-3-2
    17-1-2
    Regulations could be improved by » consideration for
    steepness.  For example, to control erosion, one
    needs to have more vegetation (or other erosion
    control measures) on a 40% slope than a 4% slope
    
    -------
                  same size and shape with 80% durable rock will hive a
                  tester discharge of water than a valley fill f the
                  same size and shape with 60% durable rock
                  If the percent of rack is trie same for two valley
                  Tills, but one has all the durable rook at the toe of
                  the fill instead of through out, it should be both
                  more stable and have slower discharge.
                  If rook and size are the same, but one has reversed
                  slope terraces and the other doesn't, the first will
                  have slower runoff than the second
    
                  A common public need across the West Virginia it a
                  need tor flood control,
                  Yet the public use provision has never been used to
                  address extra steps for reducing floods
                  Taking steps to reduce flooding would have a
                  beneficial economic Impact, yet the variance for
                  economic use has never been approved tor steps to
                  reduce flooding
                  For example, the pure economics of crayfish farming
                  and the economic need for a crayfish farm in Southern
                  West Virginia would be hard to justify to the
                  satisfaction of regulatory agencies so long as they
                  only consider the price of crayfish in to their
                  calculations. However tf they would also consider the
                  benefits that such a fafrn would contribute to the
                  reduction of losses due to flooding then their
                  calculations would be more accurate and fair to all.
    
                  In its interim regulations OSM had a rule against any
                  depressions bigger than a square meter. Following
                  that that time period, the Drainage Handbook became
                  the standard in West Virginia. To this day the
                  Drainage -handbook still has a rule against depressions
                  deeper than two tens of a foot.  As  a consequence- of
                  the earlier OSM rule and the currant rule there are
                  very few wetlands on mined lands and those that do
                  occur are of very poor quality. Another part of the
                  reason that there are so few wetlands Is that: 1.)
                  the overall emphasis of the Drainage Handbook is to
                  channel water off the mined site and 2.) there has
                  been a regulatory agency tendency to consider every
                  water retaining structure to be an impoundment so that
                  even sediment ditches are required to be removed after
                  mining.   So the thought on the operational side has
                  been why build something constructive,  if you're going
                  to have  to destroy it later.
    
                  As a consequence vernal pools and ephemeral pools are
                  rare.
                  Wet meadows sre rare.
                  Wet forests are rare.
                  Absorption terraces are rare.
                  Zero runoff bench and berm systems are rare.
                  And I do no know of any crayfish farms on mined land
                  in West Virginia, (an important food for wild turkey)
    17-1-2
                                                                 All of tr*s* wouM result in mam "organic energy* for
                                                                 aquatic organisms in tfie- sterns below the mining area.
    Forest Ecology page 158 rainfall interception
    Page 167 effect of wind
    Page 260 Decreasing order of water oonsumpten are.
    wet meadows, open water, grasslands, vegetable crops,
    bare soil
    "Thus in the Lake States, the presence of northern
    white cedar in wet sites is indicative of seepage
    conditions where the water table is moving rapidly and
    relatively high in oxygen.  With completely stagnant
    and oxygen-poor water, only black spruce and
    associated encaceous species can grow"
    Channels from decaying taproots page 269
    Infiltration rates of 2SOmm per hour
    293 In sand plains of Lake States, organic matter
    provides the major source of colloids for soil
    nutrition"
    Look for page on alleJopathic effects on N-fixattan
    and presence of legumes and rnycorrhizal fungi
    1000mm per hour is that 50 Inches per hour?
    
    SEVEN POINT PROGRAM TOR ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AND
    MORE JOBS IN WEST VIRGINIA
    Eliminating unnecessary roadblocks and sowing the
    seeds for a more vibrant economy that  will benefit
    everyone
    
    By Lawrence T Seckerle
    LEGALIZE creating more types of WETLANDS, for example;
    
    1) Loggers are fold by t>@ Department of Forestry
    (DOFj that In order to comply with BMPs (Best
    Management Practices) tray must out slops all their
    skid roads, so as to eliminate pools  of water  These
    pools are needed by frogs and salamanders to produce
    offspring. Their young come off a spring or other
    early spring wet area, so they truly are offspring.
    Turkey hem lead their baby chicks to these pools to
    drink and feed on insects  So even though these pools
    dry up in summer, they are important to wlloWe
    Pools and wetlands help water to soak  into the land,
    which aids the growth of trees and other plants in the             17-1-2
    area Productive lands generate more jobs than                  ' "
    poverty lands.
    2.) While cattail wetlands sre allowed on strip mines,
    most of the other types are not allowed. Foi example'
     In the Drainage Handbook for Surface  Mining
    depressions deeper than two tenths of a foot (2 4
    inches) are prohibited for diversions and constructed
    drainways.  Legalizing all types of wetlands from
    accidentally created tadpole pools, crayfish flats, to
    wild rice paddies would increase wildlife diversity
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                        A-866
                                                                    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                  Water caught tit these wetlands would help reduce
                  flooding.
    
                  LEGALIZE more FLOOD CONTROL
                  There are number of ways to configure mine land to
                  reduce the severity of flooding during heavy rains,
                  but West Virginia only allows rnounteintop removal
                  mining and approximate original contour
                  configurations.  Other concepts are not allowed.
                  There are a number of structures that have been proven
                  to reduce flooding, but it is not legal to build them
                  on mined land in Wast Virginia.  (For ©cample:
                  Absorption terraces, zero runoff bench and barn
    17-1-2
                  LEGALIZE the use of NATIVE PLANTS
                  1) The West Virginia Department of Highways (DOH)
                  Itsts only non-native  plants for stabilizing cut
                  slopes and fill areas  on road right-of-ways
                  Wildflowers plantings you sometimes see are an
                  exception to rules to use only non-native plants.
                  2) West Virginia Black Cherry trees are valuable for
                  songbjrds and game animals  Black Cherry lumber
                  currently brings more money than Black Walnut  If a
                  coal operator or the landowner plants Black Cherry on
                  mined land without the approval of The West Virginia
                  Department of the Environmental Protection (DGP), it
                  is considered a violation of the law  it should NEVER
                  be a violation of the law to plant naSve wildflowere,
                  shrubs and trees
    
                  LEGALIZE more FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, tor example:
                  1.) Coal operators are not currently permitted to
                  build raceways for trout and other fish, because these
                  structures are not on OEP's list of approved
                  structures. Operators are not allowed to create brush
                  piles tor rabbits to hide or birds to nest
                  2.} Loggers are not allowed to put trattops or other
                  wood pfeees into streams to create pools favorable to
                  trout and other animals. Regulators do not recognize
                  that the reduction of the movement of wood from the
                  forest to the sea is having an adverse effect on
                  aquatic life forms that are nacessary to the survival
                  of freshwater ftsh and ocean fish such as tuna fish.
    
                  BIRD FRIENDLY LAND USES
    
                  Some Land Uses Helpful to f» Re-estabtlshment of
                  Morning Dove, Botewhtte Quail, Prairie Chicken, Ruffed
                  Grouse, Turkey
                  by Lawrence T. Bsckerle
                  Copyright 2001, 2002
                  Adjunct Professor, Nicholas County Campus of Glenville
                  State College
       19-3-2
    Why should you care about these bin*? Because as
    nature's hydroseecters they are more effective in
    establishing most fruit tearing type herbs, forbs,
    woody shrubs and trees than any mechanical
    hydroseeder. These plantings ateo benefit songbird*.
    
    BQBWHITE QUAIL AND ASSOCIATED SONGBIRD HABITAT
    RESTORATION (A land use category for promoting native
    wildlife plants that nave been reduced by urban sprawl
    and invasive non-native plants.
    
    NATIVE MEADOW NURSERY FARMS tor plants of economic or
    restoration value (especially WV ecotypes)
        a.) Native grass propagation and/or seed
    harvesting fields
        b.) Native nitrogen fixing plant propagation
    and seed harvesting fields
        c.) Native fort), herb, or other wildflower
    plant propagation and seed harvesting fields
    
    NATURAL HABITAT BERRY FIELDS >»»»».   go back to
    native trees, shrubs and vines for rural America for
    notes
         a.)  Silver Buffatobefty, Blackberry,
    Blackhaw Viburnum or perhaps bayberry
         b.)  Huckleberry andfor blueberry, plus
    strawberry
         c.)   Aronia (Choteterry), elderberry,
    aralia spp., ned mulberry, or perhaps spteebush and/or
    American mountain ash
    
    NATURAL. HABITAT TREE/SHRUB nut/fruit ORCHARD
         Hazeinut nut pine, persimmon walnut  or
    butternut., with low ground cover to aid harvesting
    
         Plum, cratepple
    NATURAL HABITAT MEDICINAL SAVANNA
         RED ELM, plus Black Cherry Cucumbertree,
    Elderberry, Blackhaw VibumumSW31828: Use ground
    cover that aids beiieflcial insects
          For neutral to alkaline soils. RED ELM,
    Bur oak, (Hackberry, Persimmon, Yellowwood),
    butternut, yellow chestnut oak
          Native medicinal herbs or wild native
    foods
    NATURALIZING ORCHARDS FOR UNCOMMON TO RARE NATIVE
    PLANTS
    Especially those that can survive a hydroseeder and
    thus be ui«J in future land reclamation projects
    Uncommon to rare native West Virginia plants
    (varieties, ecotypes and species (use crayfish pools
    to grow wet meadow plants
    Nutrush (Selena triglomerata) and four sided
    spikerush (Eteeocharus quadrangulata) would need a
    crawdad (crayfish) type pool to produce seed
                                                                                                                                 19-3-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                        A-867
                                                                  Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                  ABSORPTION FIELDS for
                        Enhancing ground water recharge
                        To reduce need for sediment ponds and/or
                  increase their efficiency.
                        To create moist pockets on slopes with less
                  than 2% grade to favor plants tike Pennsylvania
                  snwtweed, which is a highly preferred winter food for
                  Bobwhite Quail Several hollies, dogwoods, nutsedge,
                  and even chufa, sunroot
                       To create the kind of wetlands being missed
                  by upland birds, especially
                        Vernal and Sphemtraf pools that favor
                  grasses and forts with grain type seed for a true
                  wetland meadow effect. For mote design information on
                  absorption. s«e original 8-113-86 permit.
    
                  Valley Fill STREAM ELEVATION PROJECTS
                  A.)     To mate possible above land uses n well as other
                  productive use? of disturbed land. As steepness of
                  land increases, erosion control must take precedence
                  over all other environmental and management concerns.
                  It is hopsd that these few examples will help
                  interested .parties to see the advantages to our
                  state's future in reducing the overall steepness of
                  mining land in West Virginia.
                  B.)     Elevated streams can help create oxygen rich water
                  to counteract the adverse effects of drainage from
                  septic tanks and sewsge treatment plants.  Even
                  without increased oxygen, mine water can act as a
                  counter balance to sewage type effluents, thus making
                  the fish that live in tho«e stroams safer to sat.
    
                  -Get bigger plants by reducing amounts of seed used in
                  sowing.  Bigger plants result in stronger, deeper
                  taproots, and more seed tor birds.
                  SOME SLOPE LIMITATIONS FOR HABITAT RESTORATION
                  PROJECTS
                  for Morning Dove, Bobwhite Quail, Ruffed Grouse,
                  Prairie Chicken, and Turkey
                  by Lawrence T, Beckerle
                  Copyright 2001
                  Adjunct Professor, Sumrnersvilte Campus of Glenvllte
                  Slate College
    
                  0-2% Slopes are great for vegetative water filters,
                  weds, sedges, sunroot, duck potato, and other
                  moitture loving plants. Can lead to mud flats, soils
                  that are easily probed for food. Nitrogen fixing
                  plants favor earthworms.  Both conditions favor
                  American Woodcock.
                  5% is a steep grade for a highway.  DOH posts
                  warnings, constructs escape ramps, reduces speed
                  limits, especially tor trucks
    19-3-5
    10% (+/-2%)  Limit for leaving open tare ground for
    dove feeding and toaflr^, and volunteering of early
    succession*! annuals.
       limit for most productive farmland
       cover crop and/or past crop residue left on
    surface to retard erosion until next crop planted,
    
    15% maximum safety limit tor trucks to dump topsoil,
    topsoil substitutes, and soil amendments.
       The "sawdust protect" and tire stocking ofBobwhite Quail would never have taken place if the
    mined land ted been steeper than 18 percent
       Limit for most productive types 0f cover that
    will altow batiy chicks to feed on the ground and to
    catch insects
        Limit tor the type of plant cover that will
    best encourage the growth of trees and shrubs
    
    25% maximum safety limit for harrowing, disking,
    planting, drilling along the contour to retard
    erosion
    mechanical planting of trees must be done aiong
    contour to retard erosion
       limit for band fertilizer placement along the
    contour
       limit for most grain harvesting combines and
    most other sesd harvesting equipment.
    
    36% (plus a fraction) equals 20 degrees, the legal
    definition of steep slope mining.
       limit for most tree shsarers and whole tree
    harvesters
       limit tor revegrtatlng land without use of some
    kind of artificial nonliving mulch:  hay,  draw, paper
    or wood fiber
    
    40% approximate safety limit tor "bush hogging" (up
    and down his) tor specially equipped tractors. So
    the only way to control nonnatlve invasive plants Is
    through control btrns andtor use of herbicides
    
    Slopes «t 40% and stave almost the exclusive domain of
    hydroseeding, which excludes plants whose s®ed cant
    survive a hydVoswd©r.  tony rrore plants can*t
    survive the Intenst grass eompetljon  necessary at
    these steep slopes.
    
    50% maximum safety Imft for dozer to grade most
    flll materials.
    70-80%  approximate original contour in much, even
    most of th& mining areas in Boon®, Logan, &nd otf^r
    counties in Southern West Virginia,
                                                 SUMMARY OF SOME MEEOED CHANGES IN PRIORITIES on slope
                                                 Issuas TO FAVOR NATIVE FLORA AND FAUNA
    19-3-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                A-868
                                                                          Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                  0-2%   just a few plants needed to act as starters
                  2-7%   handle like row crop agriculture
                  allow bare ground if disked along contour so ridges
                  formed by disk catch water, preventing runoff
    
                  Under 15% slope;  Percent cover should be limited to
                  less than 30% and perennial grasses & forage legumes
                  should not be planted, so as to encourage native
                  forbs,  herbs and other wildftowers.  in general only
                  annuats with at least one reseedlng annual should be
                  required for bond release.  Areas with non-natives too
                  aggressive to allow native forbs and/or herbs to
                  prosper should be herbicide or opened up with a disc
                  before a bond request Is granted.
    
                  15 to 25% slope:   Percent cover requirements should
                  be from 30 to 50%. A perennial forb shoyld be
                  included., but one that is short enough or low enough
                  on aggression to allow plants such as rye to reseed
                  from one year to the next.  Grain type foods provide
                  essential winter feeding areas tor Bobwhite Quail,
                  Ruffed Grouse, Prairie Chicken, and Turkey.
    
                  Over 25% slope;  Though it becomes necessary to
                  include a perennial grass for erosion control, such
                  grasses in total should not exceed 50% of tti« stand,
                  An exception might be made when the average slope of
                  the land exceeds 40%, but even then forbs should he at
                  least 25% of the stand. Because of the compaction
                  that occurs with "tracking in" this practice should
                  limited to slopes in excess of 36%.  Ground oovar
                  should be from SO to 75% for erosion control and still
                  allow the growth of Solomon seal and False Solomon
                  Seal
                  Over 40% slope   90% ground coves should be
                  reserved for slopes over 40%
    
                  WILDLIFE NEED A MOSAIC OF HABITAT TYPES TO PROSPER
    
                  The following excerpts from several of my papers help
                  to illustrate ways to create tie needed habitat
                  diversity  Current regulations for the mining
                  industry effectively prohibit most of these techniques
                  hindering effects to restore butterflies, songbirds,
                  game birds,  and native plants.
    
                       Native Wildlife Seed Mixes (a few non-native
                  nurse/cover crops) for Road Cuts, Fill*, and
                  Right-of-way Construction (for electricity, gas,
                  water)by Lawrence T. Beckerle
                                Copyrights 2000, 2001, 2002.
                  2003
                  Introduction;
                  The primary advantage of disturbed land in an
                  ecosystem is to allow pioneering plants to provide
                  more nutritious forage, seed and/or fruit for animals.
    19-3-5
    7-2-5
    VWtere plants provide nutritious food that supports an
    abundance of insect life, and also enable young birds
    (chicks & young poults) to feed on those- insects, it
    «referred to as brood habitat.  Brood habitat is
    essential for young birds to become adults  For
    example; Bobwhite quatl chicks live almost exclusively
    on insects (Beetles make up almost 50% of their diet,
    particularly ground beetles, leaf beetles and
    weevils ..}  Turkey chicks depend more on
    grasshoppers  Good brood habitat will have lots of
    beetles,  grasshoppers, crickets; plus a tad gram,
    bramble, or other vertical cover that interferes with
    the ability of avian predators to swoop down for  a
    kill  Some grasses inhibit birds from feoSng on
    insects by hindering their ability to walk, run. &
    hide,  Z' tall ehteks of Bobwhite quail (which weight
    less than ounce) need these break* to survive  The
    chicks of Ruffed Grouse are about twice the size of a
    bumblebee with long lags.  So as a rule of thumb  If
    a horse won't eat it and a bumblebee cant walk around
    or fly though it,  it's not suitable tot brood habitat
     And if the plant* you use are too aggressive  for
    asparagus, strawberries, rhubarb, sunflowers  and/or
    turnips to grow  in the first years after planting,
    it's not good brood habitat
    
    Nurs© crops prevent germination of those weeds that
    require full sunlight and retard the growth of those
    weeds that prefer full sunlight  They protect slow
    growing, often-delicate seedlings of perennials from
    drying winds and other environmental stresses  Black
    Locust B used as a nyrse crop for Black Walnut and
    other hardwoods  Young locust helps to protect other
    seedlings from deer  It produces light shade that
    thins out even more as insects eat the leaves. It
    plays host to bacteria that fix nitrogen in its roots.
     Its leaves readily decay, making nitrogen plus otter
    nutrients available to microorganisms and plants
    Sowing red clover in a wheat field in February is both
    an example of frost seeding and using fall sown wheat
    as a nurse crop. For a mid March sowing there may not
    be enough freeze-thaw action left to adequately bury
    seed, so farmers use livestock to walk in tie seed
    Sowing rye In a standing crop of soybeans near harvest
    time flust before 50% of the leaves fall) is an
    example of relay cropping. As leaves of the soybeans
    fall, the surface of the soil retains more moisture
    and the seed of rye begin to germinate  By th® time
    the soybeans are harvested, the rye is fairly well
    established, so there is less chance of erosion with
    relay cropping  As a relay race can Involve more than
    two runners, so relay cropping can  involve the
    successor) of more than two crops  When the  same
    crops used for nurse cropping and/or relay cropping
    are mainly used to increase organic material,
    particutarty if they are plowed down prior to the next
                                                                                                                    7-2-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                    A-869
                                                                     Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                  crop, they are- referred to as green manure crops  A
                  cover crop Is any crop used to hold the soit In place
                  between other uses  For example'  White clover sown
                  in an apple orchard is a cover crop. As is rye sown
                  on a topsoil stockpile Fall sown rye that is later
                  killed  by herbicide just prior to the no-till planting
                  of corn (in the following spring) is a cover crop.
    
                  It s far cheaper to sow grasses such as Indian grass
                  into an appropriate nurse crop species at the
                  appropriate time, for example' mid May into a pure
                  stand of Crimson clover that was established the
                  previous August or September Since several warm
                  season natives do not germinate until soil
                  temperatures reach 70 degrees,  it maybe more practical
                  to sow those seeds earlier into a Crimson clover
                  stand. Dwarf Essex rape makes a showy yellow in
                  April  Since it gets to much taller, a top sowing of
                  a warm season  species must be done in about February.
                  This would work for Switchgrass and others with
                  semi-dormant late spring germinating seeds (requiring
                  soil temperatures above 70 degrees). Cool season
                  natives can be established along with Crimson in
                  Aug-Sept, such as Mountain ricegrass (Oryzopsis
                  species)
                  Some seeds are intermediate in size and free flowing
                  and so mix in well with clover seed for broadcast
                  sowing and use in a typical no-till dnll Sometimes
                  called pasture renovation drills, they are  available
                  from the WV Soil Conservation districts for S25 per
                  day rental (plus a few dollars per acre).  At least 60
                  of ths grasses native to WV fit this category
                  Deertongue, Switchgrass, prairie dropseed (officially
                  native to Ohio and Pennsylvania, but not WV), mountain
                  rice	     	
                                    Some seeds are so
                  large that they are easier to plant using a small
                  grain type drill, such as Eastern gumagrass,  American
                  Beakgrain, Paspalum species, and peanut grass.
                  The hydroseeding fad has precluded the use of irony
                  native plants, especially seeds that split easily
                  after they have been wet for awhile, such as the wild
                  beans that are related to our garden beans
                   cannot tolerate the salt of fertilizer and otter
                   conditions of the hydroseeder Seeds that evolved to
                   pass through the digestive system of animals generally
                   do well being passed through a hydroseeder  Other
                   seeds have evolved to be wind blown, to float on
                   rainwater (or to be carried off by heavy rains), to
                   twist themselves Into the ground, to be carried off by
                   ants, andter to be stored by rodents  Some seeds that
                   rely on water for transport will survive a
                   hydroseeder Most of the rest will not
                   This is only one of the several reasons hydroaeeders
                   are less than adequate for establishing most plants.
    19-3-5
    Another problem with hydrosesders is that they kill
    much (often all of) the inocutert needed by nitrogen
    fixing plants  These plants help to cut out the
    application of nitrogen fertilizer, which encourages
    weeds and pollutes streams  Adding gypsum loosens
    soils and aids nitrogen-fixing plants. A sulfur,
    potassium, magnesium fertilizer (suifo-po-mag)
    (0-0-22-11-22) is also useful.
    Ornamental native grasses: "Yellow" and Scrlbner's
    Panic grass, prairie dropseed yellow striped Crinkled
    Hairgrass, Plurnegrass (Erianthus) and wedge grass
    (Sphenophofisj have also been used ornamentally. Holy
    grass has been collected to the point of eliminating
    wild populations of this species. Beard grass has
    some potential as an ornamental.
    Members of the Sedge family are often called grasses.
    Some of the more interesting species in this family
    include Pennsylvania sedge (sold and planted by plugs)
    for cut slopes areS other dry barren area* {maximum
    height is 4 to 6 inches). Cotton grass. Wool Grass,
    are used ornamentally on moist to wet soils  Nutrush
    (annual or perennial) will grow on dry or wet
    soils.2-3 rnm-bony sesd
    A number of native wildflowers are often used like
    grasses, such as' Blue-eyed grass (4-20*), Yellow
    stargrass (8-12"), spring beauty (4-12"), Miami Mist,
    Virginia Meadowbeauty (12-18*). On dryer sites you
    can find' Early spid@iwortt violets, violet wood
    sorrel (4-8*),  pussytoes, star chiokweed, slender
    dayflower, and geranium mseutaturn   On the driest of
    mowed areas you can find orange-grass, orange puoooon
    (2-20") and Birdsfoot wotet '(2-6").  Prairie zinnra
    6" is native to the Great Plains & is used in lawns
    Please remember that some grasses (Tall Fescue and
    Smooth Broma) are highly invasive and put alleiopathte
    compounds in rtie-soil, so these can interfere with the
    best laid plans Often have to establish a resistant
    annual until those ch©micals dissipate.
    Lawrence T  Beokerle
                                                               26205
                                                                             PC Box 118 Gr»tg»vi(le, WV
                                                               Many of the sites I reclaim are small (less than 2
                                                               acres) and in rather inaccessible locations, as a
                                                               result I often use my Bronco N both as a four whester
                                                               and farm tractor.  However on those occasions when I
                                                               can bring in a limestone spreading truck the following
                                                               procedure is used.
                                                               Limestone trucks are generally limited to spreading
                                                               lime whan the land is fairly dry, which in West
                                                               Virginia occurs through the summer months into fall
                                                               Limestone trucks are also used to spread fertilizer
                                                               when the rate of fertilizer used Is around  300 pounds
                                                               per acre or above  At limestone plants and fertilizer
                                                               plant* the operators are able to mix In seed when they
    19-3-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                      A-870
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                   toad the trucks. Rye wheat, oats, buckwheat,
                   petrlmillet, Dove proso millet, German mlfct,
                   browntop millet are among the seeds that are commonly
                   mixed in this way. The cost is minimal tor adding
                   seed at this time.  For example:  a fifteen-ten load
                   of dolomite lime at $40 per ton would cost $600. If
                   100 pound* of rye is mixed in, t»y would charge $22
                   for the rye.  If spreading at the common rate of 3
                   tons of lime per acre, rye is sown at the rate of 20
                   pounds per acre, which is enough in most cases as a
                   quick cover and as a nurse crop
    
                                    If the lime arid/or
                   fertilizer are to be disked In (as they should be for
                   maximum effectiveness), 8 higher rate of seed is used.
                   It's cheaper to increase the amount of these rather
                   inexpensive seed, then to have to follow up with
                   applying these seeds at a later time
                   The same technique can be used with the (three point
                   hitch) bulk fertilizer spreaders that farmers u*e on
                   their farm tractors, if one has the set up (or the
                   hand labor) to get an even mix of seed and lime- or
                   fertilizer. If the farmer has either a row crop
                   planter or a small o/ain drill, he will us© these on
                   newly plowed ground to plant seed and apply
                   fertilizer. If he is planting into a field that isn't
                   plowed, he will use a pasture renovation drill
                   (no-till drill) to plant ths  seed. (Or he  could top
                   sow the seed by grazing down trie field, sowing seed
                   and then lightly dtoking, Gr he could sow in February
                   for some small seeds, which freezing and thawing will
                   then work into the soil.) If he were trying to
                   establish a fluffy seeded species, he would generally
                   try to rent a "warm season gras&tand  drill"
                   Gtiod used row crop planters are! small grain drills can
                   often be purchased at term auctions for less than
                   $1,000.  Sometimes they only Bring $100 at sale.
                   Pasture renovation drills can be rented from district
                   headquarters of the he West Virginia Conservation
                   Agency for $25 per day and a few dollars per acre. A
                   few have grassland drills for r*rt. $5.000 to $20,000
                   is tie typical purchase price range for "warm season
                   grassland drills".
                   To someone not familiar with cost effective grassland
                   farming the above may  seen rather confusing, so here's
                   an example that might help:
                     A contractor is due to finish a job by August 1 st,
                   so the lime truck arrives on that day to spread
                   agricultural limestone,  A week later the inspector
                   mates the contractor regrade some of the area because
                   the finish grade isn't up to specifications.
                   Meanwhile someone forgot to schedule the no-till
                   drill, and so area farmers have it tied up for the
                   next two weeks.   Plus the DEP inspector just stowed
                   up to complain about the regarded ares that hasn't
                   been sowed with seed.  So Johnny on the spot brings
    19-3-5
    out his special broadcast seeder, H© sows seed larger
    than 2mm (taking about one hour to sow tovo acres).
    Then uses a flexi-tine (drag) harrow to cover the
    seed  (Four wheelers, small tractors, cars trucks.
    dozers, and so on can pull these harrows.)  After
    tins he sows seed that is smaller than 1,5mm on top of
    the freshly loosen soil,
       A week later someone realizes that the contract
    also called for 500 pounds of gypsum per acre and 100
    pounds of 6-24-24 per acre  So a farm tractor or
    four-wheeler is brought to the site to spread these.
    But the soil is very dry and no one has told him if
    anything was sown besides the rye  So to be on the
    safe side he mixes in Crimson clovsr (that has freshly
    attached rhizoblum tnocukant) and acme turnip se«d or
    rapeseed.  He hooks the drag harrow to the hiteh on
    the fertilizer spreader.  As he spreads the gypsum and
    other fertilizer, the seed is also sown and covered In
    the same trip.  A pick up truck with an electric
    fertilizer spreader can also spread seed and
    fertilizer and cover in one pass by pulling a drag
    harrow,
       Everything is fine until someone notices that one
    of the wildflowers used isn't supposed to be sown in
    August or September  It happens to be one of those
    species that does best when sown in iate winter or
    early spring. Since its seed is no bigger than the
    seed of red clover (and since Crimson clover and the
    other species eown in August permit the introduction
    of other plants), a decision is made to sow this
    native wildflower in mid to labs February and let
    Mother Nature work #1® seed into the soil (by way of
    freeze thaw action) as it has done for thousands of
    years  But  it's hard for many folks to understand
    •frost seeding1 or why it s far better to sow some
    wildflower seeds on snow (preferably melting snow) in
    February  than to wait until spring.
    Partridge pea is an example of a seed that is too big
    to work into  the soil by Freeze thaw alone  So it
    should be planted, preferably in March for maximum
    growth and flowering. (Note: this annual makes
    acceptable growth if planted as late as June 30th).
    To save money end time on seeds that prefer to
    germinate during the February-March thaws, farmers
    will sow them in Mancri andthen use cattle to walk the
    seeds into the soil. This process can be simulated by
    a number of other techniquss
    Crimson clover is at the size (about 2mm long) where
    it can benefit from covering by a drag harrow.
    instead of using a ffexi-tine drag harrow, some people
    prefer to use a spike tooth harrow (that attaches to
    the three point hiteh an a farm tractor). They are
    convenient and cost only about $300.  However on
    soils where they would cover Crimson clover too
    deeply, seed the size of Crimson clover should be sown
    on top after  harrowing is finished.
    19-3-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                    A-871
                                                                    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                  The above examples for establishing wildflowers also
                  help to illustrate the convenience of other seed
                  establishment times Many warm season perennials that
                  are adapted to very droughty soils prefer the
                  February-March sowing and planting period  The late
                  summer and early fall planting period is preferred by
                  winter annuals many biennials, &t& plants whose seeds
                  are very susceptible to drying out and/or have a
                  rather exact cold dormancy  For seeds that are best
                  sown as soon as they are collected and for species
                  that need to germinate around the end of summer in
                  order to make enough growth before winter sets in, the
                  time period of August 1 st to October 15th must be
                  considered.
    
                                              The
                  name generally used for this time period Is 'the fall
                  planting season', even though part of this time period
                  is officially late summer and part is early fall
                  Crimson clover is normally sown during this time. It
                  is easy to establish, relatively cheap,
                  non-aggressive, can be used as a nurse crop, and so
                  success and failures with it can help growers
                  understand what they need to do to establish plants
                  with somewhat similar sowing requirements  I
                  generally sow Crimson clover at the rate of ten to
                  fifteen pounds per acre with four ounces of turnip
                  seed (or rapeseed) for a bright yellow contrast to the
                  crimson color  But as can be saen in the below list,
                  there are native dowers that can create this color
                  combination
                  West Virginia ecotypes should be used when ever
                  possible, so information on collection is provided.
                  Seed from initial wildflower plantings can then be
                  harvested, increasing the efficiency of future
                  wildflower plantings  While generally emphasizing the
                  showiest of wildfiowers, It is also possible to use
                  plantings to propagate natives especially useful for
                  stabilization of road cuts,  banks, and fills. For
                  example   The ground hugging Trailing bushelover ((,
                  prooumbens) and Creeping bushctover (l_ repensj could
                  be a part of plantings on dry soil Their seeds are
                  about 2mm long. Capsules ar& about 3 mm long In
                  October the area could be harvested with a wild seed
                  harvester or the area could be mowed and the seed
                  screened out from the cuftings Screening for seed
                  from lawnrnower type cuttings works best for the
                  heavier seeds that are generally free flowing
    
                  Note- Some comments may seem to be redundant, for
                  example   Slope limitations are described in a number
                  of ways to help explain the concept and to help
                  explain how it migtit be applied. The comments dated
                  January 5, 2004 put the essential slope
                  classifications in what is probably the simplest form
                  for most people
    19-3-5
    For BoOwWte quail:  saads need to fall on bare ground
    for these and several other ground feeding birds to be
    able to find enough food-  Blackberry thickets
    (where old canes cover the ground instead of grass)
    are needed to provide these birds with adequate
    protection from nighttime predators.
    
    Note of request for help with WV DEP on this issue
    If OEP were to 'strongly recommend" native ground
    covers, a number of benefits could result. For
    example: The native Paspalurn grasses can grow in any
    disturbed soil that the non-native ryegassss can grow
    in. These grasses grow in many lawns across the state
    of West Virginia, Several of the native Paspalums
    make good lawn grasses, produce palatabte forage and
    produce nutrttiout seeds (that are nearly a*
    nutritious as oats)
        If WV native Paspalurn grasses were 'strongly
    recommended" by pfep, then homeowners would have an
    incentive to screen their fall lawn cuttings for
    Ptspaiurn seed and sell it to the coal companies
    While supplies of native PaepaJum seed would initially
    be limited (OEP would have to make allowances for
    that), the long-term result would be to help create a
    new industry in West Virginia.
       Northern dropseed, sand dropseed, and tall
    dropseed art also valuable for wildlife, are very
    compatible with the growing of trees, and are quite
    drought tofemnt DEP should encourage use of these
    grasses as well.
       Among the nitrogen fixing ground covers, DEP
    should also encourage the us© of Butterfly pea,
    Spurred butterfly pea, bundleftewer, milk pea
    partridge pea, praif le acacia  (the only thorn less
    acacia native to tie United Sates), sensitive-briar,
    small wild bean, trailing wild bean, and other useful
    native nitrogen fixing plants
       Among the quick cover plants dove weed (Croton
    species) and similar natives should be ''strongly
    recommended"
    
        Snce DEP rules and recommendations often sets
    standards In the market place as to what is produced
    and sold, it«imperative that OEP be more
    responsible in what it demands in the way of
    revegetatten plans.
        For example: By creating a market demand for
    European bteck afcter, DEP helps to insure that
    European black alder will be planted on other  lands in
    West Virginia The West Virginia state tree nursery
    produces only what it knows it can sell Since mining
    companies eanrrt readily use the vast majority of
    native trees and shrubs, the  state tree nursery cannot
    justify producing seedlings of most native trees and
    shrubs. Thus to a large extent DEP determines what
                                                                                                                      7-2-5
                                                                                                                          19-3-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                  A-872
                                                                    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                     tr*e« and shrubs are planted across the state of West
                     Virginia.
    19-3-5
    ^Comments ®& HIS
     B^ t&weaee T. Bcaterlo
     PG BoxltS,
                                                                                                                                                CosM better discern what the effects of vaKey fill were if oua knew tha pereeaf slope of the land abeve it and coald statistically
                                                                                                                                                separate cat the elifect of steep slopes from the size of valley f!l!s. "Hie probl-sms being aitribitted to valley fills stay be due to the
                                                                                                                                                step slopes above those valley fllte. Antl H is wy possible that forger vaHey fill that make possible ft reduction of steepness of
                                                                                                                                                slope on the tel above the valley fill will have tess runoff than a small vsl ley fill with steeper ted above it However without
                                                                                                                                                informatics m f he slope of the land, ft will be hard for scisntisi to maks these determinations.  (The irony is feat Illinois, which
                                                                                                                                                ie much flatter than West Virginia beeps records <#j steepness of slopes, and West Virginia JgBoiw the isto6.)
    
                                                                                                                                                Slope Information needs to bo cataloged here in the mountains just as well
                                                                                                                                                         s could be improved by a consideration for gtoeptttm. For exam$>!e; to control erosioa, on« needs to toe more
                                                                                                                                                vegetation (or other eroskm control jue&sures) on a 40H slope thaa a 4% slope (grade). But for ravcgeiatloa purposes DEP
                                                                                                                                                treats all land the same, even ihst ^idi is tisi tim&# && steep as the land ptfdbrtfid by ftefiefs a»id most homeowners.  If Dfii*
                                                                                                                                                had logical v^etatjon requirements for different grades of land tHSs im«iW help quail, which prefer a patchwork pattern of
                                                                                                                                                vej$staliioit  (Since plant species vary in their sensitivity t& oorapeHUonj a gmater diversity of plaflt life will be permitted by this
                                                                                                                                                ehauge.)
                                                                                                                                                  For example:           ....„„.   ......    „ ..... „                  .          .„„__,,
                                                                                                                                                Hie typioai gmds of a wet meatiow (and some forest wettmds) k 1%,  Anytti jpg 0V6f 2% gsttemlly incomes 3 ittound or
                                                                                                                                                re I alive ly dry ishiiid, Tliere ccntil bo e culegory for hind w;th 30 o vcmH grude undi;r 2%, so the pblic cou Id knew whether
                                                                                                                                                eoouglj wet we^lier pools, wet meadows and wet fofesls ar« being created to stffilaifi wlidlife timt depend on (IsosB habits.
                                                                                                                                                The typical gmde for a hlgliway is 4% or less, (Hole that DOH ptiis up signs wiring of a steep grade aficad for highways that
                                                                                                                                                have a 5% or greater grade,) Tfesre could be a category f^r land na atesger than the typicai Mgliway,
                                                                                                                                                Tlic safely limit fbr d«m|>i«g a load ftom it fpic& is I S%.  There could be a category tttf regs-ded twifisd land that is safe enough
                                                                                                                                                to operate a du&ip track.  16 J$i used to be the staadnrd for tlie pitch of a roof on laobtle hojn«s fsfso described as 2" fsH per
                                                                                                                                                The safely limit for opcOTfiug a ferm tractor along the cofifoHr Is 25%.  Tfeero coyfd be a category for Sand safe enough to opei-ate
                                                                                                                                                a fson it actor (aksng the eontotir andflrasaid^i6^8ofaol!ooii5ervstlo&priieikies). (25% is the staiidatrf pitch for a roof OR a
                                                                                                                                                house, {wfafoh a (xmtractor would mfe* to as 3/12 or 3** fall per 12").
                                                                                                                                                Finally there could be $ category for Mud too steep to operate to operate a ferat tractor atoag die oonKmr and is stepra- than the
                                                                                                                                                roof on ttis average American's ho«se
    
                                                                                                                                                However rather ihsft tnateh cover type with the steepness as one would do fee a play ground or roof on & house, DBF hwsts m
                                                                                                                                                tlio same fciiid of vegetative cewr fer all sbpm. By enforcing a uniformly (mfoiaginsittve cover types, DEP Ibrti^r impoverish^
                                                                                                                                                the bmdseaps of West Virgltiis, limits game biptfe, and m^liteos the variety of songbird and htitWflies,
    
                                                                                                                                                Another wriabic is that vaHey fi% of df|!N»itt d&slfRS wiH have different maoff rates.
                                                                                                                                                The simplest example being the 3 valley fill of the same sis® &nd $K$pe with 80% durable rock wfll have a faster dischm^e of
                                                                                                                                                wafer &m s vafjoy fit! f the same s&e aitd ^e wtlh 60% durable rack.
                                                                                                                                                If the psspcem of rock is the same -for two valley fills, bat mo bas aft the diiraMe rook at tiptoe of the fiHiiisteirf of thmu^i out,
                                                                                                                                                it should be both imife stable and have slower disctoge.
                                                                                                                                                If rock atid sia» sns the same, b«t one has reversed slope terraces anil the other doesn't, the first wilt have slower runoff tban the
                                                                                                                                                A common public need across the West VirgitHa is e iiesd for flood control,
                                                                                                                                                Yet rhe public .use provision 1:^ never been used to address extra '.l^ps for reducing Hoods
                                                                                                                                                Taking steps to reduce flooding wsakf have a beneficial ecofitmie impact, yet the variance for ecmoniic use has never been
                                                                                                                                                approved for steps to redoes ftoodiag
                                                                                                                                                For cxwtpto; as Uw pwre eeosomi^ ^ayflsh ftoiisg smi tbe (^onomie awrf for » emy 8$h ton ta $oy^em We« Virginia
                                                                                                                                                would be hard to jtistiQ' to the satisfaction of teptatory agencies ss teg as they oa!y cratsid^ the pfee of crayfish In to Ossir
                                                                                                                                                saleulatfofis. Howevw if they would a^o consider the bettefits ftat saoh a fem wo«W eoaftibute to fee reduction of ibtws duo
                                                                                                                                                to fifxxiifjg then their oafculatfoas would be more accumie and felr to all
                                                                                                                                                                          17-1-2
    MTM/VF  Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                             A-873
                                                                                               Section A  - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Barbara Beer
     ' In ifei feterim regulations QSM Imd a ml* agaiast a«y d&pressio&j btgfpr fte & squint mete*. Following that thai time period,
      fho Drainage Handbook became the standard in West Virginia, To this d&y tins Drainage handbook stilf has a rule against
      depressions deeper than two tens of a foot. As a cotsseefuenee of th® earlier GSM mle and thfi eumait mle tbere are veiy f&w
      weHands on miaed tends and tltoss (hat do occur am of very poor quality, ^mt of the reasmi that tiisa-e am so Ibw w«Uands Is
      th&t: I ,) the overall empiw&is of th& Dminags Handbook is to ebajiiw^ wa^r ofiTthc mined sits a»«J 2.) tee has &e&5 a
      rs^ulatory ageaey tendeaoy to eonsidfflr every w&fer ratattrfBg stn^are to be an ImpouadmBnt so feat even ggdliawt ^itehss am
      reqiiiited to be rmioved after mining.  So th6 tttought oil the ^rattoaal siije llw keen why bmfel K»n<^liiiig eossnu know of my erayfistj Stmis on mined tod la W^ Vlrgiak.
    Ali of these would result in iii«e "otganfe «
                                        H for apalic organtos lit the steams feelow ttie uifeing area,
                                                                                             6-6-5
                                                                                         14-3-5
      Page 2 of eommentt on BIS by Lawnmee T. Beota-fe
    Skifab a@aol.com
                                  To:    113 Mounlaintop@F.PA
                  08/17/0311:15 AM     cc:
                                  Subject  Mfc of the mountain
      Dearest those who care fot HS, please take tine to tliiak of the long term
    vision of the effects of tnounuinlop removal: wildlife habital clwiitucrioti \\ith
    tcstiltiii^ extinction of flora att
    -------
                                                                                                                                                                     Trick Behle
                                                           C-X
                     «/
                                                                    n,*-
                                                                                 1-9
                                                                                                  — Fom*rdfed by David Ritfer/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:32 PM -----
    
                                                                                                             "tacbce@yahoo.co
                                                                                                             m" 
    -------
    Bob Bell
                                                                                                                                      Gordon Bell
                                               1*. JohttForren
                                                  U.S. EPA
                                                 1650 An* St
                                             Philadelphia, PA 19103
                                         Email- inoiiiitsiiit5pif3@si3a.goy
    REC'D  3EC.22;
                     I oppose the practice of raotsitaiatop removal rnrflitjg. This mining is destroying our
                    coBHBonitjes, homes and lives. We are constantly flooded, in homes that we Saw spent
                      oar lives in. We are being pushed oat of our homes by flie destruction caused by
                     mountaintop removal mining. Chir roads are being shut down ever time it wins this
                     makes oar rescue personal useless to us. Oar tax dollars are what fixes all the mess
                     caused by the mining going on around us. No wonder mining is so profitable we as
                    citizens pick up the fell on the devastation caused by the mine companies. Please stop
                    this insanity is killing out entire communities. Not to mention the effects it's having on
                    our environment Th« habitats of our atttraals are destroyed, running th« wfldlife sway.
                   Our streams are filled with rode that the mine companies pile into these valley fills.  The
                      waters get ap aad have no where to go bat into peoples homes. Our mountains ax
                   exploding with water. Hess outbreaks come out into people's yard and underneath their
                   homes. Our homes are literally being blasted off their foundations or the earth is opening
                    up and swallowing them. Please stop the practice of moantaiBtop removal coal mining
                         and save our homeland, our children's future and very possibly our lives
                                     Name
                                     Bmaii
                             1-9
                                                                                                                                                1-10
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                        A-876
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Vaughn Bell
                                                                                 Joe Bergeron
    December 17,2003                                        *3|?
    
    Mr. John Fouen BPA
    U.S.EPA(3EA30)
    1650 Arch St
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
    Dear Mr. John Forsten EPA,
    
    I am writing in regards to the Bush admaiisteaon'! plans to centime to let coal
    companies destroy Appalacbla with mining practices that level moanfaintopg, wipe out
    forests and bury streams in the valleys below. This type of miamg is immensely
    abstractive to the natural environment and «lso exacerbates health and environmental
    problems for an already straggling population. Moontaintop removal mining and valley
    fills should not be allowed and the laws and regulations that protect clean water must not
    be weakened. In particular, I oppose (he proposal to change fhe stream buffer zone rule
    that prohibits mining activity within 100 feet of sn-eams. This rule should be strictly
    enforced for valley fills and in all other cases.
    
    I'm disappointed and angry that the federal government ignored its own studies when it
    proposed weakening, rather than strengthening, protections far people and the
    environment. I do not support any of to tee alternatives eostained within the
    Environmental Impact Statement Report All three options will make it easier for
    companies to destroy streams, endangering wildlife and nearby communities.
                Sincerely,
                                                                                1-9
    
                                                                                1-10
    
    
                                                                                1-5
                Vaugte Bell
                lOVintonStApt 1
                Boston, MA 02127-3S27
               DeliveredDate: 01/07/2004 08:10:51 PM
    
               I feel I should pinch myself to make sure that the practice of
               "mountaintop mining" isn't the product of some nightmare I'm having.
    
               Let me see if I've got this straight. Mining companies hire a few
               people to pilot gigantic machines over rural West Virginia,
               obliterating the tops of mountains and destroying the intervening
               valleys with waste, clogging streams and creating conditions for future
               flooding and erosion. In return for the paychecks offered to the few
               humans involved in this process, the people of West Virginia "benefit"
               by having the very landscape they inhabit trashed and denuded for
               centuries at least,
    
              Iregard this kind of policy as being nothing better than utterly
              foolish, sh<5rt-sighteddesffticti'oninflicted byalew |*reedy men with-.
              no;reg»d for generations ta-eoiMe,. I abhor it absolutely,
    
               Joe Bergeron
              2732 King St,
              Indwell, Kt "13760:
                      1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEtS Public Comment Compendium
    A-877
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    David Berkland
                                                                            Michael Bialas
                                                       1-10
                    Mr. David J. Berkland
                      302 Mansfield St
                    Sharon MA 02067-3129
                        y ,1; eiiA/ia.*iJm?irr*t-
                                                                                                                                                  r^
                                                                                                                                                  ( Jffl
                                                                                   I
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                                                                       1-9
    
                                          $*^*£~~P  &&$*" Mtflt$lJE), i~. l^£$~&M&i _.Z/ f**^£iL '
    
                                          €J$/f$,& Vff4-jft£?% ^^M^J^^:^^''^ ^f* 3jf^" $ ^^   !
                                          ....    ,™j   ™"""""~"     *~    ~~~   ™'~  "~~~~   *    ' i
                                                                                   i
                                           „ „ , . ..  .^	->•„—-„. ...	:. -     :       ... ,„  ,.» j
    
    
    
    
    
                                  'ftAftf n/fDVf rr/t •^i  WLftyf.-?.
    
    
    
                                                       'a?S:^ai£.e:QFi
    
    
    
                                                  y_  (/££<££. _fff £<£&$
    
                        ?,F .£Jt.tt&£(&^.,'rt3j&.£&>J&{~(ttJt!i£(J--E&irt-J:-
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-878
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                      Bonnie Biddison
                                                                                 1-10
    
                                         ^
                                                                                                              - Forwarded by David tidei/RMJSEPAAJS on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM -
                                                                                                                       m            To:    83 Mountaintop^EPA
                                                                                                                                   cc:
                                                                                                                       01/04^00403:24     Subjwt: mounUintop mining
                                                                                                                       PM
                     To Whom It May Concern, Plssse 4o 0ot allow raount^iirtop mining to occur
                     unless strict limits are placed upon it$ contiisied usss. The prospect of
                     350 nws
                     squwte miles of Appalaehia laid waste by this pillage of (be environment
                     is
                     raaeeeptsfcle! Let's be "stewards of the Earth'', not desttoyers of it -
                     it's the
                     only Eaitfc we have. Thank you!
    
                     Boinie BWdisoB, 653 (Me Run Ttail,
                     #209,
                     Oak Park, CA 91377
                                                                                                                                                                             1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-879
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Charles Biggs
                                                                                                                                  Cathie Bird
         (304) KS-S47T
                                           CHARLES K. BIOGS
                                              P.O. Box 127
                                         Btrlitlty Spring*. WV15411
    A'JQ
         2  1
                                                                August 19, 2003
                                                         .„.. Forwarded by John Ferren/R3AJSEPAflJS on 01/0*04 02:36 PM -
    
                                                                     Cat* Bird
                                    To:    John Fofren/R3AJSEPA/US@EPA
               h.net»         oc:
                            Subject: mtr and vf els comments
               CHffl*0401:56PM
         Mr. John Forren, US EPA (3ES30)
         1650 A«h Street
         PMladrfpHi, PA 19103
         Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Mountain top Removal
    
         Dear Mr. Forren;
    
                I find it difScult to believe that despite having accumulated 5,000 pages of study
         documenting the damages which the existing practices of mountain top removal strip mining have
         caused to water quality, air quality, and quality of fife to neighbors the Draft EIS makes no
         recommendations regarding proposing alternates or even forbidding the practice completely.
    
                Also as a civil engineer who has spent more than forty years in the practice of designing
         am) constructing foundations for buildings and highways I can not believe that the loose
         uneonsolkkted fills produced by the manner in which tile valtey fiBs are placed will result in a
         9uitaHe medium for tlie foundations of roads, buildings or even park land structures. This type of
         a ffil in my experience, would never be suitable for supporting any structures.
                      1-5
                      13-2-2
         Veryt
                 i yours.
         ce;  WVHightends Conservancy
    Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the findings and
    recommendation? of the mountain top removal and vafley fills EIS. After
    reading through this very large and challenging document, I do not feel
    that I can endorse any of the options presented.
    
    I live in the Elk Valtey area of Campbell County, Tennessee, just south
    of the Kentucky border During the past year my neighbors and I have
    been concerned about the 2100-acre Zeb Mountain project which features
    cross-ridge mining—a form of mountain top removal. Many citizens and
    groups in Tennessee are concerned with mountain top mining and valley
    fills, and I am disappointed that Tennessee's issues and history with
    MTR had such minimal attention in the EIS and that opportunities for
    public meetings were virtually non-existent
    
    I am further concerned that the nature and consequences of cross- ridge
    mining were not adequately addressed In Tsnnsss©® there have been few
    if any permits for Mountartop Removal  Instead OSM's Knoxville Field
    Office has been Issuing permits for other types of Mauntemtop Mining
    Over the past 10 years OSM's Knoxville Field Office has issued five
    permits for "Cross Ridge Mining."  I view Cross Ridge Mining as a type
    of Mountaintop Removal and am opposed to this practice. The use of a
    different nsme for what amounts to basically the same practice is a
    cynical attempt by the industry and regulatory agencies to avoid the
    scrutiny that hae been focused on Mountaintop Removal
    
    My main concern is that valley fills and tie 100' stream buffer zone are
    not adequately addressed by any of the alternative actions  The EIS
    appears to substantiate scientific studies, as wed as common sense and
    local experience, that mountain top mining and valtey fills impact
    headwater streams as well as downstream conditions. In Section III-D the
    EIS summarizes eight potential Impacts such as toss of upstream energy
    from buried stream reaches and changes in chemistry, flow and
    sedimentation downstream. That's why I'm really confused  about why we're
    still talking about messing with the 100 stream buffer zone rule or
    allowing any valley fills at all
    
    As I read the alternatives proposed in this EIS, our only choice
    regarding valtey fills is how much damage to the watershed we're going
    to say is okay. If declaring the 10ff stream buffer zone inapplicable to
    valley fills is what you mean by rewriting and clarification, then we're
    headed in the wrong direction  We need to teep that buffer tor all
    streams and every project, period  If "science-based methods" can't tell
    us what the size limit of a valley fill should be. then let's not do any
                                                                                                                           1-5
                                                                                                                           3-4
                                                                                                                                                                                                         1-10
     MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                 A-880
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Section A  -  Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                      Stephanie Blessing
                   mow until we figure it out.
    
                   Some of us feel that the Zeb Mountain permits were issued before all of
                   our concerns were adequately addressed Now, several months after mining
                   began on Zeb Mountain, we are seeing substantial sedimentation in one of
                   the waterways that drains that area. The sad truth is that current
                   surface mining and water pollution laws and attempts to enforce them do
                   not prevent damage to the environment. I'm very concerned that
                   alternatives offered in this EIS not only weaken these laws further but
                   also fail to improve enforcement As I  see it, the only thing that's
                   being streamlined here Is the destruction of tie waters and mountains of
                   Tennessee and the other Appalachian states
    
                   Cathie Bird
                   PO Box 154
                   Pioneer, TN 37847
    1-5
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                       A-881
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                            RuthBleuni
    
    
                                                            1-10
                                                                                'RBO'D SIP 0 4,
                                                                                                -Me
                                                                                              '
                                                                                                                 t-#A_
                                                                                                                          17-22
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-882
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                      10-2-2
                                                                                                         x/ 
    -------
                                                                                                                                       PLEASE POST
                                   93 AM ^UEea '»"¥i<pai)H US
                                         '
                                     S8 AM 'i»*H *W»W ' S Bit «SQ Qsi
                                      Eaa-eea^we'«^i3W( we -BBS
                                       (QUO) pucofl [wog «o«!^
                                           -''
        Act of Cod" No! Act of Coal!
        predict thai m two
       dficades half the peaks
        of southern WV's
       US New i H'oHrf Report
    
         "God put the
       tKHmtains and the trees
       hem, to protect thss«
        who iiva In these
       ^allays. Now, they've
       taken tie tops eft ttie
       mouriteis. They've
       taken tfietre«$ away.
       They'?s taken fro?!}
        God's ereation.
       Tficre's nothing to
       protect us anymore,"
       hfly eaffla fti H«B Mid s^eour^d,
       killed s tiundred ihouss^xl talnsrs,
       oar strssms, grotaid m? roads Into du«t wWt
    eir coal (mcks.s^dtficrntfieyna'.'clfe nerve to tail us
    that thfe^ sheuK fee aljls t& destroy aur m
       because tfiey have cnxfei jofsa,...
     - Dense Gterefiffa, App&iachwft Author S AcS
    
        "Tfe rtchfJt are all taken &ut hut
     people siiilfettf indmbttd so the c»al imAts
           thts Is insart /rv ' "
     and p»f«»ftfei streams tftay dessimy those stfs^n
            e are flsfi, ihsy caurtot mlgreto,
       Eteep in o rubble piie. it is crIirrina'.KJ..
    No effsst en related efivh&ftftt&ntaf values ia marc
         advWiethsrt obliteration, r
       yiOO-actrSai^rt \trn
       in Kentucfa has fata
       aged or efetiPoyfd the
       wetter sitppiies for ait
       estimated "/QQfami-
          hcn "
       ~ Kwefkfafc For Tk*
    'Ti.iss hi! SoulJj&T! W*S' V«g«mfr #•«! ia jMKJpie
    djod I Ins fwuse, :n Buignj Hollow #i Rstegb
    CoiiiHy. w -we of ihe l,*flt)hMi»s3ES»oj'«l in
    
    
    Fedefat said&ts sup]X)fl the Rfoii vScums
    
    awayf and ihe mioiRg i*asw *^ tfes^wJ into
    
    sliHoatt Note the size of Stc KjutproiBt Wng
    uW T^o I00-(oatr«cks*('IBM wflierof
    (ihotft According to the NaUuMi Mtfijng As-
    aociauffli ihew hove been 6WO vailev Bfls ca
    Kestfuci.1 ?nd Hesi Vijgltfia m ihe past 75
               WMptrsw fastest os wsr^t
               gave ftay to pawling
               brown ulcers !{f jails fult of h^If frowai
               "Statrji a thickest of
               wstaf, c*«ti dssst, metctiry,
                                                                                          Mountaintop Removal
                                                                                       Destroys Our Homeplaee!
     STOP THE DEVASTATION
    For assistance see list of organizations on ether side of this poster.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                               A-884
                                                   Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Margaret Block
                                                                                          KathrynBlume
         — Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:32 PM	
    
                      "carzy_qiieen@hotoi
                      ail.cotn"          To;    R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                      
    -------
    Julia Bonds
                                                                   AUS 1 4 2
    My 24,2003
    
    Written statements to EIS study: STOP THE ASSUALT ON THE
    PEOPLE AND THE UCvTMONMlNT IN APPALACHIA, STOP
    MOUNTAINTOP K1MOVAL!!!!!!!
    
    Thk draft EIS study takes science and twists it into lies—this study lacks
    common sense and humanity. This study is tin-American, unchristian, plain
    evil and is environmentally insane. This study was commissioned to evaluate
    ways to protect the people, streams, endangered species and the environment
    of Appalachia, but this study contains evidence of the exact opposite. The
    recommendations in this study are designed to DESTROY that which it
    was bound to protect This study lacks humanity and common sense.
    For 9 generation my family has lived in the Coal River Valley, Southern
    West Virginia, and Central Appalachia in the heart of the coalfields. I am the
    daughter, sister, granddaughter and great granddaughter of coal miners.
    During my lifetime I have NEVER seen or experienced a more devastatingly
    evil, catastrophic form of mining than MoiHtfaintop Removal. This type of
    mining is also paramount of environmental and social injustice as is this EIS
    statement that supports this mining. The authors and supporters of this
    statement have belittled the impacts on communities, culture and humans of
    our very ethnic, oppressed and poor part of Appalaehia. Not ONE official of
    this study has been to the coalfield study area to investigate the effects
    on low income and minority people, NOT ONE official has investigated
    the impacts to the people and properly in this study area. Instead the
    time and money for this study was spent trying to accommodate the coal
    industry, corporations and wealthy executives of these companies. This
    part of the study and the recommendations MUST be done again!!!!!!
    
    As the Community Outreach Coordinator for a nonprofit graisroots
    organization I submit the following impacts—personal, observed and
    compiled from residents Mving in tihe effected areas. Yoar study M0 MOT
    study the impacts to the residents and the people of the study  area. Your
    study instead spent ALL the money paid by taxpayers to find wap to
    allow this evil mining method to continue.
    
     1. Destruction of streams and waterways; Well over 700 miles of
       streams nave been destroyed—I beleve this estimate to be LOW.
       Mountalntop Removal/Valley fill mining destroys, eliminates and
       contaminates the MOST important requirement of sustaining LIFE-
                                                                              1-9
                                                                           10-2-2
                                                                           10-2-2
                                                                          5-7-2
       CLEAN WATER!!!!! Furthermore our culture relies on and low
       income residents use Appalachian streams for food, recreation, baptisms,
       spiritual and cultural events and drinking water. Only an idiot would
       destroy water—the essence of life. This study team has NOT done as
       requested—drill into a number of valley fills and monitor to see what the
       water is doing.
    2. Destruction of Forests; YOU CAN'T PUT IT BACK!!!!! These
       forests sustain the low-income people and indigenous people in
       central Appalachia. Nuts, berries, feed the people and animals, which
       the people hunt for food. Ginseng is a commodity for our health and
       brings income to the low-income people. The loss of forest and natural
       habitat is bringing the wildlife in the human communities-—poisonous
       snakes, bears, squirrels, raccoons etc.. .sometimes with rabies. This is
       happening at an alarming rate. The wildlife is invading human areas.
       This study does NOT include the loss of the medicinal herbs and
       roots found in the study area. We are poor, lack medical care and
       we use the medicinal herbs found in the study area. A new study on
       these herbs and trees is being conducted at West Virginia University for
       probable/possible cures for deadly diseases. This under story Is also
       part of our heritage and culture. Ramp festivals held every year and
       ramps have great medicinal value...residents swear by "the potent plant
       for many ailments including male vMBty and overall health. Others are
       bloodroot; yellow root, goldenseal, blackberry root...how long before
       these will grow and regenerate on sites? Where is your report OB this?
       All this sustains our health, lives, food, income, culture, heritage and our
       children's future. This fells under the executive order for environmental
      justice. The loss of the FULL NATIVE forests also is a loss for future
       incomes in our area.. .there is no viable study on the cumulative loss of
       forests—West Virginia employs almost 30,000 people in hardwood
       timber., .with the loss of our forests...mere goes loss of taxes and jobs
       lost for die next 300 yean and sends the timber industry to the scenic
       area of our states, and mere again loss of fiiture income. What tourist
      wants to see clear cuts? The local residents has also noticed weather
      pattern changes with loss of forests.. .the forested mountains used to
      protect us from high winds.. .the loss of the mountains height and forests
      has allowed more wind into the valleys and damaged their property.
      Where is the study on this? This affects ALL of West Virginia, not just
      the study area. In essence by allowing Mounlaintop Removal to
      continue to destroy these mountains and forests, you are destroying
      the sustainability of the mountain culture and the lives of
                                                                                                                                                                   11-5-2
                                                                                                                                                                   11-6-2
                                                                                                                                                                   11-7-2
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                 A-886
                                                            Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
          Appalachian Americans. We are poor and cannot live without these
          m ountains, the ecosystem and culture that depend upon these
          mountains. Our mountain culture is one of the very last of Ms kind in
          America.
       3.
          THIS! Again (iris falls under the executive order on environmental
          justice and socio-economic impacts. People's homes are their life
          investments sad a large number of retired people live in the study area,
          Blast damage and emotional stress from blasting and the damage from
          blasting occur frequently in the study arm and sojaeftnes oocw up to 12
          miles from the mining site. The West Virginia DBP has records on the
          large number of blast compiaiiits. Blast, according to your stody, emits
          air pollutants, which your study says rarely goes beyond WOOft. TMi is
          an outright LIE! I have seen it with mine own eyes and the proof exists
          that the fumes goes much further and invades communities. When your
          community to surrounded by Mountaintop Removal sites that blasts
          364 days a year, that is cumulative impact and your study BID NOT
          address  this. Perhaps because it is HOT your child that is subjected
          these war crimes. Your EK5 study says that adequate laws are in place—-
          that people can seek redress in courts systems—Another BLATANT
          LIB!!!! These laws do NOT protect the residents... they protect the coal
          companies. In other extractive industries the liability is assumed on the
          company, but to the coal Jndastry,.The burden of proof is on the poor
          people. The poorest people, in the poorest state, live in the coal rich
          counties of West Virginia, we rank test in income. How can they
          afford lawyers for justice in the court system? Again this goes to the
          executive order for environmental justice and low-income people.
          Your own study states that the people living in the study area are
          30% above the national average in poverty levels. Your study facts
          contradict your conclusion on this issue—AGAIN!! This study
          constantly defies the executive order on environmental impacts of
          low income and minority people. Perhaps the authors of this BIS study
          feels this way because it is NOT THEIR HOMES THAT IS BLASTED
          and your children are NOT subjected to these crimes.
       4. FLOODING OF DOWNSTREAM COMMBMTHS... How dare
          your study dismiss and belittle this impact!!!! AS in the impacts of
          blasting,  and adding insult to injury, people's homes and lives are lost ia
          the downstream flooding that this mining creates. Evidence proves that
    16-3-2
    10-7-2
    17-2-2
                       5.
    Mountaintop Removal greatly contributes to flooding during rain events,
    O«r people living in these effected communities suffer from Post
    Traumatic Stress Disorder from blasting and flooding. This has
    purposely gone ovetboksd by Ms EIS statement Many children and
    people after flooding episode go to bed fully dressed and packed ready
    to evacuate when a rain event decors. The taxpayers of America pays for
    these disasters and there are many, many more to come. The PTSD must
    be addressed and the people ajfifected by this should be given treatment. I
    guess none of the authors of this so-called impact statement has ever
    stood and watched their lives and their children's future float down the
    river because ofMan's ORBED!!!!! No awn's, CEO'S, or stoeteolder's
    paycheck is worth my child's life. With the steep terrain in Central
    Appalachia, we expect some small amounts of flooding in our streams
    but this flooding was like nothing we have ever seen. People saw 1 Oft.
    tall walk of mod coming down on their homes. GOD should have hung
    a "DO NOT DISTURB" siga on these ancient, beaatiftil mountains but
    HE never thought MIAN would commit such an horrible deed against
    HIS creation. How very upset HE mast be wMt HIS chiMrea STOP
    DESTROYING THESE MOIMTAMS!!!! STOP FLOODING MY
    PEOPLE!!!!! Again this is out of compliance with the Executive
    Order on Environmental Justice in iow income and minority people.
    ECONOMICS... Mountaintop Removal destroys more jobs than it
    creates. The tax  base from people's jobs is missing and that is a great
    loss to our state in revenue. This TWISTED study iiife Jo address
    economics issues—cumulative as well as present and future— from the
    residents and taxpayers view point. A. Why are the people living in the
    coalfields poof? One answer is because the coal companies with aid
    from corrupt elected officials created a colony and a mono-economy
    dependent upon one  evil industry—COAL and conspires to keep diverse
    economic development out of the  coal fields.  B. Coal says it supports
    schools—While the National tend is to move away from consolidated
    schools—the politicians ia West Virginia are closings schools and
    busing students up to 4 hours. At least 2 schools ill the coalfields that sit
    beside Maasey operations have been closed this year atone. Put this in
    your study,..why is this happetfflg? More coal is mined than ever
    before. C, Ta^ayeisofWestVirgiaiatndAjnericaae*'fi)Otlngl;he
    bill" for Appalachian disasters caused by greedy irresponsible mining.
    FEMA doesn't grow money on trees—tins is America's Tax Doflara at
    work. Many more mining disasters will be in the near future if
    Mowntaintop Removal is continued, STOP it NOW! D, Many people in
                                                                                          17-2-2
                                                                                          9-4-2
                                                                                          11-9-2
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-887
                                                        Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
           your study area are low income and without health insurance—sediment
           ponds cause higher levels of disease carrying mosquitoes and the people
           living in tt» study aiea ate being affected by this situation more and
           more as each new permit and pond is allowed. The taxpayers of the
           study area states and the teqsayers of America will pay the bill for the
           health effects of this type mining.
        6. ENVmONMEIWALJUSWCE—lXIC'roiVl ORDER....    As
           your study says * unemployment, poverty and out-migration is well
           above tfce national average". This socially evU EIS draft defies the
           Executive Order W2898. Again coalfield residents are of low income
           and ate definitely an invisible minority and ethnic class—labeled by
           media, movies, and television as "inbred, ignorant hillbillies—so much
           so that the city of Cincinnati included a human rights clause against
           discriminating against Appalachians during the out-migration in die
           years of the up-down cycle of coal mining. The authors of this EIS
           statement most think we are "ignorant MllbilHes". Many people think a
           conspiracy exists to depopulate the rural coalfields—An Appalachian
           Trial of Tears. I flunk this conspiracy exists and this EIS statement
           encourages thai conspiracy and may be part of that conspiracy, either
           knowingly or unknowingly. Your study in fiict promote genocide of
           the people living in this study area, your study promotes the crimes
           against the people and children of this area that the coal Industry is
           committing against my people, in effect your study promotes and
           protects those that commit these crimes.
        7. CULTURAL IMPACTS AND LANDSCAPES—this section is the
           BIGGEST JOKE in the statement!!!!! Contrary to your report,
           regulatory agencies do NOT possess the knowledge to address current
           cultural landscapes and have admitted this. Please contact Dr. Mary
           Hufford at the University of Pennsylvania for a report and study she has
           concluded Regulatory agencies merely rubberstamp permits. We have a
           distinct and unique culture here in central Appalacbia and HOW
           DARE YOUR STUDY IGNORE AND DISMISS OCR CULTURE
           AND OUR PEOPLE. We have the right to pass on to our children this
           culture and heritage and we cannot do this without these mountains.. .the
           mountains are a central and very important part of this culture. Again
           these mountains and the surrounding ecosystem give life and
           susteiaabMity to ow cuture and our children. Again this goes directly to
           the heart of the executive order on environmental justice for low income
           and minority people. Revise and include this in this EIS statement!
    10-7-2
    10-2-2
    8. IOTANGEHI»SPI£iraANDWnjJLDm—The habitat of
      endangered species is not only sacrificed but ALL wildlife in the
      study area is being destroyed, as is their habitat. The wild life is
      invading human habitats at an alarming rate and posing a threat to
      humans and our children. All ray life I knew wildlife existed in the wild
      area of our mountains, but unless I invaded their habitat, I never crossed
      their paths, now it is the norm to see wildlife in our yards and homes.
      The corrupt officiate in the WV Division of Natural Resources says that
      it is over breeding.... but I am not stupid...if wildlife habitats exists of
      10,000 acres and the greedy coal companies destroy 9,000 acres and the
      wild Hfe breeds, that leaves less acres for wildlife to live. That scenario
      can be twisted to ft the corrupt and evil agencies agendas...much the
      way the authors of this EIS has twisted the facts. On Indiana bats and
      birds, as I said not only endangered species is at risk, but all wildlife and
      humans are at risk from Mountaintop Removal. Valley fill mining
      creates manmade sediment ponds and false wetlands.. .these ponds pose
      life threatening health impacts to humans and particularly their children.
      and the Mountaintop Removal mining has already destroyed the
      mosquitoes natural enemy that keeps these mosquitoes in check., .the
      habitat for the Indiana bat and all other bats and some birds has been
      destroyed, thereby stopping and destroying GOD'S own natural check
      and balance system here in Appalachia. BOW VERY
      DANGEROUSLY ARROGANT OF MAN TO CHANGE GOD'S
      ORDER AND ALL FOR GREED!!!!!! Very lew natural ponds and
      lakes exists in the coal fields of West Virginia, GOD put flee flowing
      water and steams here for a reason. AGAIN THIS EIS STATEMENT
      DOES NOT ADRRESS THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO THE
      PEOPLE IN THE AREA AND TO THE PEOPLE OF THE
      STATE. THE HEALTH, CULTURAL, EMOTIONAL, SOCIO-
      ECONOMIC, ECONOMIC, SPIRITUAL AND
      ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS ARE ENORMOUS. WE
      CHALLENGE PRESIDENT BUSH, AS ONI CHRISTIAN TO
      ANOTHER TO COME TO THE HOLLOWS AND VISIT WITH
      THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN FLOODED, BLASTED AND
      IMPACTED BY MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING AND TO
      INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENTS ADMINISTRATORS OF
      THE AGENCIES THAT ALLOWS AND ENCOURAGES THIS
      ASSAULT ON THE PEOPLE OF APPALACHIA TO CONTINUE.
      I AM SURE ONCE THE PRESIDENT HAS DISCOVERED
                                                                                     J-l-2
                                                                                    9-4-2
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-888
                                                        Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
              THESE CRIMES AGAINST THE OTKENS, HE WILL NOT
              ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN, AND HE WILL STOP                              *-*>-—--/-   —                    ^Bse.u'0 OK 2* »»,
              MOTOTTAINTOPRlMOVAL.NOTRimGOBra^yMVGMAN                      ^     ,*»/*-.                            «w
              WOULD ALLOW THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN TO INNOCENT
              PEOPLE AND CHILDREN FOR CORPORATE GAIN.
    
    
              Julia Bonds
              Coal River Mountain Watch
              P.O. Box 651
              WMtesvUte, West Vkginia 25209 304-854-2182
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium                      A-889                                              Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                   July 24,2003
                    My family and I have been here many years and for many
                   generations. I am the sister, daughter, granddaughter and great
                   granddaughter of coal miners. My home is in the heart of your
                   study area and in the belly of the beast-fhe beast is me greedy,
                   irresponsible coal barons and the corrupt regulatory agencies and
                   politicians mat serves as the minions of this beast.
    
                   This draft BBS is a blueprint for continued assault upon the people
                   of Appalacbia, a declaration of war upon our children, their
                   children and GOD'S creation. Enough, STOP Mountatatop
                   Removal, NOWHU1
    
                   This EG encourages the coal industry to continue to use—to rape
                   and take—AppalacMa and her people—as a national sacrifice
                   zone.
    
                   This BIS did NOT study the cumulative effects of emdronmental,
                   community, human, cultural; health and socio-economic impacts
                   of post, present and future Valley fill mining. How did you study
                   the environmental justice impacts in this draft? You did not study
                   the cultural, community, people and property being destroyed by
                   this mining method, you dismissed it
                   I demand a revised BIS that includes cumulative impacts of
                   cultural, social, emotional, and spiritual and health problems of
                   communities affected by Mountaintop Removal.
    
                   A partial cultural study already exists, this study by Dr. Mary
                   Hufford is available on the Library of Congress website and Dr.
                   Hufford—Dr. of Ethnography can be reached at the University of
     1-9
    10-7-2
    9-4-2
                                 Perm. Our mountain culture has been her long before the white
                                 settlers came and before
                                 commercial coal mining began. Our culture will be here long after
                                 the coal is gonel
    K is believed that many people in Mountamtop Removal
    effected coramunities suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder—
    -from blasting and flooding. How dare you. dismiss the suffering of
    low income aad the invisible minority people of central
    Appalachian How dare you dismiss and defy the Executive Order
    dealing with environmental justice, the low income and minority
    people.
    
    Your own study says that this ma, is well above the average in
    poverty and unemployment Where is the study on socio-economic
    problems of the area? Why are me people in the coal rich counties
    the poorest? "What are the ACTUAL costs to the communities and
    people that suffer the effects of Mountatoop Removal? This
    mining effects the very poor, me powerless and oppressed people.
    Economic Development of these artificial sites? Only $ % of these
    destroyed mountains are ever given any economic development for
    the affected communities. Where is the study on this?—I want to
    see the figures and a study on how much "prosperity" goes back to
    Buglar Hollow or Bob White or Montcoal, or any small mining
    community.
    
    to Itoe last 6 months, 2 schools in the Coal River Valley,
    Both surrounded by many Massey mining permits, was closed.
    Sending our children on very, very long bus rides. One was at
    Monteoal—Marsh Fork EBf$i School——where is the support—
    where's the money? The Raleigh County Board of Educations said
    it does NOT receive a red cent from coal tax for education—coal
    says it gives—who is lying? I want to see a report on that
                                                                                               10-7-2
                                                                                               10-2-2
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-890
                                                     Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                        Douglas Boucher
                    the scientific evidence of Ms study shows thrt Mountaiatop
                    Removal is environmentally insane, tat the recommendations by
                    the administration is to make it easier for fhe greedy coal
                    companies to destroy everything, which ietds me to believe that
                    even worse scientific evidence was omitted ftaa this study. Even
                    so, your report makes an airtight case against your conclusions.
                    Your report and your conclusions strongly contradict Did a
                    complete idiot write the conclusions?
    
                    AS a fellow Christian I challenge President Bush to come to the
                    coalfield hollows in cental Appalachk and toft; with the blasted,
                    flooded, poor and the oppressed people impacted by Monntaintop
                    Removal. I ask President Bush to investigate Ms agencies, No true
                    Christian would allow these evil abuses to continue. I am sure once
                    the President discovers these crimes against the citizens of
                    Appalachia, he will stop Mountatetop Removal. NO true  GQD-
                    fearing man woaM allow these crimes to continue.
    
                    People should NOT have to make a choice between a job now and
                    destroying their children's future, making tiaeir neighbors suffer
                    and selling their eternal souls in the bargain.
                    Revelation 11:18
                    Thy wrath is come, that they should foe judged, and that thou
                    shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets and to
                    the saints and them that fear Ay mine, small and great; and
                    shouldest destroy them which destroy the Earth.
    
                    HOW VERY, VERY ARROGANT OF MAN TO THINK HE
                    CAN DESTROY GOB'S CREATION.
    
                    Julia Bonds
                    P.O. Box 135
                    Rock Creek, Wat Virginia 25174
               ~- Forwarded by Dswid Ridci/IB/USEPA/US on 01 /30/2004 11:21 AM	
    
    
                          Douglas Boucher
                                  cc:
                                        Subject  Saw: Streams £rom Moufitjtintop Mining
                          01/22/2004 09:02 AM
    
               January 22,2004
    
               John Forren, Environmental Protection Agency
               U.S. EPA (3EA30)
               1650 Arch Street
               Philadelphia, PA 19103
    0ear Mr. Ferrer^
    
    'llhe mere thought that a cml&£d nation that was already cxtfisumiog for too much energy
    from fossil fusts would resoft to the incredibly high environmental itnpaot method of
    moimttintop mining is disgusting. This is obviously only a way to g$att short teem profits $t
    the expanse of fang^tetni d-affi^e to all ecosystems irorn the mountain all the way
    downstream to the oceans, not including the added ca-ri>ons and heavy metals to the waters
    and acmospheisg.
    
    Hie sdministcation and the departments invoivcd should be exceptionally ashamed
    of any actions condoning mountain top riHtHfjg;.  I &tt\ opposed to  any changes that "would
    weaken- the laws and regulations that protect our timers ai^d streams trom the effects of
    motmtaintop mining and valley fills.  As a result, I am opposed to each ot tlie alternatives
    evaluated in your May 29,2003 draft Environmental Impact Statemeat (EIS).
    
    Your draft ES contains indi^utable evidence of Ae dev^$tetjfs.g and iciwtrsibk
    enviconmenftal harm caused by imowt&mtop mining.  Othec g^ency studies also show that
    motmtaintop .mining contributes to flooding disastets in mountain communities.
    Ufifoctuna&ty* each of the iltemattyes- in the drift "BIS ignores the findings of these studies
    and the ve«y putpose  of the KTS- to ftnd ways to mininiiKe, to the maximum extent practical,
    the environmental conse-quances of niounteintap mining. The draft EIS does not examine a
    single alternative that would reduce those impacts.
                                                                                          1-10
                                                                                                        Worse, your "preferred altsfnative*' would clearly increase the damage from jnountaintop
                                                                                                        mining by eliminating the Surfsre Mining Control and Reclamation Act's butler xonc- ruk
                                                                                                        that prohibits mining activities that disturb any are* within 100 feet of larger streams,
                                                                                                        eliminating the current limit on using nationwide permits to approve valley fills in West
                                                                                                        Virginia that ire larger than 250 acres, and giving the Office of Surface Mining a significant
                                                                                           1-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
    A-891
                                                                  Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                    Brian Bowen
      new role in Clean Water Art permitting for mountaintop mining (a tote it does not have
      under current law).
    
    
      Out environmental laws require, and the citizens of the recoil deserve, a fuil evaluation of
      ways to reduce the unacceptable impacts of mountatntop mining, I utgc you to abandon
      your "preferred alternative" and to Devaluate a full range of options that will minimize the
      enormous environmental and economic damage caused by mountaintop mining and valley
      fills.
    
    
      Thank you for your cooperation.
    
    
      Sincerely,
    
    
      Douglas Boucher
      3824 Suffolk Ln
      Piano, TX 75023-1051
      USA
      dougjasboucher@eatthlink.net
    1-5
    Forwarded by David RirJer/R3AJSEPAAJS on 01/08/2)04 01:58 PM
    
              Biff Bowen
                       oc'
                          Subject:
              Q1CS/2004 04-66
              PM
                                   Degr iPA,
                                   Reowt articteg about mountain removal ars disturbing. Please do not
                                   allow
                                   further destruction of the beautiful mountains of SW Virginia and West
                                   Virginia.
                                   Brian Bswert, Jr.
                                   161 Stapp Creak Road
                                   Amhefst, Va. 24521
                                                             1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-892
                                                           Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Deborah Bowles
                                                                                            Gayle Brabec
             — Forwarded by Dirvid Ridet/R3/US£PA/US on Oi/08/2004 01:59 PM	
    
    
                         Boi.vles922@aol.com
    
                                       To:    R3 MountaiiHop@EPA
                         01/05/200408:51     cc:
    
                         AM              Subject: Re: JOHN FORREN
             Mt. FORREK,
    
    
             I am opposed to Mountaintop Removal Mining and Valley Fills	PLEASE
             stop this
    
    
             "ENVIRONMENTAL NIGHTMARE"	
    
    
             Deborah F. Bowles
    1-9
                              JchnForren
                              US. B>A(38S38)
                              1650Arch Street
                              Philadelphia, PA 19103
                                                                                                             1 oppose mountairtop removal and valley flit; and any change in the buffer zone rule. lam      I 1_Q
                                                                                                             disappointed arri angry trrat the federal govemrnerit ignored its own studies when it proposed    I
                                                                                                             nwstefUng, ratter than strengthening, pwteBaj for people and 8w environment Setenpc
                                                                                                             srxidies document the widespread and irreversible damage the coal industry is doing to our siate  | 1-10
                                                                                                             and region. Mountain top removal ignores the public's demand for ctean water, healthy         I
                              «sase accept tfte wlsfem of those who ft* to fhese anas and ttte K3««Bfc studte that support
                              these correct insights. How many coal company CEO's l!ve in Harlan (iiunty, Kentucky?
    
                              Thank you for considering the good of the peopte in the coal areas
                              1707 New Orleans Q.
                              Lexington, KY 405405
    
                              Cc: President Bush
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
             A-893
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Mary Beth Bradley
                                                                                                                                             Mia Brady
      Mary Beth    Bradley
      Letter Date:   1/1#2Q04
      City: Chattanooga   State:
    TN   Zip: 37401
      Please don't backtrack on legislation that would leave our precious mountains, open to
      being taped again. The "Sleeping Lad)?" in Anderson County, Tennessee is just beginning
      to heal from, befog marred by the coal company's. We need «r mountains jftst to. breathe.
      I went to Horidft to'visit my sister'when her husband was in the Coastguard. I spent/a
      month with her during/the summer, 1 thought} was going to die without ray mountains.
      Those.of us who were born here and want toad She still
      been alive, to see what the coal comptuties did to her. Please don't make the same mistake
      twice. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes, not make them again.
    
      Thank You,
      Mary B'^th. Bradley
                                                         1-9
    — Forwarded by David Rjdet/RS/USEPA/US on 01/08/200401:59 PM	
    
                julia_bradf@yahoo
                .com           To:    R3 Moimtaitrtop@EPA
                              cc:
                01/02/200406:16     Subject: Gimmeots on dfrft ptogratnmatic
    EIS on motmtaintop removal coal mining
                PM
    Mr. John Fotren
    U.S. EPA (3EA30)
    1650 Aicli Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
    Dear Mr. Forren,
                                                                              1 object to the Bush administration plaas to continue to let
                                                                              coal companies destwy AppalacHa wifli motmtaintop zetoovtl
                                                                              milling practices that level moiattaintops, w^je out forests, bury
                                                                              streams, and destroy communities.
    
                                                                              I caa't believe that the Busli administration would address die
                                                                              problems caused by rooutitamtop removal coal mining tfarou^i
                                                                              weakening existing wviraamentd protections.
                                                                                                                                                                     1-9
                                                                                                          Smcerely,
    
                                                                                                          Julia Br»dy
                                                                                                          Rt 3 Box 274B
                                                                                                                   tt, West Vitginia 26201
                                                                                                          Senator John RockefeSer
                                                                                                          Representative Shcllej' Capita
                                                                                                          Senator Robert
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                              A-894
                                                          Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Sandra Brady
            JotaFertw
            UAEnvtajfliBentalPtoteoaonA^ieyCaEASO)                      REC'D  148V  1
            1650 Arch St Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
            Julia B«%
            Rt3Box274B
            Bnckhannon, WV 26201
    
            Dear Mr. Fatten;
     I am writing to voice my opposition to taoax&fatQp removal of coal.  While I uiKtetetd fee
     importance of domestic energy production, nJoantaiiHQp removal is not a viable alternative for
     stippiy of fossil fuels.  I hear ti$ people of my state when they express iear that their homes,
     businesses, evea whole eossmiaities may be devastated by the lou^term results of valley fills.
     Please consider our needs and the weliare of our environment when making fedem! policy
     regarding mountain-top lemovaL
    
    ^Sincerely;
                                                                                                                 1-9
            Jwlia Brady
                               August 12,2803
    
                               Mr. John Farrem, US SPA
                               16SO Arch stmel
                               Phtadtfphta, Pk 19136
                                                                                             AU5 18
    Ttiis letter is ecsneemiag ffie devastation frnpaetlffa on Wsst Virginia by iriaoonSnuwiee of mcHJtnfeEdni<_,  _
    and th* 'sham' of how In® study to review said impact (Environmental impact Statement) is being misused. This
    letter is a statement afeout stopping mountain top removal.
    
    I am a native of West Virginia. 1 have lived all but one of my years in the s&te, a Naif-century of loving the
    mountains, river, and v^dlife &&t abide frera, Mountain top removal is not surface mining, or sfcove $fwttd
    jEJftje&sses, it Is a piuada$iQ of all the* makes thts stais ih& Mountain State or Aimost Heaven. Mountain top
    removal fs devastators that strips away «S that Is usefof end leaves a wast® tartd that Is ugly and uasiasa to
    meaningful purposes. It is a devastation that sftaets all that iay down stream from the ruined buried streams
    that feed our rivers and lakes,
    
    t have seen in person the destroyed mountaintops arid (streams- that ar® aff«cted.  I h@ve watched as spill after
    split foula our streams and rivers wliHe th^ aRiirt ef the @g$ncy of protection, works to take aim of those
    removing mountains instead of taking care ef th^ envirorsmont.
    
    The rivers and Istes am the source of water that has sustained us in the past hut wMor* is IncrsasJrrgfy tifcerj- to
    feB to do so in «i6 fulu^ oitea raspontf&ffi^ fix our fatura is acc^ted. RttpentMMy must be aoceptKJ by the
    very sa«ficy that is supposed to protect but trsstesd has teeen Msd with th© likes of Norton and Qrifes who have
    worked fer coal t'n previous jobs and frave shown no baiance of judgmfent In peiformtn^ their duties now.
    
    Whet amazes me most te that anyone can ignore the obvbus real value of West Virginia's future and then tset
    about to destroy ffi  WATEI^Ei WsterSsnotjusta West Virginia issue! Evsryorws ahouid care.
    
    When Vtv& mountsino are destroyed the water tatotss are dlrectfy destroyad by bfastSng and th» fe«d of smsil
    streams to iargsr steams ends wh&n the smaS! ones are btiriad. Ona does not need an «n@ifiesring degree to
    see what happens to those steams.
    
    It makes no sfnca to destroy vshat Is veiuabiB for the long time, for the short-term profit to those who seem
    uns&te to mason.
    
    Many who have had a chance to do rsssarch on the report beJtev^ the report supports ending mountain top
    removal but those who sit In the Com of Engineers arts $ie SwEronmenta! Proteetfort Agency are pusNrtg for &
    fester permitting process for tha eeel industry.
    
    Remove tftose mountains as fest 33 you can! And than wM? Nothing, that la wha* exists, no more coai Jobs,
    no fife sustaining waier or forest, no sou! sustaining bsstity, no more profits. Nothing!
    
    Excessive tima *id montrw of ©xtensiorss passsd before th® thousands of pages of the ElS wor4 mad»
    avattabie for review. Mora time should be allowed for comment by tha pub&i and mountain top removal must b®
    stoppad, Now!
    
    It is not th& job of the EPA to be a poiitori tool of any sitting administration of Site country. Hnd mountain top
    r«nov^ and save tie (Uture of West Virginians and the fMas of rtmny oth«ffs vrfio w«HJid benefit from the lumber,
    water, and beauty of this state,
    
    Wake up!
                                                                                                                                                     sandal,. Brady
                                                                                                                                                     PO Box 833
                                                                                                                                                             . WV 28832
                                                                                                                       4-2
    
    
                                                                                                                        1-9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              5-4-2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              3-5
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-895
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Section A  - Citizens
    

    -------
    Matthew Branch
                                                                                                                 Lee Bridges
                  — Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPMJS an 01)06/2004 03:55 PM —
    
                             Matthew Branch
                                       cc:
                                         Subject mountatntop removal is not good
                             11/06/200306:39
                             PM
                                           -— Forwarded by D«'id Rkfet/RS/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM -—
                                                         .com" 
    -------
    Dede Brown
                                                  LeeAnn, George, Emily & Sarah Brown
                                                                                                 DeliveredDate; 01/09/2004 10:40:37 PM
    
                                                                                                 I am writing to express out view that Okie effect of mountain removal on the
                                                                                                 comfflBttitieSj-famflieSi and environment is
                                                                                                 destructive and unethical The eommuaittes of W«st.Virginia  and Kentucky need the
                                                                                                 Voice of.nsason. and justice to prevail in
                                                                                                 this historical m& contt-oyesial: issue. The negative cost to the people of the coalfields
                                                                                                 cannot be justifi«d for thg sake of
                                                                                                 cheap and accessible coal.
                                                                                                 Lei our comments join with ttose of similar opinions.., cuirent mountairitop removal
                                                                                                 coal naniiig must be stopped and regulated
                                                                                                 With fairness.and with a vision, of the future for the generations who will follow.
    
                                                                                                 Sincerely,.
                                                                                                 •LeeAnn,. George, Emily'and Sarah Brown
                                                                                                 15 Orchard Dr..
                                                                                                 Buekhaiinon,WV,26201
                                                                                       10-2-2
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-897
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Shale Browmtein
                                                                                            Mike Brumbaugh
                                  MOV 2
          John Forren
          U.S. EJ?.A. (3EA10)
          1650 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
          Dear Mr, Porrefi:
                                                    November24,2003.,,,,,,„	
                                                    • • •     Shale Brownsteia
                                                           Conservation Chair
                                                           Ltaraean Society, of New York
                                                           15 W 77 Street.
                                                           New York, N.Y.-10024
                                            re: mountain top mining/ valley fill DEIS
                 We ate a group of interested naturalists with more than 500 active members.
          The habitat destruction wrought by the proposed mountain top coal mining under 1000's
          of tores of mature hardwood forest in OMo Pennsylvania Virginia and Tennessee will
          certainly cause immense damage to the Cerulean Warbler population,
    
                 Awesome scenes of mountiiii top removal involve more than the disappearance
          of the headwaters of mountain streww arid the filing in of an adjacent valley. Many
          species are severely disrupted and the ecological damages will of necessity extend to a
          considerable distance from the mining operations.         ; '".
    
                  This Appalachian region of the system. United. States wjtl sufl|r ugly pockets of
          noise, dust, and disfigurement. The extensive losses already suffered wiH be grertty
          extended in ways that wil even more permanently alter the land. We think thtt the current
          drift environmental statement has fsited to property assess the impact of the future
          changes, which are already being actively implemented The immense area to be muted in
          this fashion is going forward without .sustained serious consideration to the social and
          eoologicaljosws that follow in the w|ke,of this one tone, removal of ayailabje coal.
    
                 We plead for a moratorium.
    
          We hope that reflection will give time for us all to study the conflicting cUms of
          residents, viators, and environmental lopes tor the future of these irreplaceable mature
          hardwood forests.
    
                 Only the imposition of a moratorium on the mining can offer the chance to
          seriously modify the proposed coal extraction, which  will change everything forever.
    
                                     Sincerely
    8-2-2
    9-2-2
    9-4-2
    1-9
                                             D»wd Rkte/R3/USBPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:32 PM -
                 "iBountiwnike@liotm
                 Acorn"          To:    R3 Mountaiiitop@EPA
                 
    -------
    Mark Brans
                    •L.
                ay
           /n fn ,-«
                               *~    r
                   '    <*OM "ffff/f  /« (I
    
                                .     A t.
                                                         1-9
                   fA^ **J   ;W   
    -------
    Stephen Bull
                                                                                                                                                                         DougBurge
        -— Forwarded by David Rider/RMJSEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:58 PM	
    
    
                                        R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                                cc:
                   01/06/200401:00     8
        Milling
    "9teve@etl.ss.com"
    
    -------
    Mark Burger
                                                                                                         Gail Burgess
              	Forwarded by David Rider/R3/l!SEl>A/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM —
    
                         "burgeonkopfjgfflsu.c
                         om" 
    -------
    Moss Burgess
                     Moss Burgess, flood Chairperson
                     Box 66
                     Wilkinson, W.Vs 25653
                     304-752-1596
                     Thank you for an opportunity to express our views,
                     1.  We live on Main Island Creek in Logan County and to 1996
                        we were flooded by a four men rainfall ftat fell in the
                        Comity, The water level was the highest since I moved there
                        back in flte early 195Q,s.
                     2.  At permit hearings a couple of years ago people who lived at
                        the foot of the Mountain Top Removal sites told how the
                        water came off the mountain and washed block walls down
                        with gullies of mud and debris.
                     3.  We are not against mining because we believe the coal can
                        and should be mined using auger or contour methods,
                        creating more jobs. Many of us come from mining families.
                        Mountain Top Removal and 
    -------
    Linda Burkhart
                                                         Judy Bums
                                                     top
                                                     1-9
                                                                                                                        1-10
                                                                       fa.  J0H$&}#&£ ^  ^f' f!
                                                                       **'•-•    .   $% 1* ^
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-S03
                                                                                                             Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                               Rick Cameron
                  — Forwarded by David Ridei/RS/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:32 PM	
    
                              Rick Ctroeron,
                                                   To:    R3 Mountaintop@EPA
    
                                                 Sxtbject: Maybe we should just fevel all the
                  mountains
                                                                                                                             cc:
                                                                                                                 12/30/200306:11
    
                                                                                                                 PM
                                                                                                     Sir
                                                                                                     I hufflbhr submit that, in "\*iew of Ae liPA's obvious ruhber-stampittg of every
                                                                                                     destructive order from the Bush gang, the agency should be redubbed the "EDA", the
                                                                                                     Environmental Destruction Agency. Since you are personally presiding ovei tile
                                                                                                     dismantling of a century of efforts to protect our natural heritage, you can rest assured
                                                                                                     of your pkce in history. Yon won't be forgotten, I promise yoti.
    
                                                                                                     With all due respect,
    
                                                                                                     Rick Cameron
                                                                                                     Woodstock, NY
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-904
                                                                                                                                                          Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Beth Campbell
                                                                                                                     Ruth Campbell
                           AAA-C-^O
    
                          r
    
               REC'D JAN 0 2 2tM
                                                1-10
    Seo»<»zi Greetings
                                                        	Porwuded by David RidarfRJ/USBPA/US on 01/08/2004 01 ;5S PM	
    
                                                                  Ruth Campbell
                                                                  
    -------
    Pauline Canterberry
                                                                                                                              Nancy Carbonara
    Pauline
    f 0  Box 30k
    Whit98vill«,
    Ph:
                                                                    REC'D we 20
                                                   W, V. 25509
              Mr.  John Forren, trs  SPA
             16^0  Arch St.
             Philadelphia,  Pa, 19130
    
             Re: Opposing Mountain-top Removal Mining
    
             Mr. Porren,
    
                   Mount aititop Removal Mining has proven itself to  be
             an irresponsible method of removing eeal tram  the
             Appalachian  Mountains of "est  Virginia leaving far to
             much  destruction, destitute  ant1 destroyed "land polluted
             «ith  "Valley  Pills and Slurry Impoundments.
    
                   It has  destroyed our Hardwood Forest *nd  Wildlife
             habitats, it is destroying Appalachian Culture and Heritage
             its irresponsible method has ravished  the Hollows and
             Vallsys leaving them  in ruin,  It has devastet}  the
             Cltiz«ns «fho dwell in these "Valleys destroying their
             TTnmes and Property, it eo&ttudufctag the Streams and
             Bivers, it pollutes the Air, it causes flooding, it <3a«troya
             and kills the  innocent, it is  a high-risk health hazard,
             it is no longer «n asset to  the State  of '.feat
                        Nancy T. Carbonara, Ph, D.
                             Licensed Psychologist
                          Child Development Specialist
    
               61S Washington Road, Satin 3(B.«Pitts!mfih, PA !522S-I909
                              (4I2)343-8«S3
                                          January 4,2004
                                                                                                                                 AS Jl
                  The reee emendations in  the BIS  statement  is just
             another FIX  for th» Coal Corporate to continue their
             devastation  in  the West Virgin!* Mountains that will.
             Swell  the tsreed of a  few and  supnort  Coal Corporate  gain,
             while  the State of West Virginia sinks lower still into
             total  despair,
    
                  Coras into  the Southern Coal Fields of Wast "Virginia
             and see the  trus story of Mountaintop  Reraoiral Mining,
             then you will vote to  and this  injustice.
                                                    SincereIT,
                                                   1-9
                                                                       Mr, John Forren
                                                                       U.S. Envtenmentql Protector* Agsnoy
                                                                       18SO An* Street
                                                                               a, PA  18103
    DaarMr. Foiron:
    
         I am ¥«y coneorned to h»ar that the Bush Administration plans to continue to t»t
    coal companies use mining practices that level mountain tops, wipe out forests and
    streams, and davastote both wSdltfe and human communlte In tti« Appalachian
    ragksn.
    
         I find that very puzzling, since ft Is my understanding that, according to the
    administrations' draft Environmental Impact Statement on mountain top removal coal
    mining, that type of mining has devastating, widespread, permanent and Irrever^ltite
    effects on the environment.
    
         Agafn, It is my understanding that the Bush administration's "preferred
    alternative" for addressing the protelems of mountain-top-removal  mining Is to weaken
    existing environmental protecttons...thus ignoring the results of the administration's own
    studies detailing the damage caused by thai type of mining.
    
         Ptease consider what you may be able to do to persuade the administration to
    re-think their position, and consider alternatives that at toast reduce the dreadful,
    negative effects on the environment and on the people of Appslachia of weakening
    environmental protections.  I come from a coal mining family and i know that that
    region, and those people, have suffered enough.
    
         Thank you for your attention to these heartfelt concerns.
                                                                                                                                           1-9
                                                                                                                                           1-10
                                                    Pauline Canterberry
                                                                                                                                Sincerely yours,
                                                                                                                                Nancy T. Carbonara, Ph.D.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                        A-906
                                                                                                                                                              Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Enid Cardinal
          Jariuaiy 2,  20C4
    Dsa r .John For r^sn,
    
    Although not i?urptised,  I am upset to lea.cn that ths Bysh
    
    plans to continue to let CQ-&I companies destroy Ap|>alachia v?ith mining
    piauticeK that level mountalntops/ wipe oyt fcrests-, bury  sure^ss,  an1 1 tffi  ^ It
                                                              *" i   iv  i-   ^*-
                                                            1 a  t    i  tt *•  n ftv f
                                                             ti     riirp   1
                                                           f *—  i    th  t  J j,-ni
          env i rori&ai"; ta! ly h-en i.cn ^ 1 t^mativ^s to propose projects.  Tt i ^ not the
          intent, to rarely K^as't^ financial rssouross in the compilation a piece
          OJE
          liturature that will foe ignored.  X do not believe that no viable
                                                                                       4-2
                                                                                                                    alternative  exists,  as the current course of action suggests.
                                                                                                                                                     lternative" for addre&sir*g  the
                                                                                                                                                      coal mlTiing  is to weak-an
                                                                                                                    The  Bush  administration's ^prefer
                                                                                                                    pji^blsrfts  ca^s@4 by iijcjuntalriwop re
                                                                                                                    €EJii sting
                                                                                                                    <£nv,i rnpffiftnt.* 1  pro'-'-Kofci ons .  Thia "prefer red a I t.«rrn.at i vew  1 sjrtor ^3  the
                                                                                                                    admin:! st rat ion' s own studies detailing the devastation caused by
                                                                                                                    Hj.oi4ntsint.op rsnov^l co-si M-inin^^  including :
                                                                                                                     -  ever  1200 miles of streams
                                                                                                                     rcis3U3itai ntA'jp rsrsova 1 ;
                                                                                                                                                                    or destroyed by
                                                                                                               -  KIthj>ut fi«w limits on Basuntaifttop ^eiiioval, an ad-tiitiouSl  350  scrj
                                                                                                               miles of is*>-un tains*  streaffi-s, and forests will be flattened  and
                                                                                                               destroyed
                                                                                                               by mounta.intcp rsff.cr/al irdning,
    
                                                                                                               In light of the.se facts, I urge you -to consider alternatives  rhat
                                                                                                                     Enid Cardinal
                                                                                                                     2234 Mercer St.
                                                                                                                     Baldwir^vllle,  MY 13027
                                                                                                                     USA
                                                                                                                                                                                             4-2
                                                                                                                                                                                             1-5
     MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                            A-907
                                                                                                                                                                              Section A  - Citizens
    

    -------
    Mary Lou Carswell
                                                                                                                                                                   Jenny Casey
              Mining
    ptvrarded by David Rider/RMJSEPA/US on 01/12/2004 02r49 PM	
    
         "mlearewel@aol.eo
         m" 
    -------
    Sidni Cassel
            Mr. Joltt foam, "US EPA
            1650 Arch Street
                                                                        18
            August 12, 2003
    
            RE: Mountaintop Removal in WV
             majsstic mountains of WV being slaughtered one by one so the coal companies
             could get to a few tons of coal It was a disgusting sight then and ft is a
              Now I'm in the west where I only see it when I fly home to my beloved WV.
             What a sight to see as you fly over what otice was a lush green forest that has
             r>e«n transformed into a rroonaspe on top of the mountain.
    
              ladmirethecitizensof WV who stffl think they can fight against the coal
             industry in VA'". Maybe I'm getting old or just pkin tired from all the efforts I put
             in to make my self aiid others heard. God bless them and give them strength
             l^cause we all know that tlie coal industry in bed with the powers tliat be...can't
             name names anymore because I'm not around to see first baud.
    
              I can say that I pray (and I'm not too much given to prayer) that the "powers that.
             he" wake up one day to find their ftont yard turned into a slag pile or that their
             family cemetery is bombarded by flying rocks from a "surface operation". Here's
             an idea. How about you fellers change places whh the people who are forced to
             live in the middle of four mess and see how yon like it. Let's we how long yon
             are willing to  stand by while your well dries up and your children can't play in
             the yard without safety gear!!!
    
              Sure, it's a free country aj;d I'm sure the coal companies would (and are) more
             else...but a free country also is supposed to guarantee the fteedom of those same
             individuals who want to live in their homes undisturbed or without fear that a
             boulder is going to crash thni their roof as they and their children sleep.
    
             Cons on, guys, Isn't it time that you realize that you can't imdo what has been
             done but you have the power to cliangc the future?
    
             Let's leave what mountains that ate left in WV. Once they are gone, there h no
                                   Respectfully,
                                   Sidni S. Cassel
    
                                   3419 W. Cinaatar Avetw
    
                                   Pk>eniit,AZ8S03l
    1-9
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-909
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
     Don Cassidy
                                                                                                                   Philip Castevens
                    61 Josepl.Rd.
                    FKBfam, KY4tt45-»024
                    1650 Arch StrtM
                    PhiMdpbiia, PA 19103
    REC'D RC 2 S;
                                 owl even wilhin EPA some
                                                 cooperation of the V>%iK House,
    
                                                olTicialibavs advised tto EPA tulssslwuld be
                                                                                  1-10
                                                                                                           REMO¥AL I
    Pfeilip Ca^tewns
                cc;
                Subject: 1 AM.AGAINST MOUNTAIN TOP MINING
    
    01/20/200404:16
    PM
                                                          Please protect our AppaJachan fnoufitaios,
    
                                                          Thflnk you,
    
                                                          Philip Ca$trveffis
                                                                -SaJem, NC 27103
                                                                                                                                                                               1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                         A-910
                                                Section A - Ctflzens
    

    -------
    Billy Caudill
                                                                  Herman Caudill
                                                                     10-2-2
                                                                                         •*•. i
                                                                                                                              fij^^
    
    
                                                                                                                      jH***C_d£B**{_rfiuSiGa.eM^jOZAf&efeass'
                                                                                                                        lMait---*&^ity3L^»jLr-~
                                                                                                                         JyLtA*nuis
                                                                                                                                                      1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-911
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    ThermaCaudill
                                                                                                                                                   Dan Chandler
                          HEC'D  M 05
                                              ^zdL^dL^jd&atjty^jsjij^&jL
                               Jh^li—'&aiL-J^^
    -^_A«df_y**««_jfelfcfc_<ear Mr, John Forren, Project Manager,
    
                                                                                                         II is no longer acceptable to trade <*nvtjfmntetitfti degradation for
                                                                                                         non-renewable energy, I strongly urge you to amend the EPA's draft
                                                                                                         environmental impact statement so as to limit the effects of harmful
                                                                                                         mounteintop removal mining,
                                                                                                                                               1-9
                                                                                                         Daniel Chandler
                                                                                                         Dan Chandler
                                                                                                         436 Old Wagon Road
                                                                                                         Trinidad, CA 95570
                                                                                                         (Iwchandlfti.'humboldt I .com
     MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                        A-912
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Dorsey Channel
                                                                                                      John Chase
           1 was borr- and raised 1ft >test Virginia,  As -rs native of  W,  T  am fully
          aviate of the wiorm cli^t was clone  to uur  mount-aitis  and sLieai&s.  All  you
          have to do i-s look around to the different areas- ana you will  find zh&
          ®r.&r.9, t.o out land arid pollntir^ r.rj our slear water  mountain  streams
          that
          still remains att«r years o.t h©a.iir,g.
              Agsf.r, we rare faced with nhor^aightad government offieials,  so
          ©acf-jr
          to pleas® big business with quick and easy access to cur natural
          reacurces raat they will soil out our state and its people.
              The cuullwued dfc«txuction o£ our state RtusL stop.  Houiit^in  Top
          feKic-val Mining must be halted and laws enacted to ban all such
          procedurps iBSiffidiof.f;] y, Cart^i r.ly, th«rs  Is no Ktje-d tn cofvduct a
          thris??-Vfj«ir study for the "r-aping of our l-andJ* by Officials from  ether
          states.
             My !?ad spent hio lifetime n,lniD4nie-sM that weir® sanction by pv-o£ Isws
          e-n-aetsd for "s^-^cial, ititerest" by local cjovermifseiit •
             It is time for All governfi^at officials that are associated with  any
          entity of the EPA, to live up to their name-"-"£riyironm^nta3 Protection
          he&Yicy, L*t* k«ep fessst Virginia beautiful and do v/aat is right for the
          p-eqple cf West Virginia,
    1-9
                                                                                                                             /Mr.
                                                   ,   21
                                                                 .   r /
                                                                                                               I-9
     MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                 A-913
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    T.J. Chase
                                                                                       Louise Chawla
                  '}  .REG'D JAN2S;
    
                                                                  416 Logan Street
                                                                  Frankfort, KY 40601
                                                                  August 23,2003
    
                  John Forren
                  U.S.EPA(3BS30)
                  1650 Arch Street
                  Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
                  Dear Mr. Forren:
    
                  1 *m writing tgainst the reconwietKlations in (he U.S. government's EtS report on mountaintop
                  removal for the mining of coal. The report itself documents the great desttuetiveness of this
                  practice for water quality and forest ecosystems, but none of the three alternatives that it proposes
                  will reverse this destruction. Instead, they weaken existing regulations, including the important
                  stream buffer zone. The recomniendrfiOBS can only serve the sSiort-tann interest of (he eoal
                  industry: not ttie taaedJate and long-term needs of the people of Appalachia for clean water,
                  sustainable jobs, sustainable development asA secure homes.
    
                  For administrators &r removed from the mining, this issue may appear abstract I live a few
                  blocks from tint Kentucky River, which flows brown from erosion from destructive mining
                  practices at its headwaters, while the people of Appaiaehia see their tend literally blasted away
                  beneath them. AppakeWa has the potential for becomteg a national center for Kmrten and
                  wilderness recreation, but this possibility » being stolen ftom us and all fijture generations.
    
                  I urge the E.P.A. to reject the EIS recommendations as a contradiction to the evidence gathered
                  by its own reports.
    
                  Sincerely,
                                                                                                                Louise Chawla
                                                                                                                                                                                                  1-5
                                                                                                                                                                                                  1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-914
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                  Lexington Herald Leader
                  I was appalled to read that the environmental agency is now considering mountain top
                  removal (strip mining) for coaL
                  Our country is coining apart at the seams now. Why add insult to injury!
                  Do those in power realize what (he consequences are, not only now bat also for years to
                  come to our mountains and the folks that live in those areas.
                  Homes are destroyed by mud slides and flooding time after time. Nature took care of the
                  problems of erosion and disasters until the strip mining was done several years ago. It is
                  taking years to recover and repair what was lost then.
                  It will not help the economy for the ones that need the help but only line fee pockets of
                  the big corporations.
                  Our roads, railroads, education and energy are being neglected, as is everything else in
                  our own country. We know where the fiinds are going but isn't it lane we took care of
                  our own?
                  I am disappointed in our representatives for not making our state a priory and put party
                  lines on tie b«
    -------
    Robert Cherry
                                                                                             Arthur Childers
       Robert. Cherry
    
       City:  Boone
       State: NC
    
       Letter Date:   1/11/2004
       Zip:   28607-5313
       I am writing to you to express my opposition to any changes in regulations that would
       weaken environmental protection front monntaintop mining. I reviewed the DEIS on your
       website and find that none of the Alternatives provide adequate protection to the people
       who live nearby  who would be affected by these activities and no alternative would
       provide sufficient protection to the impacted biological resources. I am concerned that the
       emphasis of the DEIS appears to be to continue mountaintop removals without seriously
       considering its impacts. Filling valleys will alter streamflows and wjij endanger those
       who live downstream with increased risk of flooding. Ground water is likely to be
       contaminated from mining activities and water sources ar* less secure. People who live in
       the area need better protection than is provided by the alternatives in this DEIS. As an
       aquatic biologist this DEIS glosses over problems to our aquatic resources that result
       from spoils being dumped into and filling entire watersheds. The nature of the soils cause
       long-term and long-distant negative impacts on aquatic fauna. 1 don't feel that your DEIS
       adequately considers endangered species.  References that minimize impacts to wildlife
       do not adequately differentiate bet-ween common fauna and T&E species. While some
       animals may benefit from conversion of forested mountaintops to level grasslands these
       species typically are not species that are rare and in need of protection. I am concerned
       about the lack of buffer strips from the preferred alternative. Many studies have shown
       that loss of streamside buffers have significant environmental impacts. These impacts
       include increased sedimentation, increased water temperatures, altered stream flows and
       IOK of wildlife habitat. Please add an alternative that adequately addresses the biological
       impacts of mountaintop removal. No'ne of the alternatives that are presented in the DEIS
       does this and are therefore inadequate. Thank you for your attention to this matter..
    1-5
    6-6-2
                                                                                                                      7/1 «^M-«OCa-*>*0&0.ia dZtsiyky **m^L**& .?
                                                                                                          1-9
                                                                                                          1-10
                                                                                                                                                                              9/773
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
             A-916
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Susan Cho
                                                                     Martin Christ
                                                                                                          Mania Christ
                                                                                                          •3nchri3f.tflob3.net      To:
                                                                     1-5
                                                                                           flt" ci r;t- "i y «?ji.f orc^d for vs 11 ^y f i 11^ and in all ofi
                                                                                                                                                     1-10
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Pubtic Comment Compendium
    A-917
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Jerry Ciolino
                                                                                        Matthew Cleveland
                          l.com"
              — - Forwarded by Dmid Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:59 PM -----
                                           To;   RJ Mountaintop@EPA
                                        Subject: Please Stop Destructive Mountaintop
              Removal Mining
                          01/06/200408:21
                          PM
                                                                                                                — Forwarded by David K«fer/R3/USBPA/US en 01/07/2004 03:42 PM - —
                                                                                                                         s.com" 
    -------
    John & Tammy Cline
                                                                            Sister Mary Brigid Clingman
        DeliveredDate:  01/04/2004 03:41:04 PM
    
        We are opposed to mountaintop removal. The short-term gain is not worth, the certain
        and potential environmental consequences.
        John & Tammy Cline
    1-9
                                                                                                                - Forwnded by David Ridei/R-t/USEPA/liS on 01/08/2(104 01:58 PM	
    
                                                                                                                         "mbcliagman@grdomi
                                                                                                                         nica»s,orgfr       To:    R3 Moyntaistop^BPA
                                                                                                                         •^tnbclingman       cc:
                                                                                                                                       Subject: Mease Stop Destructive Mountaintop Removal Mining
                                                                                                                         01/06/200404:24
                                                                                                                         PM
    Dear Mr, Joha Forr^a, Project Manager,
    
    1 am the Councilor for Mission and Advocacy of OK Grand Rjpids Dominican Sisters, Wo hav
    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                                              Jerry Coalgate
               In addition, since the world belongs to all, decisions about the world's use must be determined
               by a concern for the common good of the whole human family. Pope Mm Paul II joining his
               voice with & growing chorus of ethical people throughout the world proclaims fhc right to a safe
               environment must eventually be included in an updated U.N. Chatter of Human Rights. That
               your "Prayer on » Mountain" takes place on December
               10, International Human Rights Day, symbolically connects the respect for the earth with the
               protection of our human community.
    
               We pray that society will produce its twcesstry goods and services without destroying God's gift
               of creation. Unfortunately, the practice of economics frequently exploits both the land and the
               workers in ft nigh for quick profits. Society must reject the false dichotomy of jobs versus the
               environment and creatively find ways allowing workers to earn their Irwiihoods white respecting
               creation. May God shed blessings on you as you pray for the restoration of creation and tbs tiplifl
               of your communities.
    
               Yours in Christ Jesus,
               Thomas C. Kelly, O.P., Archbishop of Louisville
               John J. McRaith, Bisthop of Owensboro
               Roger J. Foys, Bishop of Covington
               Reverend Robert J, Nieberding, Lexington Administrator
    
               Joining my brothers I would urge you to drop plans to make it easier for mining companies to
               engage in mountaintop removal and to instead limit the harmftil effects of this devastating
               practice.
    
               Sincerely,
               Sister Mary Brigid Clingitwn OP
               Dominican Sisters, Grand Rapids MI
               Sister M»ry Brigid Clingman OP
               2025 E. Fulton
               Grand Rapids, MI 49503-3895
               mbclingmatt@grdorninicans.org
                f
                i
                                                                          REC'D  KG 23:
                         December 13, 2003
    
                         Mr. John Forren
                         Region 3
                         U. S, Environmental Protection Agency
                         16SO Arch Street
                         Philadelphia, PA 1 91 03-2029
    
                         R£F: Draft Mourttatntop Mining Environmental Impact Statement
                         I'm writing as a professional environmental scientist, who grew up In West Vifflnla, and a former
                         employee of tfie U. S, Bureau flf Mines (now defunct) "Who has seen moimtatntop mining first hand
                         and therefore knows the devastation of the environment they represent. As a result, I am deeply
                         concerned regarding Bush administration plans to continue to let coal companies negatively impact
                         and possibly destroy Appaladrfa with mining practices that level mountaintops, wtp* out forests
                         and bury streams In the vaBeys below.
    
                         As I understand It, the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EiS) dearly Indicates the
                         environments! effects of mountslfitop removal coal tnlntng are devastating and permanent. Yet the
                         draft EIS proposes no restrictions on the st» of valley flits that bury streams; no limits MI the
                         number of acres ®f forest that can b® destroyed; no safeguards f or ir&perfted wUdllf e; and nd
                         saf«guards 'Sir the'oHfiniunKtes lhat *p«d on the region's natural wsources.
    
                         RemaHtabty, 1t appears the draft EIS states preferred alternative for addressing the enormous
                         problems caused by mountalntop removal coal mining Is to weaken existing environmental
                         protections. The draft CIS proposes streamlining the permitting process, allowing mountaintop
                         removal and associated valley fills to continue at an accelerated rate. The draft EIS also suggests
                         doing away with a surface mining role that makes it illegal for mining activities to disturb areas
                         within  100 feet of streams unless It can be proven that streams will not be harmed.
    
                         Instead of allowing  mountaintop removal to continue unabated and even get worse, I strongly urge
                         you to  finalize the BS by sateetlng atterativefs) which dearly and effectively reduces the
                         environmental impacts of mountaintop removal and which requires Irnplementatlort of those
                         measures needed to protect natural resources and communities in Appatachia. In particular, I urge
                         you to  select an atternatlve{s) which provide for restrictions on the size of valley fiils In order to
                         reduce stream and  forast loss. These alternatives must be evaluated far individual projects as well
                         as regionally so that the cumulative Impact of the destruction caused by mountaintop removal Is
                    1-5
                    1-10
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        1-7
                                                                                                                                          .Coal?
                                                                                                                                    6588 Medinah I
                                                                                                                                    Alexandria, Viroinia 21311
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-920
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Marlene Cole
       	Forwarded by David Rider/R.VUSEPAAJS on 01/09/2004 03:54 PM	
                                          R3 MountaiBtop@EPA
    
                                       Subject:  Mountaintop Coal Mining - Drat BIS
                rnbco]e@crs«L nrtg
                ers.edu          To:
                              ec:
                01/06/200404:0?
                PM
    
    Project Manager John Forren
    U.S. EPA (3EA30)
    1650 Arch Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
    Dear Project Manager Forren,
    
    I have t master's degree in Forest Science from Yale University and a PhD in Ecology from
    Rutgers University. For many reasons, 1 find mountaintop coal mining objectionable. The
    method destroys the local, native, endemic habitat of the actual inountaintep. This loss alone
    deprives us forever of the high elevation, and often relict ecological community. But, as there
    is no place to go from a mountain but downhill, it also has devastating effects far downstream oa
    water quality, habitat quality, and quality of life for the people living in the former shadows of
    the mountain.
    
    I have colleagues who have studied the ecological effects of mountaintop coal mining in
    Appalaehit, The take home message from our current knowledge in ecology and the emerging
    applied subdiscipline of restoration ecology is that tiKHtntaintop coal mining is ecologically
    eKtremely harsh and that we cannot return such a site to predisturbauce conditions. It eliminates
    headwater stream*, which are sometimes ephemeral and intermittent (ecologically critical!),
    essential habitat for numerous invertebrates and their ecological communities. We cannot
    thoroughly restore Ihese sites to have (he same physical, chemical, biological, ecological and
    fiiflctional qualities to pre-mining.
    
    According to the administration's draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on mouotMntop
    removal coal mining, the environmental effects of rrtount&intop removal are widespread,
    devastating, aod pemwnent. Yet the draft EIS proposes no restrictions on the size of valley fills
    that bury streams, no limits on the number of acres of forest that can be destroyed, no protections
    for imperiled wildlife, and no safeguards for the communities of people that depend oa the
    region's natural resources for themselves and future generations.
    
    Remarkably, the Bush administration's "preferred alternative" for addressing the enormous
    problems caused by mountaintop removal eoal mining is to weaken existing environmental
    protections. The draft EIS proposes streamlining the permitting process, allowing mountaintop
    removal and associated valley fills to continue at  a,i3 accelerated rate. The draft EIS also
    suggests doing away with a. surface Mining  rule that makes it illegal ft»r mining activities to
    disturb areas within 100 feet of streams unless it can be proven that steams will not be
                                                                                                1-9
                                                                                                1-5
                                                                                                1-10
    harmed. This "preferred alternative" ignores the administration's own studies detailing the
    devastation eatn«4 by meuntiiatop removal coal mining, iaekidiag;
    
    • over 1200 miles of streams hive been damaged or destroyed by mountaintop removal
    
    • direct impacts to streams would be gr«»tly lessened by reducing the size of the valley fills
    where milling wastes are dumped on top of streams
    
    - the total of past, present and estimated ftttute forest losses is 1.4 million acres
    
    - forest losses in. West Virginia have the potential of directly impacting as many as 244
    vertebrate wildlife species
    
    - even if hardwood forests can be reestablished in mined areas, which is anproven and unlikely,
    there will be » dwstkatly different ecosystem from pre-miaing forest conditions- for
    generations, if not thousands of years
    
    - without new limits on mountaintop removal, an additional 3SO square miles of mountains,
    streams, and forests will be flattened and destroyed by niountaintep removal mining
    
    The Bush administration's "preferred alternative"  ignores these and hundreds of other scientific
    facts contained in the EIS stadia*. IB light of these facts, the Bush tutatiaistffitiott must consider
    alternatives that .reduce the envirowttientiil impacts of moiMitaintop removal and then implement
    measures to protect natural resources and communities in Appalachia, such as restrictions on the
    size of valley fills to reduce (he destruction of streams, forests, wildlife and communities.
    
    Thank you tor your time.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Marlene Cole
    258 Massachusetts Ave.
    #4
    Arlington, Massachusetts 02474
                                                                                                                      Senator Edwwrd Kennedy
                                                                                                                      Senator John Kerry
                                                                                                                      Passidett George W. BuA
                                                                                                                      Vice President  Richard Cheney
                                                                                                                              tative  Bdward Mark©y
                                                                                                                                                                                                           1-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                      A-921
                                                                         Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Marian Colette
                                                                                        Michael Compton
                                                                                                             	.._  forwarded by David Ridar/FO/'JSEPA/US  on  11/20/2003 02:5'? PK	
      Delivered Date: 01/06/2004 11:59:45 AM
    
      As a resident of the mountains in fiastera Kentucky, I an writing to express my anger
      and frusiration with the way the EPA under the Bash administration has handled this
      issue. I oppose all mountain toOp removal and stream fill* because of there impact of the
      liyes of residents in the area mS because of the negative impact on the .region. i» terms of
      the "tourist attraction value" of our region.  We are working with em: Cpngtesstnaa Hal
      Roger* to both clean up the trash in the area through his Project Pride
      Program andto attract visitors through the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Totirisrn
      Development Association—also a project of our Congressman. No one wants to liwin an
      area torn up by bulldozers with filled in astreatns and ruined water supplies-- who would
      want to visit there?!
    
      Sincerely-Marian Colette, Box 3, Eralyns Kentucky 40730
       1-9
    11-7-2
                                                                                                                                  Michael Compton
                                                                                                                                  
    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                James Conroy
           'i!-our  draft EIS contains irtdisputable evidence of  ths  d^vastatitiy aftd
           irreversible
           ^rsvi rorymenf-.#l bars* ooufs^d by rnounhait'top Min.inct,   Other  agency studies
           also  allow
           that  mount si in top aiining contributes to floo^iu-q disasters  in mcuntain
           co&wjn 1 ties,
           Unfortunately, each of the alcernai.iverf in Lbe d-^afL  EIS ignore^ Lhe
           findings
           of t'rmsc* studies and the very purpose; of the- ETS- to  fi^d  ways to
           "mils imiae, to
           tfc-e isaxiffiufti sKtfeftt practical, tJie environmentai coas^^uencsa of
           mo: \ n ta i n top IP i n i ng.
           The draft EIS dc*ss not examine a Mingle alternative that would seduce
           Worse,  ycwjr  "preferr^d alternative" would clearly increase  the da-m^ge
           from mouataint-op
           fiiinioy  by  elindo^tiny the Surface Mining C-ontrol add Reclai^atiwri Act's
           buffer
           soht^ r'il-a  that prchibi.tjs i^ining actlvi tien that dj st.urb  ©ny nrsa within
           100 feet
           of larger  streams, eliminating the current limit on tising nationwide
           permits to
           approve valIsy ill 1^ ta Wegt Vityinia uhat are laryer than  250 a-cre®,
           and giving
           tho Office Gf Surface Mining a significant new role in Clean Water Act
           pert&ittinq
           for ruc-^fi tain top sniaing  (a rcle it do-es not have under current 1-aw) .
    
           Our erivironms-ntsl  laws  Ke<^iire, and t.h& citizens of the  region deserve,
           a full
           syaluat,iOfj of ^^sys to rsduc© the unacceptable impacts of !$0untain-top
           rji t n i ng.
           I urge  you  to abandon your ^preferr^-d alternative** -and to reey-aluate a
           full range
           of opt ions  that wi 11 sninind ZB the enorroouB e-nviroasiffiHtal and sco-n-oirdc
           damage  caused
           by laountaintop rrdning and valley fills.
    
           Thank you  for your consideration.
    
           Sincerely,
                                                                                      1-5
    4-2
                               — Forwwded % David Rifa/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:59 PM	
    
                                             Conroy HS@aol,com
                                                           To:    R3 MoiMit«intop@EPA
                                             12/22/2003 06:18     cc:
                                             AM             Subject: Comments OB draft programmatic EIS on
                               mountain top removal coal mining
    Mr. John Porrcn
    U.S.'EPA(3EA30)
    1650 Arch Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
    Oeat Mr. Forren,
    
    Can we look ahead, to a time when our current practices will
    hurt our cMklsens future?
    I find it uncotiicionable that the Bush administration plans to
    continue to let coal companies destroy Appajachia with owning            i _A
    practices that level moiuitaintops, wipe ovt forests, bury
    streams, and destroy communities.
    We are not all "eiiwoniaeatel nuts.." Mainsteatu America is seeing
    the damage and will take action with votes.
                                Sincerely,
    
                                jgtnes Conroy
                                322 Madison Ct.
                                Btick, New Jersey 08724
                                                                                                                 Senator Frank Lauteobetg
                                                                                                                 Representative Christopher Smith
                                                                                                                 Senator Jon Conine
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-923
                                                              Section A - C/f/zens
    

    -------
    Peggy Conroy
                                                                                                          David Cooper
               - — Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM - —
                          .org          To:   R3 MountaintopC^EPA
                                      cc:
                          01/01/200409:26    Subject: mountain top removal for coat mining
                          AM
                          Please respond to
                          gilletlb
               Sir:
    
               This is one of the more miserable policies of an adminiastraiion which
               is a miserable failure on every environmental policy it has put forward,
    
               It should be subducted immediately, not lOOmy years from now,
    
               A voter who always votes,
               Peggy Conroy
               West Chszy, NY
    1-9
                                                                     m  .  L3£-r» :D  *r.  282m
    
                                                                                                   Ang 15, 2003
    
                                    Mr. John Fotrea
                                    U.S, Bawotaaeirtal Protection Agency (3BS30)
                                    1650 Ar* Street
                                    FMkdefcMa, PA 19103
    
                                    DMT Mr. taaeo;
    
                                    As « resident of Lexington, in eastern Kentucky, I have watched the rnountaintop
                                    removul contTX)\-ersy with great interest.  It's hard to believe the scale of destruction that
                                    is going on with our beautiful mountainK. 1 have met with coalfield residents many times,
                                    eg>«M|yai«tt«coalsl!aiydlga««iaM»rttoCoin«y,KfiBtttd{y, that w» causal by
    1 have talced with people whose water wells have been destroyed, whose foundations
    have beta cracked, who have had to sue coal companies for dust from preparation plants,
    whose children go to bed at night with their clothes on when it rains, for fear of flooding.
    
    It seems to me we are destroying the future economy of the region.  Clean water will be
    as important to future generations as oil is today. The water wars are CMining, as has been
    predicted by Forturis and other business magazines.  Tins is why we see mufti-national
    conglomerate corporations like RWE, Vivendi, and Suez swallowing up American water
    companies like American Water Works of Vorhis, NJ. These big companies know that
    the potential profits are huge in the future for those with a monopoly on a reliable source
    of clean water.
    
    We have clean water in abundance here in Appahchia, and it can be our future economic
    salvation. Or we can bury our mountain streams underneath mining waste, and
    contaminate our free-flowing Appalachian streams with blackwater spills and toxic
    runoff from mountajntop removal sites.
    
    It's teu-d to believe that the Bush adrninistration, which prides itself on beiiig so industry-
    friendly, can be GO short-sighted as to destroy, permanently, one of our greatest economic
    and natural resources: clean water. More than 1 ,200 miles of our headwater streams have
    been buried or destroyed by valley fills.
    
    But that's only the beginning of the economic stupidity. Mountaintop removal also
    destroys valuable hardwood forests, and has already had a negative  impact on the timber
    industry in West Virginia. Ataost 7 parcent of our forests have been -or wiU soon be -
    leveled by mountaintop removal. West Virginia Division of Forestry Director Bill Msxey
    quit his job in protest of mo utitaintop removal. That's jobs being tost:
    
    Flooding in Appalachian communities is increasingly common and severe. Who pays?
    PEMA - ie. the twqjayw! , .And taneo-wnera* insurance goes tip every ttoe there is
    another disaster. The coal companies externalize their costs onto the pubh'c.
                                                                                                                   16-3-2
                                                                                                                                                                                             5-5-2
                                                                                                                                                                                             11-6-2
                                                                                                                                                                                             17-3-2
     MTMA/F Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                        A-924
                                                                     Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
        It doesn't bow to be this way. There axe laws on Use books to protect clean water, public
        safety and the environment. It is periectly clear that mountaintop removal and valley iiills
        are a violation of fl» federal Clean Water Aot and the Surface Mining Control and
        Reclamation Act. These practices should be banned. The coal industry most not be
        allowed to destroy our homeland.
    
        The draft BBviromaetaal Ifflpaet Statement oa .motmtetolop rea»wl aad valley fills is a
        dangerous gift ftotn the Busk administration to the eoal fatastty. Instead of
        coal companies to level oiir mouBtains, burj'our streams, and wreck our homelatjd. ITiis
        is shameful and wrong.
    
        I know first hand the terrible impacts of mountaintop removal and valley fills. I also
        believe we can build a better firtnre for eastern Kentucky. We can have clean streams and
        ahealthy forest and restore our quality of life. We can create good jobs for our people
        that don't wreck the environment. And we have to start down a different road now.
    
        Take a .stand. Enforce the law. Ban mountaintop removal and valley fills. Stop the coal
        mdaslry from destroymg evci^tiung trjat we value most. Sfeut rriaking choices that will
        benefit our children and yours.
    
        SittcSrely,
        Davjti S. (
        60S Aim a.
        Lexington KY 40505
    1-9
    — Fotwwifed by David Rider/iMJSEPMJS on 01/09/2004 02:49 PM -—
    
                               A
                oo.eorrt          To:   R3 Mountwntop@EPA
                             cc:
                12/31/200312:19     Subject; Comffiejits on draft programmatic EIS on
    mouBtaintop removal coal ruining
                PM
    
    Mr. John Forren
    V.S. EPA (3EA30)
    1650 Arch Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
    Dear Mr, Forrem,
    
    In regard to the Environmental Impact Statement for mountaintop removal mining. I am strongly
    opposed to this form of mining. It destroys and contaminates the drinking water supply for
    millions of people downstream on the Ohio River, the Cumberland River and the Tennessee
    River with heavy rnet»ls aad mining sediments.
    
    It buries streams under tons of rniitittg rubble, eliminating all forms of life in the stream.
    
    Mt top removal (MTR) cantribtttes to flash flooding which has killed 10 West Virginians in the
    past two years, aid destroyed 4,000 homes aad nearly wiped out several communitiei.
    
    MTR IMS & very strong adverse impact oa the communities, people, environment and wildlife of
    Appalaehia, the scope of th© devastation is practically wnpreceud^nted.
    
    The forests that are obliterated are some of the most productive and biodiverse hardwood forests
    in the world (tfce Haxed-nseijtjphytie fawsts of Apprtiebia). When the coal companies are done
    with their reclamation, all that is left is » grassy filed- a biological duett
    
    I find it ancomscionable that the Bush administration plan* to continue to let coal companies
    destroy Appalachia with mining practices that level rao»»t»intops, wipe out forests, bury
    streams, and destroy communities.
    
    According to the administration's draft EwhonmenteJ Impact Statement (EIS) on mountetetop
    removal coal miming, ths environmental effects of wouutaintop removal are widespread,
    devigtMing, «d permanent. Yet the draft EIS p»po«es no restrietionp en the size of valley fills
    that bury strewns, no limits on the number of tens* of forest that cm, be destroyed, no protections
    for imperiled wildlife, and no safeguards for the eommunities of people that depend on the
    region's natural resources ibr themselves and future generations.
    
    Remotkably, the Bush admiiMstretion's "prefert«l slteoative1' for addressing the enormous
    problems caused by mouatoitttep removal coal mining is to weaken existing environmental
                                                                                                                                                                                                    1-9
                                                                                                                                                                                                    1-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-925
                                                                                                                                                                                    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                          KennonCopeland
    protections. The drmfl EIS proposes slreamlmirig the permitting process, allowing „„„,,„»,
    removal and associated v&lUy fills to contino* at m aoeetswtod tuts. Tie 
    -------
    RubyCorbin
                                                                                                        Jennifer Cox
                                                                         /5/A
                                                                                      1-10
                                                                                                                                            r Cox
                                                                                                                                       20030 Weybridge #202
                                                                                                                                       Qfcmon T*p, MI 48036
    
                                                                                                                                      ' 3aimaty 12,2(^4
                                                                                                                                       1650 Atdi 3tMM
                                                                                                                                               , PA i
                                                                                                                                       Re: Moasiainl0|) Itfi^ovai Miaisg
                                                                                                                                       I am wrltbg to t«ll yo« tfeat 1 oppead oa
                                                                                                                                       natural r
                                                 rfiK»swil to cetifiiaie umbawd ami cvea ia«was«} i&e Bash adcaiaistraddn must
                                           faAapft:fti ,iap^(«tt^mfetl aM quality of Kfc impacts of fflQuatoii^f removal aadJbfll
                                             to protect aateral issoitfces tad coauaimllics in. Ap^aiaebia,  Alternatives mast be
                                                 as waS M fsgiosally so tfest &» curaiilafivi? impact of $& de?tryct|os caus&J by
                                                                                                                                       Instesd of ailowigg
                                                                                                                                        domafntop nsaovai is
    
                                                                                                                                        ecoiimge your ateBtioa to tbese efforts,
                      1-7
    
    
                      10-4-2
                      9-2-2
                                                                                                                                       Tlttakyotl,
    MTIWVF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-927
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    John Cox
             Forwarded by David Rider/R3/iJSE?A/US OB 0-1/12/20C4  02i47 1M
             Moimta i ntopfEPA
                ft EIS on mountain top removal cossl mining
                                    Ol/Ob/2'394 10:3*
                                    AM
                                                               cc;
                                                               Sub j; eot.:  S t, tpng Uier,
             t   t T     *     r   ?-     fit-  j    *n«-n,i t-n  ELBA'S    i*t *-m   WK***1
               <   f  (   t  i  ut        r  1 ft M  ) 1     t* *?   t  l ^ fit i  i *  uit-i  it  ->
               i  / i  jtu  i i   •* f   1 i    i   i    ' -if 1* "n-r- t-E.I  ^L.,r  ^t-i  t-i
             r i-i i  t  r nt-1 r    r   •*»-     '    -nj. %n    vi"» t   /  ftf f     h 3    i-h
             tii!"1!-     l     1li   Ltri   t'1"   rit"£c,  if   '"i^lrtv*,   i  /
              f"   i   i1  i  i*^        -u  3i i*11*-*    i   ,   J1     •*  h t  Hti   "°  -*  Kl
               ih T*-  r?-,   I    ic -i    Uf u ti<  ,    n1 v *  t^1   tt-      a- il <* •>,
               tijiWi*  fn   ,  L-nr*"^"1*        gll   L I    > t- f n i i   ^nd
             ti  i^-*-* -  I     ^ r  f  ,  tn  •»' t-u *• i   ily    j e-ntt.''J. ns^   1     n
             t-  ^    ^ _  M «.  LC1   i t-  f ^ji     I  i'f  h*-1 L* * r    el-   i nlf"  ,  i
                v   i.f   i       t  i i1   I*-     i  t t   ir   f-1*1'  f      i i   ^  i     y
                 Mi*         t il  t » 4    H  i,  i   r- tj-l-i !«-ii,    •• j  7    U    -n-* i  i
               u  t  -tv  jt   L   nc   i  -i   i 3 ** " s*     •*  e  irs'   *"i   t i  i   ' i
                   t  U  *•   "*"    U ^ *" I    ,th      r
                 ;    i^  ^ T^-f'-T, EC ^ fATlj  ,
                 T   j,,   -]   i  fcl t t I  t    t  i $ &
                ,*;*-!,!           nfn    in^
                 I "•  "  »•    " ,    £ i 1    * *-"ij 1
                  SIM  i       f
                                                                     f -j      J;
    1-9
    1-5
                                                                                             1-10
                                H     s t  i f =1^ i '  ts  ^      >t i  i]3   * 'M '•KM  *   rt- i    i
                                -   i   t  i    1)       >1 tu   Ofl* I 10. l1-  ,   ^  =' I.51--.J   t
    
                               "sh*  R'f?  r •!  I" ?n   !ij   J   t  * «!  n  m it hi  ' ^ hli 41 c   ^ {  T L
                                * it  "x  lt(   t ..  n "i r Li^    ' tt> 'i   l  ,  1  t  11  tit.  1    r>    i i -  i *
                               I   ir ( , - 1 f        >     >i  i .  t  -   <  \n\f  f t*- f      i1"-  »tf   w l
                                  l   !-«ct
    
                               'n^     H  th~  Aiu-ti ,n t«  1 1'  I'* "  11  Uf t "  h    nil"-»1  )^~i
                                  i rt    r   -i^ilu'mh-.t-ii-tt-in    P n    n      ^^  v    u
                                t^t lr» *-     1  •-  mi   i—i  \   'lii ifit-  >-  aMiJi  1    1111  i
                               thl     Fit-jf*);   ^t-|  JJ. U th ?   t   in 1  "   r   1$ ("1 <-  J    TJ.^  ^
                               ^ fef^!i "fc -" t!    1  2 I LA   I nr   ^ ~>   j  i  i"  i  I   ^r"!   ' :       LI   "^
                               t     '*h!-|~s^L!   fr^^ii^   ^   n    ^'"s^tl1!   l!r^1(l       ^"^le,
                               F~  f 11^ =«! 1*3 *   t   ^ ^r^j^ji-n    1%^    l^da"?  -^   ^  c   th» t  ^
                                u>    At J ' »t     ,^u ]   e,     "ihi- 1  > -1  rt- a  i-       i" i  t     it
                               if    -ill        ti -  r>-ir\r   f*n   "Ik   in   i<^ti
                                                                                                                                                                                                          1-9
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
               A-928
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    James Crabb
                                                                                                                         RyanCrehan
                  Mr. Jolm Forrea
                  US E&virossasrri&t Proteetioa Agency
                  1650 Arch St
                  PMlmMpMa, PA 19103
    •0
                  I have lived in a slate where Mountain Top Removal occurs. The coal mdustry promises
                  flit, redaimablc land for industry and other uses. I have visited removal sites, both by
                  !<>ot and by plane. The promise of flat land is tru: and has been delivered in tremcndtus
                  quaiitity. The promise of reclaimabk is false. Only where the industry pours money into
                  tie sfte does nwteaatton appear to work. Whore the coal industry does only vrfjjrf ftetaw
                  requires, it is ofevious tfa^ reclamation is a fi^iiire mid the rocky bsrreos remaining wHl
                  only be reclaimed through time by nature.
    
                  Kentucky to beea granted ftousonds of acres of flat tarf by fee ooai corapanB*. but
                  tee has been NO influx of iadortty ar j<*». tetead tee seems to hare been a decline
                  in both.
    
                  Ths water quality ta the hollows bring filled to make flat land mua be dismal became die
                  life that should be in those streams is not there. Pollutants released by the breaking and
                  rearranging of the rocks and silts from tin dozing of the forests and soUs fill die streams
                  and grolmil walcr. Stream life and native Kentuckians suffer.
    
                  tie people lose tleir land, their water, their pride in being mountain people, and any
                  future hope of building tourist industries.
                  The rich get deter and the pex* get poorer. Rejtaeky witt t* fc* wtth -my tttfe ««e flie
                  coal industry it tlirougli.
    
                  Please stop Mouuteia Tap Removal now.
                  lames Cat*
                  ..*~A
                                                          •ml*.
                    1-9
                                                 -•fa.
    f*^->   /»
                                                                                                                                                           ia
                                                                           /f &**i..KT, -JfrfaS;
                                                                                                                      1-10
                                                                                                                      1-10
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                               A-929
                                              Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Kathy Cross
                                                                            April & Jeff Crowe
           Forwarded by David Ridet/R3/USEPA/US on 08/28/03 05:06 PM	
    
                       Kathy Cross
                                   cc:
                                   Subject:
                       08/28/03 03:30 PM
                                              (REC'D  :iz'
                                                               OBLJQ/
           
           Dear Mr. FOTKHJ,
    
           I feel that the conclusions of the Environmental Impact Statement on rnountaiatep
           removal are totaly at odds with the findings of the statement. The statement finds
           that rnountaititop removal coal mining severely damages the watersheds it albas so
           significantly. Increased runoff and siltfttton arc created, contributing to our recent
           bouts of flooding in West Virginia, The conclusion should not be to streamline the
           permitting process, it should be to stop mountaintop removal coal mining.
    
           \Sincerely
    
           Kathy Cross
    1-9
    is "type. oP rwfi/f>Q.:,.
                                                                                         1-9
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Puttie Comment Compendium
         A-930
                                          Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Kate Cunningham
                                                                                                                                                                                         Marilyne Cuonzo
         Juno E-«nafl for kate.cnjmtoghaas^iaio.com printed on Monday, December 29,2003,10:40 AM
          Prams
          To:
          Date Mon, 28 OecafiB 1020:06 -OSOO
          Subject cofftmarw on "buffer zone" rule
    Mr. John Fortes
    US EPA (3BS30)
    1650 Arch Sfmt
    PMWelpfaia, PA 19103
    
    DearSir
    Re: Proposal to eliminate required buffer •/.one.ptotecticg streams from coal mining
    
    I ma swwe Bat the US EPA has made a finding in meat yeas, tat the juariw o» esae of steam
    degradation m Kentucky is siltation. Kentucky has more "coastline," includjng streamsides and lakesides, than
    any other state in file 48 slates.
    
    Mountain top removal coal mining has caused incalculable damage to streams in West Virginia and Kentucky.
    As a native Kenruckian, 1 must protest this proposal to eliminate the mtAger protection-which V.T; now have for
    (MrstreanisiaflieEaslaBaadWesttsiicoaffieilsrfKentndty. Pushing momitaiitfops owr to ffll in hollers
    and «:c!uds stream sources is simply large scale "iKStfoding1'that has already come back to tuumt us, with
    silted up streams, buried stream somces, potable water shortages, and attendant loss of \vildlifs and human
    habitat
    
    I am extremely disappointral that the US EPA, which should be a leader for the pianet, is now considering the
    ptospectof weakening, rather than strcngtiieliing, protections for clean water and the environrnent in general.
    ~  "   .
          8606 Whipps Bead Road
          502339-1381
                                                                                            lofl
                                                                                                                                                                                                             1-9
     MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                    A-931
                                                                                                                                                                                             Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Janet Dales
                                                                                    MickDaugherty
          —- Forwarded by David rtider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/200403:32 PM	
    
    
                      "jsmnetnet@\*ahoo.
    
                      com" 
    -------
    Bongo Dave
                   — Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/06/2004 03:55 PM —
    
                              bongo dave
                                          oo:
                                           Subject: Comments on draft EIS on mounlairtop removal mining
                              Q1O2GQ04 02:36
                              PM
                   January 2, 2004
    
                   Mr. John Forren
                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   1850 Arch Straet
                   Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
                   Dear John Forren,
    
                   I am upset to learn that the Bush administration plans to oontinue to
                   let ooal companies destroy Appalaohia wtfrt mining practices that level
                   mountainteps, wipe out forests, bury streams, and destroy communities.
    
                   According to the administration's draft Environmental Impact
                   StetomentfEIS) on rnourtaintop removal coil mining, the environmental
                   effects of mountaintop removal are widaspreid, devastating, and
                   permanent. Yet the draft EIS proposes no restrictions on the size of
                   valley fills that bury streams, no flmte on the number of acres of
                   forest that can be destroyed, no protections tor imperiled wildlife, and
                   no safeguards for the communities of people {hit depend on the region's
                   natural resources for themselves and future generations.
    
                   The Bush administration's "preferred alternative" for addressing the
                   problems caused by mountaintop removal coal mining is to weaken existing
                   environmental protections. Thi$ "preferred alternative" Ignores the
                   administration's own studies detailing the devastation caused by
                   mountaintop removal coal mining, Including:
    
                   - over 1200 miles of streams have been damaged or destroyed by
                   mounteintop removal;
    
                   - forest tosses in West Virginia have the potential of directly
                   impacting as many as 244 vertebrate wildlife species;
    
                   - Without new limits on mourtatntop removal, an additional 350 square
                   miles of mountains, streams, and forests wilt be flattened and destroyed
                   by mountaWop removal mining.
    
                   In light of these facts, I urge you to consider alternatives that reduce
                   the environmental impacts of mountaintop removal. Thank you
                   for your consideration of this important issue.
    1-5
    1-10
    We need to get away from instant gratification thinking. Let's Open up
    to something new, fresh, and renewable. The energy is already
    'naturally' there begging to be used this way Let1 a give it a try.
    
    I believe if our leaders... along with tha rest of the world would quickly
    read and or listen to these books and tapes* listed below, we would have
    a chance to get thru all Ms, swiftly and with as tittle grief as
    possible and may create a tot of good friends on the way. .though I
    don't think Saddam Hussein would be motivated to change. . I believe he
    is... our motivation... to change..
       ! never read so much and so fast in my life. And I now, have learned
    the difference between Religion  and being Spiritual, and better,  r»w the
    two can compliment each other,  yet, not be the same thing
    yore importantly, why it is so imperative that we seek to find this
    difference very soon.., there are  more reasons here than we thought.  And
    it is really so easy to understand, the way these authors express these
    Universal Ideas and differences.
    
    If you are a seeker.,
    This may help you or a friend find some new angles, from these Angels.
    
    1)  MANIFEST YOUR DESTINY [and othersj Tapes or book by Wayne Dyer
    2] ' GARY ZUKAV'S book - SOUL STORIES, SEAT OF THE SOUL -Tapes or book
    3] Or you could Listen to these audio tapes first. They may be the
    fastest. THE NEW REVELATION9-BY NEIL DON ALD WALSCH along with his
    Friendship with God or Communion with God series or  CONVERSATIONS WITH
    GOD
    
    4] THE STARSEEO TRANSMISSIONS. THE THIRD MILLENIUM; RETURN OF THE BIRD
    TRIBE by KEN CAREY  (listen to the others first, then these]
    5] "* HEALING THE SOUL OF AMERICA and/or EVERYDAY GRACE by MARIANNE
    WILLIAMSON
    6} THE BOOK OF CO-CREATION THE REVELATION' our crisis is a birth-
    BARBARA MARX HUBBARD
    7) SCIENCE OF MIND - This was actually my first introduction to all of
    these books, tapes  and spouse And the real conscious beginning to my
    life's purpose  or quest  Please check out thalr small booklet,
    published monthly, tost has continued the studies started by EARNEST
    HOLMES (thisisNOT  to be confused with sciertology ... wrichwe
    know nothing about, w  we can  not advise one way or another about that
    please ..nooffersetoanyone.)
         This is also the way my life partner and I met ..  at a
    Creative Life Drum Circle Thru Reverend Or Jesse Jennings He is the
    minister of the Creative Life Spiritual Center of Houston. TX He also
    has an article monthly in this periodical And it is a very good
    read.. and is very interesting as he answers some of the most  "
    tough' questions about the spiritual practice we all go ihru in our
    everyday livss and he has a knack of making it alt funt And is welt
    worth the time checking him out  By reading the periodical called
    SCIENCE OF  MIND-change your thinking change your life, a philosophy a
    faith, a way of life. Can be ordered online at scienceofmind.com or
    call 800-247-6463 or check a local bookstore or library.
    
    8] *** www numanltie»tearn.com or hurnarttysteam com - or look up Neil
    Donald Walsch, which you can check this out now And actually help now.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                           A-933
                                                                  Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                    9] THE LAST HOURS OF ANCIENT SUNLIGHT- THOM HARTMAN - Rachel my
                   spouse, read this, and recommends ft I have not read it yet Though she
                   had introduced me to all the others., must be good. She has recommended
                   that I Include It here
                   10] Carolyn My«s -Listen to anything by her,  Le ENERGY ANATOMY,
                   ANATOMY OF THE SPIRIT. SACRED CONTRACTS; or 'YOUR PRIMAL NATURE'
                   11]*** The DEAD SEA SCROLLS by GREGG BRADEN
                   12] 'JUMP TIME' by Jean Houston Ph.D.
                   13] 'YOUR PRIMAL NATURE' by CAROLYN MYSS
                    We need to become more a more 'all inclusive'... and less
                   'separatists' as a society  maybe I am wrong. . I have been
                   before., though I personally, at this time.. feel..
                     Instead of just saying 'God Bless America"  We need to think a little
                   deeper and perhaps say" GOO BLESS US ALL'   Or "GOD BLESS OUR WORLD or
                   God Bless our Earth'    Or "GOD BLESS OUR UNIVERSE  l.
                   Otherwise our image comes through as if are coming from a separatists
                   fear base [as opposed to a love base), as if there is not enough
                   GOD/LOVE TO GO AROUND to bless., everyone   let alone a whole other
                   country
                     IT MUST SEEM LIKE A NEGATIVE REMARK TO EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS NOT
                   INCLUDED IN THIS "God Blew America"   'PRIVATE CLUB1
                   We need to start accentuating the things we all have in
                   common,..starting with tie 'EARTH   . Though that would seem
                   logical  yet it also seems that we need a constant reminder of
                   this .perhaps w« could Fly a FRESH NEW FLAG 'under' each countries
                   flag. And the only requirement to fly this fteg... would be   you have to
                   belong to the Earth  Or even more inclusive . the universe
                   The add-on flag could simply have a picture of the EARTH on it Perhaps
                   with the word 'ONE' or "We are all one* .or' We're all in this
                   together"   something more all inclusive  across Hie front of it, as a
                   constant reminder that all  what'one  does  now .affects us
                   all  especially now that the world seems   much 'smaller' these days
                   'We are.,  now.  all in the same- boaf  Perhaps even add an image of a
                   boat to the flag to help remind us to.." Let's not rock if as the
                   saying  goes Better yet let's start fixing the  holes we have put in
                   it  and start treating each other the way we would lite to be
                   treated and we all will  have much more fun sailing with a much
                   smoother ride, with less tension.  Then we can all be rested and prepared
                   to work together and get this place back to the more original plan the
                   creator had probably intended for us and the Earth
                   The sale of this flag could help repair the earth and each other From
                   the damage we ALL did.
                   Please read Healing the soul of America and  listen to Neale Donald
                   Walsch- They can be checked out from the library These tapes seem to be
                   saying  everything we all have been trying to say anyhow, but without
                   knowing how to put the words together, especially without all the dogma
                   involved. And they have the potential to help us  help others  . if, or
                   when, they ask for help and you will know more what to say... or some
                   things to refer seekers to  Peopleknowingofthesemodalties... CANsave
                   our world, as we now know it
                   Most of all,. these authors admit that these messages are not the only
                   way. "Just another way"
                   And even better  not everyone needs to even have read all of these to
                   make a difference in the collective conscious of the planet It has been
                   discovered that ft only takes 10% of a population to effect a knowing in
                   the rest [The hundredth monkey effect] or read/listen to the LOST DEAD
                           SEA SCROLLS for more info on this.
                           All in all, we must remember that
                            THE EARTH DOES NOT BELONG TO US  .WE BELONG TO THE EARTH. Chief
                           Seattle.
                           And  Humans are not the only ones on the Earth  we just act like it.
    
                           These two sayings,  simply put.. .seem to help us bring things back to
                           perspective swiftly.
                           Please w^tch the new Dennis Kucinch film, about how eleciabte he is and
                           how he talks about being a long shot., I just did. And I cried
                            ..deeply... We do need a long-shot., it may be the only thing that can
                           get us back on track .being thte fir off.
                           Also I noticed that Marianne Williamson, Neil Donald Watson and Ed Asner
                           and many many others are now endorsing DJ [Dennis John] ...Ed Asner,
                           ooinoidently, is one of the readers for the CONVERSATION WITH GOD SERIES
                           written by Neil Donald Walsch. Please don't think that Nells book and
                           tapes are full of dogma they are more like common sense, .actually going
                           thru Ns material, is mar© Hk© re-membsfing.  than learning anything
                           knew. This Is a eoltaetion of things we already know,.. but somehow have
                           forgotten, .yet oddly as we re-dtscovec this information  .we feel, very
                           profound, while re-connecting with all this
                            They are like no other book or {apes that I have ever read or heard
                           And this series along with Marianne Williamsons, Carolyn Myss, Gary
                           Zukav and Wayne Dyer may have the potential for so much healing, on such
                           a grand scate, for everyone...  that makes these  best sellers. Arid must
                           reads...why tiiey dont use these in schools is almost ridicules...it has
                           the potential to avert grtef ..almost immediately. And I dont consider
                           it any more religious than teaching a psychology class
                            It is not the only way. just another way.
                           Good Happens
                           Love Shalt Prevail
                           Sincerely,
    
                           bongo dave
                           8980 Steams Rd
                           Qtmsted Fairs, OH 44138
                           USA
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-934
    Section A  - Citizens
    

    -------
    Eric Davis
                                                                                                    William Dawson
                                                          REC'D  UOV 1 82U9
    
                                                                          12 November 2003
            Mr, John Fonren
            U.S. EPA (3EA30)
            1650 Arch St.
            Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
            Dear Mr. Forren,
            I was disappointed with the DEIS. It seems that the public's resources such as clean
            water, headwater streams, and animals are not adequately compensated by the coal
            companies. The coal companies are allowed to profit at the public's toss of trust
            resources. Wliat wejieed- are stronger laws protecting trust resources, not weaker ones.  1
            understand America hss a security interest in energy; however, the coite are unfairly
            distributed to Appalachia.
    
            Mountaintop-removal mining and valley fifls are devastating the Appalachian
            environment and its unique culture. These practices bury important headwater steams,
            destroy biologically rich forest ecosystems, damage drinking-water sources used by
            millions of people, cause  frequent and severe flooding, and wreck the quality of life in
            mountain communities.
    
            I do not support Alternative 1,2, or 3 as described k the draft BtS report. None of these
            options wjD protect Appalachian forests, water, or communities, fa particular, I oppose
            the proposal to eliminate  the stream buffer-zone rule that prohibits mining activity within
            100 feet of streams. This rule should be strictly enforced for valley fiBs and in all other
            cases. The coal industry  must be regulated, and their take of pubic resources must be
            where the regulation begins.
    
            Leveling mountains and burying streams is wrong and must stop.
    
            Sincerely,
             J.Eric Davis Jr.
    10-8-3
    1-9
    1-5
                                    - Forwotded by Davkl&der/WUSBPA/US on 01/09/2004 02:51 PM
    
                                             wilHam dawsofj
                                             < redsprucerolfittg    To:    R5 Mounta.intop@EPA
                                             @ whoo.corn >        cc:
                                                           Subject: Comments on draft EIS on mountaintop removal mining
                                             01/06/200403^3
                                             AM
    January 6, 2004
    
    Mr. John Forren
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    165Q Arch Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19KB
    
    Dear John Forren,,
    
    i am & resident of appoiachia and Ive the land where i live, it is foil
    of natural richness and « such has been exploited for too long, at its
    own expense, and also that of the country, i real! yd&nt know if it is
    worth tellmg you how di$gu$tmg the mouiatritop removal *s from an
    ecological and aesthetic s&tdpomt i am convinced nobody m the bush
    admmislrboii knows anything about science at all, conveniently
    di&rnisifig the natural reality of cause and effect "when their plans are
    at slake, do you all case about your dbildre? J care about mine and want
    them to Eve in a clean And environmentally safe world, as jwnericans we
    haw the most natut&fy beautiful, diverse and fertile land in the
    world, yet we tmke it for granted and wen with scorn, this saddens  me
    ftom fin administration so intent on "making us safe" from all kinds of
    human agencies, but then ignoring or dishonestly denying die dangers
    posed from environmental contamination, all our public water should be
    safe at least |x> eat the fish  from,, but dumping' exessive amounts of mine
    spoil into the headwaters of our major rivers would certainly not make
    me feel safe eating fish downstream, i feel like i*m wasting my time
    with this because your administration has yet to demonstrate concern for
    out" natural heritage or its future, sad^ Tery sad, dont pkn on getting
    my vote, william dawson, marlinto,, wv,
    
    I arn upset to learn that the Bush administration pkns to continue  to
    let coal companies destroy AppaJachk with mining practices that level
    mountain top s, wipe out forests, bury streams, and destroy communities,
    
    According to the adm tmstfation's dmft Environmental Impact
    Statement(EIS) on mountamtop removal coal mining, the environmental
    effects of mpimtaititop removal are widespread, devastating, and
    permanent Yet the daft EIS proposes no restrictions on the si&e oi
    valley fills thai bury streams, no limits on the number of acres of
                                                                                                       1-9
                                                                                                                                                                                                 1-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
               A-935
                                                                                                                                                                                          Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                           Elmer & Angela Dobson
               forest, that can be destroyed, no protections for imperiled wildlife, and
               no safeguards for the communities of people that depend on tbe region's
               i'iatuna1 resources for themselves «rsd fi.iti.irt generations,
    
    
               The Bush administration's "preferred alternative" for addressing the
               problems caused by mountamtop removal coal mining is to weaken existing
               environmental protections, This "preferred ftltematih?e" ignores the
               administration's own studies detailing the devastation caused by
               mounfeuntop removal coal mkwng, including:
    
    
               - over 1200 miles of streams have been damaged or destroyed by
               motintamtDp removal;
    
    
               - forest losses in West Virginia haw the potential of directly
               impacting as many as 244 vertebrate wildlife species;
    
    
               - Without new limits cm inounUuntop rm>oval, aii ia.ddit.iom! 350 square
               miles of motmtams, streams, and forests will be Battened and destroyed
               by mountain top removal mining,
    
    
               In Ijghf of these facts, 1 urge you to consider alternatives that reduce
               the environmental impacts of mountatntop removal. Thank you
               for your consideration ot this important  issue,
    
    
               Sincerely,
               tie. 1 box 34$a
               Mftrltnton, WV 24954
               USA
    1-5
     Hmer and Angela Dobson                                  .    '™*=C D  S£P 1 5 2
     2335 Clear Creek Road
     Hazard, KY 41701
     608-251-3710
    
     John Porren
     U.S. EPA (3ES30)
     I860 Arch Street                                                     '    •
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
     Dear Mr. Forren
           This letter is the  absolute truth about mountain lop removal mining and valley fills.
     You may  eren say that this letter is a true environmental impact statement  without the
     tainting of special interest,  near sighted, bottom line only, non-Appalachia individuals,
     companies, politicians, and energy wasters.
           Sir, what we are about to  tell you is the truth, and you sir are invited to come and
     visit Appalachia at anytime  to see for yourself. He understand that you and your  staff
     probably live in a concrete jungle and that you are obviously lacking in the area  of
     common sense and the basic knowledge  thai our mountains, streams, limber, and other
     natural resources are here for us to use not to waste and destroy. Every lime you turn on
     a light or any other item which consumes electricity  remember  your electric bill  only
     shows a small part  of the actual  cost. le live here and see the cost everyday. Ie live
     with land that wont grow a  weed, and water that is too foul and poison for anything to
     drink much less live in. Anyone who would even consider weakening the current regulations
     which are already too weak, must have a pure hatred for their children and grandchildren.
     The great rainforests of  the earth are disappearing at an alarming rat* and every time we
     do so much damage to the land  that it wont even grow a tree, we do damage to the
     environment  that our grandchildren will live in. You and everyone involved  are betting that
     there is enough coal to produce  electricity to power the air purifiers that will be  needed  to
     clean the air of the world after the trees are gone, that kind of sense does that  make?
           Do you know that if someone went to Philadelphia and dumped selenium into your
     water ways, they would be arrested, have to pay huge fines and  maybe even face jail time,
     Maybe releasing poisons such as  selenium into any waterway, (Waterway: any place where       5-5-2
     water naturally runs, or  collects two or more days a  year.) A million dollars a day fine for
     every day it is not cleaned up. Are you people so ignorant that you don't realize that
     aquatic life is a vital part of the balance of nature? How much Aquatic life has already
     been destroyed? 2000 miles  of streams sounds like a  lot to us!
           le believe that God created a special place in  Hell for those of you «ho willingly do
     damage and destruction  to his creations. Myself and almost everyone I know are opposed
     to mountain  top removal  mining operations and extremely opposed to the destructive,           _
     environmentally murderous, total disregard for the earth, practice of valley fills. It is         1 ~?
     disgusting and makes us mad as hell that we fund scientific studies  and then ignore them
     when they find that leveling mountains and burying streams must be stopped. 1 believe
    •thai  a very large law suit may be to order.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                         A-936
                                                                           Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                              B. Dominey
              Any law, rule,  or regulation lhat allows mining activities of any type within 100 feel
        of any stream or waterway above or below ground is wrong, dangerous lo all life Forms
        downstream, and we are to no end opposed.  How many scientific studies must be done
        before our government realizes the widespread and irreversible damage the coal industry is
        doing and our elected officials are continuing lo allow lo happen to the state of KY, and all
        of Appalaehia.
              The E.I.S. contains alternatives f 1, |2, and |3, These alternatives are a bad joke.
        They are a direct threat lo our homeland and each and every person who lives  here.
              If you wrong people, the environment, or the wildlife, it will  eventually  come back lo
        you.  How much longer do you think you can  ignore scientific and other evidence of the
        severe harm of mountain top removal, valley filling and other unethical mining  practices,
        You are ignoring the  public demand and basic American right lo have clean water to drink
        and use in our daily life, fe all should have  a right to a clean, healthy environment. We
        should have a right to live in communities where our homes are not shaken apart by the
        hands of other men. We should be safe from  companies who have no regard for  anything
        but the bottom line.
                                                              Thank You,
                                                        Elmer 4 Angela Dobson
    5-7-1
    1-5
                                                                                                                                           idc-m Oo  ftu.  -nffir Yoo CM 3
                                                                                                                                                   
    -------
    Gail Douglas
                                                                                                                                                           Linda Downs
                         (mm.
    At
    dc
    M
    fyyrtf -  Ail
                                                       AW
                                                       £Jw
                                                        epffenS
                           wildlih
                                                        REC'D DEC 2 9
                                                                                      1-10
    -5
                              a
                                                                                                           The USSSjousr God i«8l be
                                                                                                                                                 August 8,2003
                                                                                                                                                                                         AUS 7
                             Mr. lota Fotren
                             U, S. EPA (3EA30)
                             1650 Arch Street
                             Philadelphia, PA 19103
                             Dear Mr. Porren:
    
                                   I would like to share my opinion with you in regards to Mountain Top Mining and Valley   2-3
                             Fill s in Appalachia. 1 believe F.nvironmental groups are pushing their proposals to the extreme A
                             the cost of thousands of jobs. You can go so far with regulations that Companies cannot afford  1 1 _9 0
                             to stay in business" for the expense of trying to meet wch strict guidelines.
    
                                    The economy is tetrible right now and th® nations unemployment rate is at 6,2%. We can  I i  in
                             mine the coal and Mow the torrent regulations that protect our air and water. The land is        |
                             restored back to its natural beauty.
    
                                   I think one of the biggest problems in our area is sewage that gets into our streams and
                             rivers. The area I live is only iix (6) mites outside of Harian, Ky. and "city water" is not available.
                             The well water is so bad, that filtering systems can't handle the iron and sulfur, I would like to
                             see the Environmental groups look at some of these serious problems and not look at ways to
                             force the Coal Industry out of business with stricter regulations,
    
                                          The Coal Industry has supported me now for 25 years. I was able to raise my son
                             as a single parent.  I appreciate the coal miners who work very hard.  For most of the miners, coal
                             mining is and has been their life. Please support the Coal Industry in this very important matter.
                                                                                                                                                                  Sincerely,
                                                                                                                                                                 Linda C. Downs
                                                                                                                                                                 P. O. Box 175
                                                                                                                                                                 Putney, Ky. 40865
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                      A-938
                                                                                              Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Waneta Dressier
             ,
          '
                      7-
                   t^i  ^tc
    a
            -<
          I
                S^^tr^ftio .  X^i
      ?2UA-
       —   /•  j
      ,t-ZL/  ^^
    
    
    <7
                                                        "REC'D  SEP 2 9
                                                            4-9
                                                   f-.*Jr:jf»  T*  &:>
                                                               ff
                                                                              1-9
                                                                tJ
                                                          "if*/,
                                                                             10-6-2
                                                                                                                     O•
                                                                                                       ^   j>          -.      -L
                                                                                                       ^I'Li^AjT^K^stc?. , r'£2 Jsii
                                                                                                                                                                      10-6-2
    
                                                                                                                     -^^       .
    
                                                                                                                  &xf.-..A&t''*-* ~f-"k
                                                                                                        ,4^1
                                                                                                        I
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                        A-939
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Phoebe Driscoll
                                                                                             Morris Dunlop
                                              PHQIBI A. DJUSCOIX
                                                 720 Swcdesford Road
                                              Ambiet, Fefcasfbmala 1S002
                                                    (215)69*9648
                                                  Rda (215) ©9-7»0;
                          - Forwarded by David Ritter/R3AJ8EPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:52 PM —
    
                                     Mordunlop@aol.eorn
                                                  To:   R3 Mourtaiiiop@EPA
                                     12QQ72DQ312:46    oc:
                                     PM            Subject: ..foratt. Mr John Forren,, please.
                     r
                                                             .BEC'D
                      o    oVi f>
    
                     US   (
    
                                     «f>e
    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                  BillDwyer
                streams.
    
                tn rny understanding Wowing of? mountain tops is a very considerable
                achievement, drying streams Is a dangerous pasttime as they have
                usually predetermined their flow regeirm and pathways and will quest to
                have them returned with mudslides and the like oceurtng as they
                re-establish their powerful w$ys,
    
                I  will be interested in any comments.
    
                Yours Sincerely,
    
                Morris Duntop,
    1-9
                                                                                                              REC'DAU811»3
                                                                                                                                               S/v
                                                                                                          1-8
                                                                                                                                                                             1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                           A-941
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                oar   J^ivtr*   j.  Straws   in
                          £ff  -t^o
                                                                                                      5-7-2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Craig Edgerton
                                                                                                                                                                 , 2003
    
                                                                                                                                                      Mr. John P&rsett
                                                                                                                                                      Pmj-ret MaiMget
                                                                                                                                                      US, Environmental Ptotecfton Agcijcy (3HA30)
                                                                                                                                                      1650 Aich Stueet
                                                                                                                                                                , PA 19103
                                                                                                                                                      Dear Sit:
    
                                                                                                                                                      "The federal govetrtrnmt — with Rarfmbijarts m ramtro! of the Whit** Housn, Coitgmas and tlie jt«lidary -- fes
                                                                                                                                                      Ismidied ihe !&rge$t roHl»^k o£ ratvitoiiffieiit^ latp ever. The Bush administration seen^ cteietmined to undo
                                                                                                                                                      mucfe of the good done since Earth Day 1970, when 20 mflEon Atnetieam defended tfie pkn^t m the biggest
                                                                                                                                                      mass demons tmrioii m, US, hastor^.".  "BtBh's 'Healthy Forests" initiative Kkesrae suffers fiom Oiwdfian
                                                                                                                                                      doublespeak, fdHng VSfestem forest* to saw tbsttt Disgyis-ed ss a me«s«rfi for airbing un!4fit et, die plait invites
                                                                                                                                                      logging cotnpanirs to cut heatti^ UT.CS in nasJon»l forests wfijte irdiidng public oversight'*.' Mow the Btish
                                                                                                                                                      tfdministrafcion wants totmkfrit easier ftjt (SxtlmiiwigcoitipatMs to Mast fee tops off mountains and ckimp
                                                                                                                                                      tlie icKts pf jegv^taig «^iste into ttie v^llevs sitd sttesunss tselow  HiyA1 weH I osai tecill a 0aH iTjiiting1 opeatioo
                                                                                                                                                      being aliowed to tip KK! strip Jiete in  Colorado 4! the •wiiiic promising to protect the envitonffleat Now it's  a
                                                                                                                                                      Superfimd site. Thanks, but- no thanks.
    
                                                                                                                                                      According to fee draft BIS, tibe eovironrn^tla! effects of motint^ntop rei'n0val ace widespread, dei?astating and
                                                                                                                                                      pemt^ient Yet liie draft BIS pKJptvse* 110 twtiieSiom on the siasr- of wAe^ Mis tliat tMicy sltesms, rio limits cm
                                                                                                                                                      the iiumbeE of acas- of f«»t that cm be destroyed, no protections for imperiled wildlife atid no safeguaeds
                                                                                                                                                      fo« the ojrnmunities that depend on the ie|^etfi's mtustt t«sou»3e* for tlieinselvss itnd ftitme gciie;fiitk>m,
                                                                                                                                                      Instead, theBinh ^naiaistmtioR's "ptefeteed altetoative" fot adtl.i«ssmg Ac eitoriiiK*iB problems closed by
                                                                                                                                                      mountaiutop tsmowd iuin.tn]g igjiotfts th^ asdnunistsitkHi's OTSTI studies and pix>posffi weakening esis ring
                                                                                                                                                      ciKviionniT-n-tsiI iKDtectiDUS and sittowiiig ii'K>i,intain.t^j teai'K.waJ siK.1 associated vt^ley fills to continue al an
                                            you to.aineaid the EPA's dbafi oiviitMtincntal intact statement 30 as to limit the effects of
                                            aiiacBp r ernowl mining, I fiisi it unconscionable tJhat the Bush administmtion ptam to contttiue
                               to tef CM! corr^aiiics clrsttny .Appria^a with mining prastie«ts that lewfl m(wmMintt>p», wipe out forests^ bury
                               sfteams and destroy comnfia'uties,
    
                               TbeBuisrh adrmnisttaticaim«st coesktet altctnativo th^t raxiucc the enviE0nmmt#i in^^asts of motsritaiiitop
                               reitiGvsl aitd then inqdemeiit meiasutes to ptoiect ngtuiat resources and comrrnffuties in AppalaAia, such as
                               cestrioaam on the six^ of smiley fills to rectee'tihe dcstntcttcm of su'earns^ for-^stej %*ikOife and comcnttnitirs, 1
                                       to i
                                            iediati^y amend the draft EIS accordingly.
                                                                                                                                                      Sincere^;
                               854 W<^t Battfement
                                      e CO 81635
                                                                                                                                                      (970)285-9825
                                                                                                                                                                             -ay, II206
                                                                                                                                                                    Wat era Nature, GLENN SCHEKER / Sal
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-942
    Section A  - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                              Edgar Edinger
             (Embedded image moved to file-; pJc295l0.jpg)
           - ...... Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 11:18 AM -—
                 Craig Edgerton
                 
       To:  R3 Mountaintop@EPA
      cc:
    Subject; consider alternatives that reduce the etmronmental impacts
    
        enclosed)
                 12/31/200301:56
                 PM
           The Bush administration must consider alternatives that reduce the
           environmental impacts of movmtgmtop removal and then implement measures
           to protect natural resources and communities in Appatachta(See at&ched
           tiler Doc2.doc)
                              1-5
                                                                    .^/&***"
                                                                    J^A^^^^"
                                                                                                  tM^tfl^/tJL^
                                                                                                                      1-9
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                       A-943
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    lierEdinger
                                                                                      Dave Edwards
                                                                                           1-9
                                                                                           1-10
                                               /^iJs  •^AMjtM &&JJAA
                 	Fora/acded by David Ridet/R3/USEPA/ US on 01/20/2004 0'9:08 AM -—
    
                             "bongod a ve@cox. ne
                             t" 
    -------
              We must start appealing to the corporation's conscious, fot doing the tight thing and give
              recognition... and give our business to ihe ones thM ace improving and caraig and are
              greening up. We could start some kind of honoring system, to help recognise the ones we
              wish to buy from of invest in. And this may help get the attention of the stockholders to
              get more involved and caring.. .This in itself would actually help the CEO's of these
              companies do what they invariably wish to see get done, but are afraid to being up to there
              seniors for the fear effacing fired....Or worse...  ridiculed  and labeled as a "softy" or "Tree
              Hugger5'.
    
               Perhaps a lot of this got out of control because of our basic egps for miany vears have been
              bred with teat. It is kind of like an on stage feedback ...where everyone is afraid to turn
              down the volume. What will happen if no one turns gets up to adjust it? I have never seen
              any cssc where anyone would let feedback go for. more than one or two seconds Co find Out
              Yet how long have we been letting it build up?
    
               No one ever knows, what will happen, because it is corrected...Mid quickly!  Though
              everyone FEELS that if it does not get attention, soon... it can't be good... and will obviously
              be very uncomfortable, until it. burns out... blows up...or simply breaks down. Though, While
              everything is at a high fevered SQUEAL-!!!... Everyone starts to cover there ears and run! No
              one can prosper or even think beneficially in this feedback xone. Do you alsd feel we need to
              turn it down... and get it all back under control,., where it will be more comfortable, for
              everyone? Then we can all get back to the fun stuff ...dancing, building, living and loving it
              all ...and each othec.
    
              Also we may need to be caretul promoting Hydrogen as an energy source. I  recently heard
              on  a public radio talk show...the daily expert guest, telling people that hydrogen may be as
              bad as anything else that reduces ogone. And that no matter how much care is taken in
              transferring and transporting, "some hydrogen  will leak out" just as all gases leak even
              when " they" say "they won't". And what about the possibility that we could be creating
              even more dangerous terrorist targets (hydrogen plants] along with the nuclear plants we
              don't know what to do with... and or even how to fix nuclear plants, as they are starting to
              find that borax is now eating holes thru these reactors, also now I see they are saying some
              of the parts won't with stand the pressures they thought it would. [I am afraid to look into
              tins one]. And that the human maintenance has not been checking for these  leaks, like they
              said they would do, of have supposedly been doing. Along with what..inadvertently,
              possibly, creating more hydrogen bom.
    
              Can't we just f:or  a while concentrate on less disastrous alternative sources such as wave,
              wind, mid sobt energy? Soon  as hydrogen  is accepted, corporate giants may get in and ruin
              it, by trying to squeeze that, last dmighty dollar  out, by reducing safety and environmental
              concerns...we have that already, with reactors...Jt is not working... we still don't know what
              to do with the waste...  or how to protect them  from evil  doers...or how to maintain them
              properly or maybe even how to fix them. And no one seemed to have visualised fiiat booix
              would form  in then! and start eat ing holes through the metal, in places hard  to reach,
                       and repair. And we trusted them to kn0*5? what they were doing by testing these pttts...which
                       now may becoming another nightmare. l%ey say that the person going into them to foe them
                       will be exposed to over a years wotth of radiation, Who ya gonna call?
    
                       We need to getaway from instant gratification thinking. Let's Open up to something new,
                       fresh, and renewable, The energy is already 'naturally' there begging to be used this way.
                       Let's give it a fry.
    
                       I believe if our leaders... along with the rest of the world would quickly read and or listen to
                       these books aid tapes* listed below, we would have a chance to get thru all this, swiftly and
                       with as little grief as possible and may create a lot of good friends on the way...though I
                       don't think Saddam Hussein would be motivated  to change... 1 brlicvr he is... our
                       motivation... to change... ! never read so much and so fast in my life- And I now, have
                       learned the difference between Religion and being Spiritual, and better... how the
                       two can compliment each other, yet, not be the same thing. Mote importantly, why it is so
                       imperative thai we seek to find this difference very soon.. .there yre. more reasons here than
                       we thought And it is really so easy to understand, the way these authors express these
                       Universal Ideas and differences.
    
                       Tf you are a seeker...
                       This may help you find some new angles, from these Angels,
    
                       1]  MANIFEST YOUR DESTINY (and others] Tapes or book by Wayne Dyer
                       2]  * GARY ZUICAV'S book - SOUL STORIES, SEAT OF THE SOUL -Tapes or book
                       3]  Or you could Listen to these  audio tapes first  They may be the fastest *THE NEW
                       REVELAT1ONS-BY NEE, DONALD WALSCH along-with his Friendship with God or
                       Communion with God series or  CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD
                       4]  THE, STARSEED TRANSMISSIONS; THE THIRD MTLLENIUM; RETURN OF
                       THE BIRD TRIBE by KEN CAREY  [listen to  the others first, then these]
                       5]  *** HEALING THE SOUL OF AMERICA  and/or EVERYDAY GRACE by
                       MARIANNE WILLIAMSON
                       6] THE BOOK OF CO-CREATION THE REVELATION' our crisis is a birth-
                       BARBARA MARX HUBB ARD
                       7] SCIENCE OF MIND — T1iis was actualy my  fiat introduction to all of these books,
                       tapes... and spouse. And the re#l conscious beginning to my life's purpose or quest. Please
                       check out their small booklet, published monthly, that has continued the studies started by
                       EARNEST HOLMES (this is NOT to be confused with Scientology ... which we know
                       nothing about, so we can not advise one  way or another about, that, please ...no offense to
                       aiwone.) This is also the way my life partner and  I met ... at a Creative Life Drum Citcle
                       Thru Reverend Df. Jesse Jennings He is the minister of the Creative Life Spiritual Center ol
                       Houston. T3C He also has an article monthly in this periodical. And it is a very good
                       read... and is very inte resting as he answers some of the most  "  tough" questions about the
                       ^>ititual  practice we all go thru in out everyday li\*es and he has a knack of making it all  fun!
                       And is well worth the time checking him out. By reading the periodical called SCIENCE OF
    MTM/VF Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
    A-945
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
              jVUND-chafige your thinking change youc life; a philosophy, a faith, a way of life. Can be
              ocdeced online at scienceofmind.com or call 800-247-6463 oc check a local bookstore or
              library,
              8] -**j* www,humanitiestpam.com or humanitysteam.com - or look up Neil
              Donald Walsch* which you can check this out now. And actually Help now.
                9] THE LAST HOURS OF ANCIENT SUNLIGHT- THOM HARTMAN -Rachel my
              spouse, read this, and recommends it I haw not read it yet Though she
              had introduced me to all the others., .must be good. She has recommended
              that I include it heir,
              10] Carolyn Myss -Listen to anything by her,  i.e. ENERGY ANATOMY,
              ANATOMY OF THE SPIRIT, SACRED CONTRACTS; or TOUR PRIMAL NATURE*
              11]*** Tlie DEAD SEA SCROLLS by GREGG BRAD EN
              12]  'JUMP TIME* by Jean Houston*Ph,D.
              13} TOUR PRIMAL NATURE' by CAROLYN MYSS
                We need to become  more a more 'all inclusive5,,, and less
              'separatists' as a society..,  maybe I am wrong... I have been
              before...though 1 personally, at this time... feel...
              ..Instead of just saying "God Bless America". We need to think a little
              deeper and perhaps say" GOD BLESS US ALL".., Or ECGOD BLESS  OUR WORLD or
              God Bless our Earth"	Oc "GOD BLESS OUR UNIVERSE...".
              Otherwise our image comes through as if are coming from a separatists
              fear base [as opposed to a lave base].,,as if there is not enough
              GOD/LOVE TO GO AROUND to bfess... everyone... let alone a whole other
              country.
              ..IT MUST SEEM LIKE A NEGATIVE REMARK TO EVERYONE ELSE WIG IS
              NOT
              INCLUDED IN THIS "God Bless America".., 'PRIVATE CLUB'. We need to start-
              accentuating the things we all have in  common...starting with die "EARTll3..... Though that
              would seem logical...yet,,It also seems that we need a constant reminder of this...perhaps we
              could fly a !*RESII NEW FLAG funder* each countries flag. And the only requirement to fly
              this flag,.. would be... you have to belong to the Earth,.,, Or even more inclusive.. .the
              universe... The add-on flag could simply have a picture of die EARTH on it. Perhaps
              with the word *ONE* or We are all one...or We're all in this together...something more all
              inclusive...across the front ot it, as a constant reminder that all., .what 'one*
              does...now,,, a Erects us all...especially now that the world seems,., much 'smaller3 these days, *
              We are... now.,, all... in the same boat1." Let's not rock if" as the saying goes. Better yet lets
              start fixing the holes we have put in it...and  start treating each other the way we would like to.
              be treated,,,and we all will have much more fun sailing "with a much smoother ride^ with less
              tension, then we can all be rested and prepared lo wotk together when the storms rise.
              The sale of this flag could help repair the earth and each other.  From the damage we ALL
              did. Please read Healing the so til of America and listen to Nestle Donald Walsch- They can
              be ch^ckfd out from ths library. These tapes se^m to be saytng everything we all have been
              trying to say anyhow, but without knowing  how to put the words together, especially
              without all the dogma involved. And they have the potential to help us... help others. ..if, or
                      when, they ask for help, and you will know mote what to sty.. .or some things to refer
                      seekers to.. People knowing of these madaities.,, CAN save our world, as we now know it
                      Most of all.,. these authors admit that, these messages are not the only way. .."just another
                      way**. And even better,..not everyone needs to e\*cn hai't read all of these to make t
                      deference in the collective conscious of the planet It has been discovered that it only takes
                      10% of a population to effect a knowing in the rest. [The hundredth monkey effect] ot
                      read/listen to the LOST DEAD SEA SCROLLS for mote info on this.
                      All in all, we must cemembet that TOE EARTH DOES NOT BELONG TO US...WE
                      BELONG TO THE EARTH. Chief Seattle.  And ...Humans are not the only ones on the
                      E&cth ...we just act like it
    
                      These two sayings,,, simply put ...seem to help as bring things back to perspective swiftly.
                      Also 1 noticed that Marianne Williamson, Neil Donald Walseh and Ed Asner arid many
                      many others are now endorsing DJ {Dennis John] ...Ed Asner, coincidently, is  one of the
                      readers for the CONVERSATION WITH GOD SERIES written by Neil Donald WaiscH.
                      Please don't think that Neds book and tapes arc lull ot dogma they are more like common
                      sense,..actually going thru his material, is more like ce™membering» than learning anything
                      knew. Tlits is a collection of thing? we ^Itrssdy know...  bur somehow have forgotten.,,yet
                      oddly as we re-discover this information...we feel, Tety profound, while te-connecting with
                      all  this.  They art likf. no other book of topes that T have ever read or heard-  And this scries
                      along with Marianne Williamsons, Carolyn Myss, Gary Zukav and Wayne Dyer may haw the
                      potential for so much healing* on such * grand scales foe everyone,., that makes these best
                      sellers. And must reads,.,why they dofft use these in schools is almost ridicule s...it has
                      the potential to  avect grie£ ...almost ImtnediRtely. And 1 don't consider it any more religious
                      than teaching a psychology class. It is not the only way ...just another way.
                       Good Happens
                       Love Shall Prevail
                       dave edwards
                       6990 steams coad
                       olmsted fells, OH 44138
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-946
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Robert Eggerling
                                                                                    Susan Eggert
                                                                                                            Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/TJS on 0.1/06/2004 lOtC-7  AM  ——
                         29 (MM
                         MetStcraPABSJ
                                                                                                            Maun ta i nt op6 EFA
                                                                                                              January 2004
                                     OL-5 •  S-PA
                                BEC'D DEC 3 B 2i^   ^
                                                                         1-9
                   Attached are my cam-M-nts  regarding th& Draft EIS em mountain top coal
                   mining
                   and valley £ill&,   I have worked it; the field of all-earn ecology far the
                   last 15 years/ including  12  years of conducting research (organic matter
                   cycl ing arc: Macro i rix^srt^fora-te production J  i n h-fe-a-clwater  stre^m^ of the:
                   southern Appalachian Mountains .
    
                   1 am glad that this E1B was  ee-irpleted. However, tlse..r«s are seme serious
                   problemus cone-erring th& scientific basis of statements  presented  in the
                   Draft SIS,  I ant especially  concerned abo«t the use of  qualifying words
                   stich as "potential" and "niay affecc" throughout the EIS,  especially in
                   light of the overwhelming scientific evidenoe presented in the EIS
                   showj ng
                   the negative de-was t ream effects of MTH/'VF.  I sincerely hope  that the
                   authors of the Draft EIS  consider ?ay attached coiaff-ents  and r^ake the
                   appropriate changes to better reflect the scientific data gathered to
                   date .
                                                                                                             Susan L . Eggert ^  Ph.D.
                                                                                                             Department of Entomology
                                                                                                             Utiiversity of Georgia
                                                                                                             Athena, GA 3060.':
                                                                                                             (706) b 42-7860
                                                                                                             eggeiTiiaS spare .ecology- ug^ . e
                                                                                                             (See attached file: HTM vrc
                                                                                                                                                                                    5-6-4
                                                                                                                                                                                    3-3
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-947
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
       Draft EIS MTM/VP comnente bv S.L. Eggert:
    
       The purpose of this Draft EIS is to "evaluate options for improving agency programs under the
       Clean Water Act (CWA). Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and the
       Endangered Species Act (EKA) that will contribute to reducing the adverse environmental
       impacts of mountaintop mining operations and excess spoil valley fills (MTM/VF) in
       Appalachia." Unfortunately, the preferred alternative focuses more on agency and mining
       company efficiency rather than reducing advene environmental impacts of MTM/VF. The
       following items must  be addressed in the final draft of the EIS:
    
       a. Selenium contamination of waters draining MTM/VF sites has repeatedly violated provisions
       of the Clean Water Act and US EPA's Sate Drinking Standards (66 violations).  No solution to
       this environmental impact has been presented in this EIS.  At a minimum, selenium levels in
       soils to be distorted by MTM/VF should be included as part of the permitting process.  Those
       areas with high selenium soils should not be disturbed.  The clear findings of unhealthy selenium
       concentrations below valley fills also should be stated in the executive summary for the public to
       see, rather than buried in numerous appendices. This is a serious human health issue since
       selenium bioaceumulates.
    
       b. There are references throughout the EIS regarding applying "functional stream assessments to
       determine onsite mitigation:' (i.e. ES-6, ES-7, ES-9, ES-10, II.C-51-54, U.D-6)  However, no
       method of doing these functional assessments has been  presented in this RIS.  The COE Stream
       Assessment Protocol for Eastern Kentucky DOES NOT MEASURE FUNCTIONAL
       ATTRIBUTES OF STREAMS (examples of ftinctional measurements include: organic matter
       decomposition, respiration, primary and secondary production, nutrient cycling). Text in the
       protocol clearly states that the COE Stream Assessment Protocol for Eastern Kentucky was not
       designed to measure functional attributes due to cost and inconvenience to the regulated public.
       ''// is appreciated that a more thorough treatment of modeling stream functions may he
       accomplished with a more intensive effort. However, this would also take a greater expenditure
       of resources and may also impose new requirements OH the information submitted by
       applicants™ (Sparks, Townsend, Htgman and Messer, Aquatic Resources News: a regulator)'
       newsletter, US ACOE, 2003) Note: this publication was not included in the Draft EIS and
       should be included in the final EIS. The Eastern Kentucky Assessment Protocol only measures
       structural and physical components of streams: taxa richness, EPT richness, mlffil,
       %Ephemeroptera, %Chironomidae  + Oligochteta. conductivity, riparian width, canopy, and
       embeddedness (Sparks et al. 2003). Furthermore, a stream assessment protocol developed by the
       Norfolk District and the Virginia OBQ also did not include functional measures of streams.
       (Schwinn and Culpepper 2003) [Note: this publication was not included in the Draft EIS and
       should be included in the final EIS.] The authors of tits publication also acknowledge that this
       protocol does not address stream Junction, "Because development ofafiilfyjimatonalstream
       assessment model could lab; several months, there was a need for a more rapid assessment tool
      for the regulatory program that \¥as still objective and quantitative. Therefore, the Norfolk
       District and the Virginia DEQ decided to pursue, an interim stream assessment protocol that
       could bridge the gap between the subjective measures currently in place and ttfullfunctiatial
       assessment model The interim stream assessment approach u not a full functional assessment
       model in the sense that the Corps' Hydro-Geomorphic (HGM) assessment or the U.S. fish and
       Wildlife Service's Habitat Evaluation Procedures tWKP) are. " "Therefore, while specific stream
    5-5-4
    6-6-4
    ecological functions have Hot bean identified, it is presumed that the highest sustainable
    ecological functions occur in the least disturbed streams relative to moderately disturbed and
    most disturbed stream systems, " (Sehwinn and Cutpepper. 2003),
    
    I applaud the fact that (lie draft EIS suggest? that fonetional measurements of streams will be
    used to assess streams impacted by MTM/VF. The HGM method designed by the COE for
    wetlands is a good one and has been used successJiilty for wetland mitigation. Additional time
    and money should be spent to come up with a truly functional approach for stream assessment.
    
    
    c.  The total length of stream miles previously impacted by MTM/VF are underestimated in the
    draft EIS,  tn the "Landscape Scale Cumulative Impact Study of Mouataintop Mining
    Operations" conducted by US EPA .Region 3 (Appendix 1) impacted  stream estimates were
    derived from synthetic steam networks. The authors of the study admit that their methods
    probably underestimate the actual number of stream miles  impacted by MTM/VF, "Far the data
    used in the cumulative impact study a contributing area of 30 acres was selected to generate a
    stream. There is some uncertainty is this selection given that permits in Kentuch' have indicated
    perennial streams in watersheds smaller than 10 acres. Therefore; the synthetic stream network
    may underestimate stream length." They also admit that they did not verify the accuracy of their
    synthetic network with actual stream lengths in the field, "The synthetic stream network was not
    ground tnitfied." (USEPA 2002, Appendix I, p. 24).  Furthermore, their results did not include
    downstream  impacts to streams, "Indirect impacts to streams such as those that would occur
    downstream from filled or mined out stream areas were, not evaluated in this analysis. As such.
    results of the direct impacts of stream metri.es likely underestimates total impacts to streams."
    (USEPA 2002, Appendix I, p. iii-iv). The potential itmccuracy of the impacted stream miles (in
    this case an underestimate of the potential environmental damage inflicted by MTM/VF) MUST
    be stated upfront in the executive summary and not hidden from the public in an appendix.
    
    d.  The misstatement in the Executive Summary that, "Some streams below fills showed
    biological assemblages and water quality of good quality comparable to reference streams"
    (ES-4) must  be removed from the draft EIS.  Streams below fills were in good condition or better
    only 33% of the time according to US EPA data, (Green and Pasanore, 2000 Appendix D).
    Unmined sites scored in the good or very good range 91%  of the time (Green and Passmore,
    2000 Appendix D).  Actual  statements from the US EPA report are below;
    
           In contrast to the unmined xit/es, the filled sites scored over the entire range of conditions.
    Over all five seasons, the filled sites scored in the very good range 14% of'the time,  in the good
    range 19% of the time, in the fair range 53% of the time, tn the poor  range 12% of the time, and
    in the very poor range only 1% of the time,. We believe the range of biological conditions found
    in the filled sites can he explained by differences in water quality ('see section 7. Ofor a
    discussion of the associations between biological condition tmd conductivity). (Green and
    Passmore, 2000 Appendix D).
    
           In the seasons wft/i complete data sets (spring 1999, winter 2000, and spring 2000), the
    unmined sites generally sea-ad in the good to very good range using the WVDEP Stream
    Condition Index. Over all five seasons, the unmined sites scored in the very good range 72% of
    the time and in the good range /P9» of the time (table 2). (Green and Passmore, 2.000 Appendix
    D).
                                                                                                                6-6-4
                                                                                                                5-7-4
                                                                                                                5-6-4
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
               A-948
                                                                             Section A  - Citizens
    

    -------
       There is « huge difference between 33% and 91%. Clearly, valley fills nejatively impact Dtteam
       raacroinvertebrates. The atti'inpt to mislead the public with respect to the negative «ff«ets of
       MTM/VF cm aquatic biota by the authors of tfce draft ETS is unethical,
    
       Section 1-2,  Under "Purpose of the EIS" heading, "Unites" should be spelled "United." Please
       correct this error throughout the ETS.
    
       e. li.C-10. According to the draft EIS, "The SMCRA regulations do not currently contain
       requirements far biological monitoring or documenting physical attributes ofsti'eams. " How
       will adverse impacts on aquatic biota be monitored if biological monitoring is not required?
       Some provision for the requirement of biological monitoring should be included in the
       permitting process and described in the final EIS.
    
       f. Monitoring and inspection. (II.C-57).  This section is extremely lacking in details as to how
       monitoring will be accomplished. Storm water monitoring should be required to accurately
       quantify pollutant loading. Bageflow monitoring minimizes environmental effects of MTM/VF.
    
       g. ll.D-8.  "unnaceptable" is spelled incorrectly.  Regarding the advance veto powers of EPA in
       cases where it finds that mountaintop niining would have unacceptable adverse effects on certain
       aquatic resources, I hope that someday EPA finds the courage to exercise its CWA Section 404
       (c) authority on this i»sue. Based on the date presented in every study associated with this BIS,
       mountaintop mining and valley filling causes and contributes to significant degradation of waters
       of the U.S., which directly violates 40 CFR 230.10(e) of Section 404 (b) of the CWA,
       h. II.D-9, The statement, "Further, the EIS studies did not conclude that impacts documented
       bdmv MTtvf/VF operations cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the U.S.
       [40 CFR 23Q.10fc}], " is euiiipletely false. Data presented in every study associated with this
       EIS, demonstrated that niountaiittop mining and valley Elling causes and contributes to
       significant degradation of waters of the U.S., which directly violates 40 CFR 230.10(c) of
       Section 404 (b) of the CWA. To just name a few, consider the increased selenium concentrations
       below valley fills that violated safe drinking water standards (66 times), the increase in
       concentrations of sulfatc, total dissolved solids, total calcium, total magnesium, hardness, total
       manganese, dissolved manganese, specific conductance, alkalinity, total potassium, acidity and
       nitrate/nitrite below valley fills, the shift from pollution sensitive macroinvertebrates to pollution
       tolerant ones below valley fills, the decreased mean particle size and greater number of particles
       less than 2 mm in size below valley fills, and the complete loss of more than 1,200 miles of
       headwater streams? A paragraph on. page 1IID.13 specifically states that there is probable cause
       between mining upstreais and increased conductivity in stream water below the fills: "In
       general, the filled and filial/residential classes hadstthstatttialfy higher median conductivity
       than the unmined and mined classes. It is important to note that tlie filled sites generally had
       comparable or higher conductivity than thefllled/r^sid^ntidl sites within a watershed, indicating
       that the probable cause of the increase in  the total dissolved solids at the filled/residential sites
       was the mining activity upstream rather than the residences. "
    6-4-4
    6-1-3
    5-5-1
    i.  Ut.C-12. In reference to the last bullet under "Biological": The statement "They enhance
    sediment trwisport {fwvn$£re®ffl by hr&dfaji^ dov^n th& Imf itiaterigl,'' should read "They
    fine organic matter transport downstream by breaking down the leaf material," This phrase
    should also be corrected on the bottom of page 10 of the Proceedings of the Aquatic Ecosystem
    Enhancement Symposium, Appendix D.
    
    j. IILC-20. The statement, "In fact, the establishment of ponds or wetlands on benches or at the
    toe of mined areas may tend to limit ike effect of disturbances on the downstream watersheds
    (Wallace, i. in EPA et al, March 20, 2000), " is not complete. It also should be added here that
    B. Wallace and R. Powell stated that ponds do not replace the structure and function of original
    first and secotid order watersheds (Proceedings of Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement Symposium,
    Appendix D, p. 18 and 19),
    
    k, IILD-2. "A cumtilative impact study of the length of stream directly impacted within the study
    area was performed by the USEPA (2002). The stream lengths evaluated were based on the same
    synthetic stream network as the OSMftlt iflvmtor}' which includes streams located upslopefrom
    the USGS Uueline streams- "Hits ettmulativf impact study differed from the previously discussed
    studies in that the estimate of stream length Impacted was based on length of stream filled and
    length of stream mined through* This study estimated lf 208 miles oj direct impact to stream
    systems in the study area based on permits issued in the last ten  years (1992-2002). Ms
    estimated of filled or mined through streams represents 2.05% of'the stream miles In the study
    area. "  These values of stream miles lost are underestimates based on the authors' qualifications
    of the methods used in the study. sSee  toy comments above.
    1.  1I1.D-5. "The extent to which energy loss may he offset by input from reclamation of the mine
    site and adjacent undisturbed areas, a unknown. Impacts thai this type of net energy "change"
    would have on the. downstream aquatic environment is uncertain and requires further
    investigation." Since trees don "t grow very well on reclaimed mine, spoil (Handel, 2002
    Appendix E), and ponds do not replace the function of 1 st order streams (Proceedings of Aquatic
    Ecosystem Enhancement Symposium, Appendix D, p. 18 and 19), there is probably little offset
    contributed by reclaimed mine sites.
    
    m. IH.0-14, 3rd paragraph. "This study also found very low percentages of may/lies
    (&ph&meroplera) fit this site®  and etevat&l surf&cg water conductivity, hardness and tttilfales, "
    should read," This study also/band very low percentages of mayflies (ephemenptera) at these
    sites and elevated surface water conductivity, hardness and sulfates. "
    
    n.IILD-19. "Creation of other ponds and wetland resources on mined land has shmvn more-
    promise. Wallace (EPA 2000) suggested that these types of systems can be important sites of
    nutrient storage and uptake provided that a sufficiently vegetated littoral zone is present."
    B, Wallace also said that ponds cannot replace pre-miniug streams (Proceedings of Aquatic
    Ecosystem Enhancement Symposium, Appendix D, p. 19).
    
    o.IILF-3.  2nd paragraph, "Tress" should be spelled "trees"
                                                                                                                     p. Fig. III.F-2.  The legend for this figure has no shading on my EIS copy, so I cannot tell which
                                                                                                                    5-6-4
                                                                                                                    5-7-2
                                                                                                                    9-3-4
                                                                                                                    14-2-4
                                                                                                                                                                                                              7-5-4
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                A-949
                                                                             Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
      part of the figure refers to amphibians, birds, mammals or reptiles,
    
      q. HLF-7.  last paragraph. "Species richness and abundance 1$ tower on reclaimed grasslands
      than shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and Intact forest habitats (Wood and Edwards, 2001), "
      Species richness and abundance of what? This sentence contradicts the first sentence of the
      paragraph.  "Species richness mid abundance of songbirds is higher in shrub/pole habitats of
      maunlatntop mining sites than In grassland, fragmented forest, and intact forest habitats (Wood
      and Edwards, 2001; Canterbury. 3001), " Please rephrase.
    
      r. 1II.F-9. "Burton and Lykens, 1975" should read "Burton and Likens, 1975." This reference is
      not: listed in the References section of (he EIS.
    
      s. lll.F-16.  How much carbon sequestration has been lost due to MTM/VF? Since trees do not
      grow to any significant degree on reclaimed valley fills {Handel, 2002, Appendix E), hasn't
      MTM/VP reduced carbon sequestration? Mease address this question in the EIS,
    
      t. TII.G-3.  Peak  Flow Study.  If trees are unable to survive on reclaimed MTM/VF sites (Handel.
      2002, Appendix E), why bother including data regarding estimated peak flows on permitted  post-
      mining forested sites.  This scenario will never happen.
    
      u. FV.A-3.  The direct burial of stream segments by MTM/VF is not a long-term irretrievable
      commitment of resources if it is not permitted to occur in the first place.  The direct burial of
      streams violates 40 CFR  230.10(c) of Section 404 (b) of the CWA.  Unfortunately, US EPA is
      unwilling snd/or unable to use its advance veto power to minimize, and/or stop the downstream
      degradation occurring due to MTM/VF.
    
      v. IV.A-4.  "Ttte loss of these reserves would not have an immediate, irreversible €/fect on
      energy production, because sufficient coal reserves exist elsewh&re to meet current 0i&rg)>
      demands. However, long-term effects on energy production could occur, sines rendering some
      Appalachian surface mining coal reserves unminahle could ultimately hasten reserve depletion
      when other coal sources dwindle."  Other clean, renewable energy sources exist such as wind
      and  solar power. If these energy sources were currently being developed, long-term effects of
      unminable coal reserves would be offset. Please include wind and solar energy as options in this
      EIS.
      w. IV.B-3.  The statement, "No widely-accepted, statutcrdhett letting procedures exist for
      measuring the. presence/absence of the fine and marse organic mailer and coitsequettt energy
      contributions, of stream. Thus, the EIS stream chemistries studies in West Virginia and Kentuctiy
      did not document the effect of stream loss on Ike. downstream energ)' continuum, " is false.
      Widely-accepted, standardized testing procedures for measuring the presence/absence of the fine
      and coarse organic matter and consequent energy contributions of stream do exist in a book titled
      Methods in Stream Ecology (F. Hauer and 0. Lambert!, 1996), It is unclear why these
      measurements were not included as part of the EIS studies.
      x.  IV.B-3. "/// the absence oj standardized testing and research, it is not cl&ctf to whttt extent
    7-6-4
    5-7-1
    11-9-4
    5-5-4
    thti direct stream fas* indirectly affects downstream aquatic life ft to also not evident to >rt«f
    degree nrlamatiau and mitigation (e.g.. drainage etmtral and revegelalim) offset tltu organic
    nutrient reduction The direct impacts of stream loss ar? permanent, but the downstream effect
    from organic energy loss may be temporary. The data presented in each of the studies in
    Appendix D directly contradict this statement. Valley fills result tn a shift from pollution
    sensitive macromvertebrate species to pollution tolerant species. The evidence is (indisputable.
    
    Existing CWA programs Indirectly address these effects through technology-based effluent
    limits, Hate water quality standards, TMDLs, and other provisions designed to assure- overall
    watershed health. " Please explain how TMT>I,s address these effects. Are MTM/VF effects
    currently being included in TMDLs? If not, they should be,
                          y. 1V.B-4. The statement, "He®dw®t.& strg&m systems d& not have a tretn0Htfott$ capacity to
                          provide •purification functions '," is absolutely false based on published scientific literature (Meyer
                          1990, Peterson et al. 2001), EIS Authors: please prwM* the scienlific evidence for your
                          statement, "Headwater stream systems do not have a tremendous capacity to provide
                          purification functwits,"  If you have none, delete the statement.
    
                          z. IV.B-9. The protocol described in paragraph 3 does NOT measure aquatic function.  See my
                          comments above.
    aa. IV.B-11.  "* Consistent definitions of stream characteristics and field methods for
    delineation; * Clarifteatuta ofOSM stream buffer zone rule and de\>dopment of excess spoil
    requirements jar alternatives analysis, avoidance, and minimization; * Re/iiied science-basefi
    protocols/or asiesihtg aquatic, function, malting permit decisions, and setting mitigation
    requireinents"" I agree witli each of these statements.  In particular, time, money and effort must
    be spent on developing a truly functional assessment protocol for headwater streams. The
    current protocols do not consider functional measures. There are already methods in the
    scientific literature designed to measure stream function {Hauer and Laraberti 1996) and there
    are many scientists who ate already trained in these methods. Ask them for assistance with this
    task.
    
    »b. IV.B-12. "BMP's". Please elaborate on this topic. They are mentioned repeatedly in the
    EIS, but never discussed in detail. What specific BMP's would  be used? Any references for
    these?
    
    so. IV.B-12. "better integrated public participation." Please elaborate on this topic also. How
    would it be improved beyond the process already in place?
    
    ad, IV.D-4. "Burton and Lykens, 1975" should read "Burton and Likens, 1975." This .reference
    i* not listed in the References section of the EIS.
    
    ae. IV.D-6. The biological assessment is a good idea and probably should haw been done much
    earlier in this whole process.  A complete biotic inventory of impacted areas should also be
    required for the permitting process.
    5-5-4
                                                                                                                  14-2-4
    7-6-4
                                                                                                                                                                                                            8-1-2
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
               A-950
                                                                            Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Clara Else
                                                                                      Susan Emberley
        —- Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:32 PM -—
    
                     "cclse@worldb auk.
                     org" 
    -------
    Julie Emerson
                                                                                      LindaLeeEmrich
                                                       fREC'D AUS2 72©  £ <
                                                                                  He,  73
       *** - -  12-19-2003            " ""^
       Q
       "       Dear Mr. John Forren,
    
       UJ     Pleasa I am writing about.
               Rtountaxn top mining.
    
               Please this(3estroy»s) many-
               v&lleys,
       \.       .''•'.
               Blease;.::te.ll.lA' not to
    
                   gj_envlroriijiental protections
    [/Sji"- V~^pSotJoa of fconji»taintop) mining.
      l-TH€)   ..;'',•  .    ^-7—	  •'••,•
               Cnank" you very, IBIACJI,
                                 Julie M Emerson
                               -' 4425 Rosecrown Ct
                               Port Coffins CO 80526
                                                                   1-9
                                                                   1-10
                                                                                                                  f r>vi
                   The Env-ironmcntal Impact Statement on Mountain Top Retnoiul'Valley Fill Mining
                   should make It clear to everyone that this mmirig prac-tice must cease iminediately,
                   as it s too devastating enviroiunentally, yet it has failed to make any such recommendation.
                   God gave us tins planet Earth with an atmosphere and habitats where life could continue
                   and diverse species could co-exist. When the people in government aid the mega' for profit'
                   corporations see money as the only value, they to* sight of the natural balances that make the
                    land capabk; of supporting life, then the people and all life fills victim to the kind of greed that
                   will eventually render our planet incapable of supporting higher life forms and we will all
                   suffocate together, regardless of how many big
                   numbers of dollars a corporation or m poltician or a person controls. Could it be that the love of
                   money has created ij these officials of the regulatory agencies a "blind eye"? Are they sailing for
                   time with these studies so that when they decide to stop ft is already a done deal and there is no
                   coal teft to be mined?
                   Burning coal and fossil fuels creates air pollution, clearing away the forests and polluting our
                   water and oceans reduces the amount of oxygen that is replenished to our atmosphere. This
                   practice of Mountain Top Removal/Valley Fill Mining is no less than the sale and devastation
                   of our habitat and our home, for corporate greed to reap their false profits.
                   Once a mountain top has been removed, it is gone, so what is teft to study environmentally?
                   The effects that the resulting flooding and loss of good water and and living forest has on the
                   mood and economy of the people who are trying to go on living in these devastated areas?
                   The EIS proposal is to study how to get inter-agency co-operation so that the coal
                   companies can speed up their operations and sell more coal fester at a higher profit, just
                   what we the people do noj need.
                   Gone is goneSStop Mountain Top Removal/Valley Fin Mining NOW!
                                     Sincerely,
                        1-9
                                                                                                                                                                OndaJLeeeEmrich
                                                                                                                                                                Pence Springs, W.V.
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-952
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Kathleen Enders
                                                                                                                                    Nancy Erps
         — Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/200403:32 PM	
                     "ksenders(2>yalioo.c
                     om" 
    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                        Craig Etchison
                                                                                                                   P, O, Box 69J
                                                                                                                   FottAshby, WV26719
                                                                                                                   August 24,2003
                     John Forren
                     USEPA(3ES30)
                     1650 Arch St.
                     Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
                     Dear Mr. Forren:
    
                     This letter is a comment on the EIS for surfkce mining, including mountaintop removal
                     mining and associated valley fills.
    
                     I am appalled by the blatant attempt by the coal industry (and associated government
                     agencies) to streamline the permit process without making any recommendations about
                     how to prevent or lessen the substantial damage done to the environment by strip mining—
                     effects which were noted in the EIS studies.
    
                     How sad that the EPA has become little more than an organ for big coal when it wants to
                     rape the evirontnent, which it has done with disastrous consequences over marry year*.
    
                     Whatever happened to "Protection" in your agency's title? You are supposed to work on
                     the public's behalf to protect "our" environment.  You «re failing!
    
                     Sincerely,
                                                                                                                        ^
                                                                                                                   Craig Etchison
    
                                                                                                                   CC: Senator Rockefeller
                                                                                                                       Senator Byrd
                                                                                                                                                                                                 1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-954
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Karen Eva
                                                                                                 Alice Evans
     .DeliveredDate:  01/04/2004 Ql:20:2& PM
    
     Please stop destroyittg.the.AppalacMaa Mountains,  More money needs to be spent on
     alternative energy sources. Kaeneva.
     @fron taaiet.net
    1-13
                                                                                                              	Forwarded by David Rider/RMJSEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:58 PM	
    
                                                                                                                         "aev an s{pfdoe-> state
                                                                                                              Mining
                                   .vt.us" 
    -------
    Gaye Evans
                                                                                     McNairEzzard
       DeliveredDate: 01/06/2004 09:45:17 AM
    
       1 am writing to express my opposition to mountaintop removal and valley fills and .any
       change in the rule protecting stream buffer zones, I'm disappointed and angry that the'
       federal government.is ignoring to own studies by proposing to reduce protections for
       people and the environment I demand a new study that looks at the alternatives to
       prevent new mountaintop removal, and valley fill operations and to Mop the existing ones
       within S years or by the expiration of the current mining permit, whichever date occurs
       first.
    
       Thank you.
    
       Sincerely,
       Gaye Evans
       107 West Main Street
       Kttoxvjlle, TN 37902
    1-9
    1-10
    — Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/OS on 01/07/2004 03:32 PM -—
    
                "73514.254
                @compxiserve,com"     To:    R3 Monntaintop@EPA
                <73514,254        cc:
                              Subject:  Please Stop Destructive Mountaintop
    Removal Mining
                01/06/200408:54
                PM
    
    Dear Mr. John Forren, Project Manager,
    
    I strongly uige you to amend the EPA's draft environmental impact statement so as to
    limit the effects of harmful mountaintop removal mining.
    
    It is not acceptable that the Bush administration plans to continue to let coal
    companies destroy Appalachia with mining practices that level mountaintops, wipe
    out forests, bury streams and destroy communities.
    
    I usge you to immediately amend the draft EIS accordingly.
    
    Sincerely,
                                                                                               1-9
                                                                                                   McNair Ezzard
                                                                                                    PO Box 7040
                                                                                                   Van Nuys, CA 91409
                                                                                                   73514.254@compuserve.com
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
          A-956
                                                                  Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Pete Farino
             ----- Forwarded by David Ridcr/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM -—
    
                       p_farino@yal»oo, co
                       m           To:    R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                                  cc:
                       12/25/200310:58     Subject: No mountamtop removal for coal
                       AM
                                     — Forwarded by D*vid Ridet/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:59 PM -—
    
                                                 Peter Farino
                                                            cc:
                                                              Subject NO MORE MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL
                                                                                                       FOR COAL
                                                                                                                   01/04/2004 10:29
                                                                                                                   AM
             Mr, John Forren
             U.S. EPA (3EA30)
             1650 Arch Street
             Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
             Dear Mr. Forren,
    
             Stop destroying the Appalachians with milling practices that level
             mountaititops, wipe out forests, bury streams, and destroy
             communities.
    1-9
             Sincerely,
    
             Pete Farino
             1625 Orasscreek Dr.
             San Dimas, California 91773
    January 4, 2004
    
    Mr, John Forren
    US. Environmental Protection Agency
    1650 Arch Sweet
    Philadelphia,, PA 19103
    
    De*r John Forren,
    
    STOP DESTROYING OUR MOUNTAINS, FORESTS, AND STREAMS.  | 1 -9
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Peter Farino
    1625 Grasscreek df.
    San Dimas, CA 91773
    USA
             cc:
             Senator Barbara Boxer
             Representative David Dreier
             Senator Dianrte Feinstein
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                     A-957
                                                         Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    EstelleFein
                                                                                          Robert Fener
                                                                                                                                                    Robert Fater
                                                                                                                                               1011 Swapping Camp Road
                                                                                                                                                Amheret, Virginia 24521
                                                                                                                                                                           August 8,2003
                                                                                             1-10
                       Jo
                       U.S.EPA(3BA30)
                       1650 Arch Street
                       Philadelphia PA  19103
    
                       Dear Mr, Fotreri:
                         Regarding the E1S on Mountamtop Mining and Valley Fills in Appalachia, I will
                       make my comments brief. NO!!! till!!!  Coal, despite a ^eat add campaign is not a clean
                       safe power source. I'm sure you are quite aware of the health ramifications of coal fired
                       power plants.  Additionally the air pollution is wiping out our forests and countless
                       species. To then say it is economical and wise to level mouata&is and then fill up valleys
                       with the waste is just insane.  Few will profit and saany more will suffer. It is time we
                       take a stand for sanity in our national energy policy and yes, my house is entirely solar
                       powered with photovoltaic panels.
    
                         Thank you for your attention in this matter.
    
                       Sincerely,
                                                                                                                      Robert Fener
                                                                                                                                                                                                  1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-958
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                Denise Ferguson
                                                                       DEC 2 8 as
                                                                                                                                                       REC'D m 0 S l
                                                Robert F«ner
                                          1011 Swapping Camp Road
                                            Amherst, Virginia 24521
    
                     Mr. John Forren                                   December 24,2003
                     U.S. EPA (3EA30)
                     1650 Arch Street
                     Philadelphia, PA 19103
                     Dear Mr. Forren:
    
                        Regarding Mountalntop Removal, I wi be brtef and to the point The Bu«h
                     plan is bad science.  Coal has destroyed Appalaohia. Coal fired power plant
                     pollution has Impacted our air, soil and waterways. Pollution iis killing our forests
                     and is the leading SOUK* of mercury, which is endangering anyone who sate
                     fl«h.  Coal is an obsotete technology in view of alternative energy sources.  Hive
                     in Virginia tn a home errfire^ dependent on the sun for heaflng, hot water and
                     photovoltaic electricity. Yes I do use backup systems, but two hours of generator
                     run time far the tatt eight months te not too bad.  To not think rnountaintop
                     removal is a major ecological disaster is to show a level of stupidity that it
                                                                               ,<
                                                                               '4
                                                                             4-
                                                                             f
    1-9
                       Thank you for allowing me to comment on ihi* matter.
                     Robert Fensr
                                                                                                                                        ,
                                                                                                            1-9
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-959
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Steve Fesenmaier
                                                                                                Arthur Figel
           Steve Fesenmaier
                                 cc:
                                     Subject: Comment on Mountaintop Removal Mining
                       08/14/03 02:10PM
                                 — Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:59 PM	
    
                                             "%el@alurtt,:mite
                                             du" 
    -------
    Patrice Fisher
                                                                                                                                                             Gerry & Louise Fitzgerald
               	Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/200403:42 PM	
               Mining
    " fishkend{&)earthli
    nk.net." earthlink.net
                                                          1-9
                                      Qeay tnd Lwase Ftegedd
                                      39«CarfyieR0ad
                                      Marfinsburg,WV 25401
    January 2,2004
    
    Mr.JohnFonai
    USBPA
    1650 Arch St
    PhikdelpHaPA 19103
                                                                                                                                                                                                Jffl fl  5 2ffft
                                                                                                                                  Dear Sir:
                                                                                                                                        I am writing you on the issiE of motinlain top removal. This is at issue of particular
    Mountain top removal has de\'33tated our environment by reducing the very mountains
    ttexiselves, SlUog our valley stasis add Gifting v$& acreages of timber. All these actions
    have had a severe impact on the lives of!oca!cctnnamitits. Jobs are tost because this method
    of coal astracBoa taplayt fit fewer people than deep uriahg. lie losses of jobs meat
    communities disappear. I"hose tiiat remiin are damaged fratiier by the blasting.  Next come
    the rate Floods occur because fere is no vegetation on (he mountains and stream valleys
    have been Sled, This is usaafly fl» final blew to a e
                                                                                                           Do not be fooled by promias of rcclaroaUoiiSiind flat land for development ?jid new homes.
                                                                                                           Nothing bat an aoported weed vsitt ^ow on this "t^alalmed" laad.  The feest is gone and
                                                                                                           
    -------
    Anthony Fiaccavento
                                                                                         Agatha (Betty) Fleming
                  - Forwarded by David RiderffO/USEPAAJS on 01/08Q004 03:55 PM —-
    
                            ASD 
                                        To:   R3 MountaintopSjEPA
                            01/02/200403:59    oc:
                            PM           Subject: mountaintop removal mining practices
                  January 2, 2004
                                 — Forwarded by David Rider/13/USEPA/US on Ol/CW/2004 01:59 PM -—
    
    
                                              Betty 0, Fieming@w
                                              rizon.net         To:    R3 Mountaintap@EPA
                                                              cc:
                                              01/06/2004 03:00     Subject:  Appalachia Considerations
                                              PM
                  Mr John Forreh
                  US Environmental Protection Agency
                  1650 Arch Street
                  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
                  Dear Mr, Forren:
                                 Project Managet John Forren
                                 U.S. EPA (3EA30)
                                 1650 Arch Street
                                 Philadelphia, PA 19103
                  I was shocked to learn of the EPA's plan to allow mountaintop removal
                  mining practices to be accelerated and expanded.
                  Many studies of the impacts of mountaintop removal. Including President
                  Bush's own Environmental Impact Statement, make clear how much damage is
                  done to homes, streams, forests and fishing and wildlife through this
                  practice The proposed new rules will increase all of these problems by
                  eliminating limits on the size of Valley fills and by reducing a 100
                  foot stream zone protection area.
                  Mr. Forren, I live in Appalachia where this mountaintop removal takes
                  place.  Since moving here in 1978, I've seen the scars which this kind
                  of practice leaves, I have numerous friends who mate their living In
                  the coal industry and I am a strong supporter of economic development
                  throughout the coalfields. But economic development need not and should
                  not continue to occur at the expense of the environment, local farms and
                  local communities.
                  I urge you to seek another alternative, one which places strong limits
                  on this highly destructive practice and allows local communities to
                  maintain and build upon the natural resource base which they have.
                  Thank you,
    
    
                  Anthony Flaccsrvento
    
    
                  Executive Director
    
                  Appalachian Sustainable Development
    1-10
    1-7
    Dear Project Manager Forren,
    
    
    It is unconscionable that the Bush administration plans to
    continue to let coal companies destroy Appalachia with mining
    practices that level mountauitaps, wipe out forests, bury
    streams, and destroy communities.
    
    
    Please reconsider both the environmental and political
    consequences on this practice.
    Sincerely,
    
    
    Agatha (Betty) Fleming
    456 Riverside Drive
    Princeton, New Jersey 08540-5421
    
    
    cc:
    Senator }on Corzine
    President George W. Bush
    Vice Presklent Richard Cheney
    Representative Rush Holt
    Senator Frank Lautenberg
                                                                                                             1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-962
                                                                 Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Catherine Fleisehman
                                                                                                                              Marsha Fishman
      Catherine    Fleischman
      Date:  1/07/2004
      City:  Canton       State:  VA
    Zip:   23123
      Live as comfortably as we do coal, and timber have been harvested.form this state since
      its inception. The legacy of this harvest is flow left to the residents. We have the. choice
      of living with the remaining ecosystems at destroying them: for the coal left in the
      ground.  It. makes absolutely no sense to me to remove a mountain for what we "know is a
      very inefficient poisonous fuel that we already have the technology to .avoid using. It is
      just plain to expensive to sacrifice what is pristine and beautiful for something we do not
      need and need to. do without. Please let it be known to this organization that Mountain
      Top Removal fot coal is the worst way to support a sustainable comfortable economy.
      West Virginia will be much better off saving these mountainst streams, and communities
      for low impact farming and recreational industries.
    
      Sincerely,
      Catherine Fleisehman
      1304 Sports Lake Road
      'New Canton, VA. 23123
                                                 1-9
    DeliveredDate: 0.1/04/2004 Q6:Q6:12.PM
    
    .As a woman, mother, grandmother and American I must state that I am opposed to
    ittoufttaintop removal mining and. valley fills!
    
    Please, will our grandchildren or their children see aay beauty in America?
    
    Marsha Fishmati
    1275 Bradford
    Coppell, TX15019
                                                                                                                                            1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                       A-963
                                                                Section A • Citizens
    

    -------
    Janet Fout
                                        17
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-964
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                             10-9
                                                             10-6-5
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-965
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    7>
    
    "PU
                            -
                      {
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                A-966
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                   Winnie Fox
                                        t
                                                                                                                          T"
                                                      JUfcJ-
                l"T>*'   njlAl-^*"
                O^p 4 - Citizens
    

    -------
    Luther Franklin
                                                                                                                                                                        TimFrasine
               	Forwarded by Dtvid Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM	
               Mining
    net" 
    -------
    Vincent Frazzetta
                                                                                                                                         Suzan Frecon
                   	Forwarded by G&vid Rid«/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM	
                                "vfrazz@jimo.com"
                                
    -------
    Barbara Fredrickson
                                                                                                                          Rachel Frith
                     13 Rayon Piae Road
                     Littleton, CO 80127
    REC'D JA« 2 2
                                                                                                                                          01/02/04  06:59  PH
                     Mr. John Fatten
                     U,S.EPA(3EA30) '
                     1650 Arch St.
                     Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
                     Dear Mr. Fonsn,
    
                     IdoaotsapportAlt«i*ttwl,2,or3«sdesera>edJiia»dmftEISt«part.Nt»eof*8S8e  I  J«
                     options win protect Appalachian fcrests, wgter, or communities, to particular, I oppose   '
                     the proposal to eiinnu^etfas sijeajs feuife?*zone rule that prohibits miaing activity withia
                     100 feet of steam. This rule should be strictly enforced for valley fills and in all other
                     Leveling mountains aad burying stream* is wrong and must stop.
                            1-10
    Dear Mr. Forren,
    i am concerned "to learn that thste are proposed changes by the  Buch
    Administration to ralax or do #w-ay with th^s rule that mi nine?  Impacts
    must not come within ICO feet of streams.  Mining c^Bpanies ntust be
    held
    accountable for Lh** environitsentcal daftrage that they do™ we should not be
    making it easier for thsia cc destroy and pollute.  Please keep  the
    st r ictar ^t.anda.f'd In pl.ace.  Thank you for your at tent i op ,
                                                                                                                                    1-10
                     The Fredridaon Family
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                      A-970
                                                             Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    DonGaines
                  k'orwsrded by  David  Ridei/R3/U3EPA/US on  12/18/2003 05:21 FK	
    
                                       91 e*£-flsr« j 1 £ & ne to, c&
                                       B-                        To:
                  M-->u n t a i n t op i| E C-A
    R3
                                                that ther  eumu lat ive impsc t of the
                                                ffiountalntop  rsacral is addressed.
                                                                                                                       Sincerely,
    
                                                                                                                       don daines
                                                                                                                       rt f 1 box 65
                                                                                                                       annona,  Texas "5550
                   9-2-2
                  I am >?r it ing  to urge  the  Bush administration  to protect our
                  mountains and streams  from mountaintop  removal coal raining*  I «,m
                  outraged that the draft Eswiroritaental Imps-it  Statement  (EIS) or*
                  moimtaintop ratio val proposes r4o  limits  on  this destructive
                  practice, even Chuugh  the aiudy  clearly concludes that the
                  frriv ironstetital effects  of  rftountsintop removal  are devastating and
                  1 understand  that, the draft  El 3  concludes  that n<,or© than 1, 200
                  ml 1 e;? of  streair?* have been dattsanBd or destroyed hy mountain too
                  icsmoval .  It also concludes "uhat  1 • 4 million acien oH forests
                  could be  ijTipactecl,  aionj with as many as 244  species ot
                  wi 1 d.I : f a.  Fi nal ly,  it saya r.h^t  v^i thout acid i t ional ] imi t ®,
                  another 350 square  niilea of  rrioun tains, streajns and fof^szs v;ill
                  be d^strcygd  by u'-ount tain top  removal.
    
                  In light  of these clear facts, I aro shocked that the draft EIS
                  states that the Bush administration* s preferred alternative is
                  to &'EA&i;K exist lag  environniefdr:.al prc-tecticrts. It v*ould allov-?
                  piountAi ntop rcft'QVo 1 and arrsoci at.ad vnlley  fills to accels^rate by
                  proposing to  streamline the  permittinc; process. Arid it proposes
                  to roil back:  an important surface mining rule that preventa co^i
                  coi?'ip.nn i ss from di tjturfoircf arftOf."  w1 thi n 100 foot of streams. This
                  "preferred alternative" ignores  your ov-?n studies detailing ths
                  devastation caused  &y mountaintop removal  coal mining:
    
                  I urg*3 the Bush aditini strati or. to consider alter "Dative 3 that.
                  r*ouce the environmental Liipactsr o£ w-oun tain top removal, and to
                  i^lejaent these n'ieasures n&sdad  to protect the envlronnK;nt ar.d
                  ccs.rsnunit.ies of Appalachia. In particular,  I urge the
                  «-±air:isti:ation to ccnsicler restrictions on the size of valley
                  fills to  reduce stream and forest loss. Thes*? alternatives stsuat
                  DC evaluated  for individual  projects- && wo 11 33 regionslly so
                 1-5
                 1-10
    
    
                 1-8
    
                 9-2-2
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                           A-971
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Pash Galbavy
                                                                                          Francis Gallagher
              	Forwarded by David Rider/R3/U'SEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM	
                         et" 
    -------
    Marie Gangwish
                                                                                    Steven Gardner
                                                                                     1-10
                   MOUNTAINTOF MINING EIS COMMENTS
    
                   Submitted by:
    
                   J. Steven Gardner, P.E., P.S.
                   Engineering Consulting Services, Inc.
                   340 South Broadway, Suite 200
                   Lexington, KY4050S
                   859-233-2103
    
                   The debate over the legality of Mountaintop Mining (MTM) has now raged for many
                   years and some have attempted to turn it into a morality play. Issues of morality are
                   present in many aspects of out lives and not surprising people disagree on what is moral
                   and what is not. Many good people disagree on several fundamental issues from what is
                   marriage or relationships between two people to what is » just ctuse to go to war.
                   Emotional pleas to ban MTM Iwe been made. Just because someone says something is
                   true does not make it so. This is a technical issue and engineering and scientific facts
                   should prevail.
    
                   MTM SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED UM0ER SMCRA
    
                   MTM is a mining method that the United States government is largely responsible for
                   creating. I happened to have been starting my tenure in the engineering community when
                   the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) was passed under
                   President Carter. This act contemplated and specifically allowed and encouraged MTM.
                   R&D under the Carter Administration's DOB, EPA and BOM helped develop and refine
                   MTM.  I know because I helped work on several projects funded by those agencies.
    
                   LONGSTANDING AND ACCEPTED PRACTICES ARE SUDDENLY
                   DECLARED ILLEGAL
    
                   The mining industry has been operating for almost 30 years with the understanding that
                   these practices were legal and even encouraged by the government.  Full resource
                   recovery and higher land utilization is one of the goals of SMCRA.  Many in industry
                   also felt that SMCRA was designed to provide a coordinated approach to permitting sites
                   that crossed agency and regulator)' program lines to avoid just the type* of problems that
                   have now occurred: i.e. a continual reuitetpretation of regulations and insertion of
                   personal beliefs.
    
                   MTM IS TRULY A FORM OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
    
                   MTM areas provide one of the keys to the economic future of Appalaehia. One point
                   being missed in the public debate is APPALACHIAN LANDOWNERS WANT
                   MOUNTAINTOP MINING) Landowners must approve any plan for MTM or it cannot
                   take plage. Developments liave been created aad landforrned all over Central Appalaehia
                   including hospitals, schools, golf courses, airports, industrial parks, prison sites.
                                                                                                                                                                                         12-1-1
                                                                                                                                                                                        10-3-2
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-973
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
            residential and commercial developments, farms, recreation and wildlife areas, all of this
            in a region where level land is scarce. MTM is bringing many ttsiigs to Appalachis thai
            other regions take for granted. Some people see these sites today and do not know they
            resulted from mining. Wildlife is now more abundant than it was 30 years ago. Mining
            has actually helped create wildlife habitats and the resurgence of wildlife populations.
    
            ROCK AND DIRT ARE NOT NECESSARILY WASTE IN THE EPA CLASSIC
            SENSE
    
            Much has been made of the controversy over filling streams.  Mining can be compared to
            road construction. Material placed in hollow or valley fills has been called waste; a term
            adopted by engineers over the years, but not waste in (he connotation presented.  It is
            simply excess rock and dirt placed in engineered and managed fills. Streams are not lost
            forever. The water is still there, however new flow paths are created. The vast majority
            of these areas are in the upper reaches of a hollow where typically there is no water flow,
            comparable to drainage dilches or curbs that control the flow of water in dlies.
    
            SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
    
            The recent EPA EIS on MTM found that only 6.8% of Appalachia has or even can be
            mined by MTM methods, so I hardly think Appalachia is being "decapitated1' as many
            editorialists claim. Rather MTM as I have seen it e»n be described as creating "plateaus"
            of useable land where there was none.  As an Environmental Practioner,  1 strongly
            support Alternative HI, as outlined in the EIS as the preferable approach. I feel that
            "MOUNTAINTOP MINING IS A VALUE ADDED PROCESS".
    10-3-2
    5-7-2
    1-4
    J. STEVEN GAR0NER, P.E., P.S.
    
    Mr. Gardner is President/CEO of Engineering Consulting Services. Inc. headquartered in
    Lexington, Kentucky. He holds graduate and undergraduate degrees from the University
    of Kentucky in Mining Engineering and Agricultural Engineering, respectively, plus a
    graduate level Environmental Systems Certificate. He is a licensed Professional Engineer
    in Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and Tennessee, and a Licensed Professional
    Surveyor in West Virginia. His twenty-eight years of experience includes Bethlehem
    Steel mining operations in Kentucky and U.S. Coal Co. in Tennessee. He has worked as
    an engineer and manager in both mining operations and consulting engineering, as well
    as having served on a mine rescue team. His consulting practice focuses on mining and
    quarry operations, due diligence studies, sensitive laud use issues, reclamation liability,
    environmental, health and safety issues, and industrial heritage projects. He was a co-
    editor and contributor to the "Coal Mining Reference Book" published in 1997, served as
    a reviewer of the National Research Council's publication, "Coal Waste Impoundments;
    Risks, Responses, and Alternatives" and is a continuing contributor to
    JOD£^§Ise£llI$£JIlJsMi*EIE- ^*- Gardner is active in the Society of Mining, Metallurgy and
    Exploration (SME) and just completed a th ree year term as Vice President of the
    Southeast Region, member of the Board of Directors and Executive Committee for the
    12,000 + member organization. He was the 2003 recipient of the SME Government,
    Education and Mining (OEM) Award given in recognition of "...enthusiastic support, of
    GEM activities and for educating the public by partnering with school districts and
    university systems to provide more information about the mining industry." He was
    recently appointed to the Kentucky State Board of Licefisure for Professional Engineers
    and Land Surveyors by the Governor.
             J. Steven Gardner, P.E., P.S.
             Engineering Consulting Services, Inc.
             340 South Broadway, Suite 200
             Lexington, KY 40508
             859-233-2103
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
               A-974
                                                               Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Dawn Garten
        	Forwarded by David Rider/RMJSEPMJS oa 01/09/2004 03:54 PM	
    
                   Dawn Garten
                       To:    R3 Mountointop@EPA
                                 cc:
                   01/06/200401:4?
                                       Subject; Comments on draft BIS on mountaintop removal
        mining
                   PM
        January 6, 2004
    
        Mr. John Forren
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        1650 Arch Street
        Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
        Dear John Forren,
    
        1 am a citizen of Kentucky, born and raised here. 1 have grown up with the effects of coal
        mining a harsh reality in my life.  It is not fair that my people and the quality of our lives are
        sacrificed for the production of electricity.  I whole heartedly agree with the draft statement
        below these, my own words.  However, I wanted to add my own words so that you can put a
        burntm being with this request. Before you undo the protections that have been provided tor our
        land and people, I urge to visit Eastern Kentucky, particularly Chavies in Perry County,
        where I am from. It is a beautiful place. You need to drive in so that you can see the beauty, and
        fly out so you can see the devastation. Visit with my grandmother, but be sure to wipe the seat
        clean before you  sit, as the layer of cool dust on the chain will stain your clothing. And as you
        wipe that out. and you look into the eyes of an old woman who has worked lard to be a good
        mother and wife all her life, consider that the filth you prevent from getting on the seat of your
        pants coats her lungs and took the life of her husbaiul and killed her first born son. And then try
        to put the good of coal against the bad.  It is clear that your administration feels that sacrificing
        American lives for a 'greater good' is a necessary evil; we are, after all, at war. But defense from
        weapons of mass destruction and sacrificing lives for the production of electricity, they cannot be
        compared and to do so is an insult to the lives of the Kentucky men and women who have lo»t
        their lives in the present and past wars; people who were fighting for the rights of their
        families, only to have those rights set aside for the plundering of their land and their lives.
    
        I am upset to leant that the Bush administration  plans to continue to let coal  companies destroy
        Appalachia with mining practices that level mountaintops, wipe out forests,  bury streams, and
        destroy communities.
    
        According to the  administration's draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) on mountaintop
        removal coal mining, the environmental effects  of mountaintop removal are widespread.
        devastating,  and permanent Yel the draft BIS proposes no restrictions on the size of
    10-4-2
    1-9
    1-5
                          valley fills that bury steams, no limits on the number of acres of forest that can be destroyed, no
                          protections fot imperiled wildlife, *nd BO ssfeguwds tot the eorttmiatties of people that depend
                          on the region's natural resourees for themselves ittd future generations.
    
                          The Bush administration's "preferred alternative" for addressing Ihe problems caused by
                          mountaintop removal coal mining is to weaken existing environmental protections. This
                          "preferred alternative" ignores the administration's own studies detailing the devastation caused
                          by mountaintop removal coal mining, including:
    
                          - over 1200 miles of streams have been damaged or destroyed by mountaintop removal;
    
                          - forest losses in West Virginia have the potential of directly impacting as many as 244
                          vertebrate wildlife species;
    
                          - Without new limits on mouutaintop removal, an additional 350 square miles of mountains,
                          streams, and forests will be flattened and destroyed by mountaintop removal mining.
    
                          In light of these facts, I urge you to consider alternatives that reduce the environmental impacts
                          of mountaintop removal. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
    
                          Sincerely,
    
                          Dawn Garten
                          3300 Tahoe Rd
                          Lexington, KY 40515
                          USA
    1-5
    1-10
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
               A-975
                                                                                                                                                                                          Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    NiallGartlan
                                                                                                 LydiaGarvey
          	Foiwarded by David Ridcr/R3/USEPA/US on 01/30/2004 11:21 AM	
    
                      Comcast Mail
                                  cc:
                      Subject:  Please oppose mountain-top removal mining and valley fills!
                      01/12/200411:50
                      PM
    
          Mr, John Forren
          U.S.' EPA (3EA30)
          1650 Arch SL
          Philadelphia, PA  19103
          I am completely opposed to maun tarn top-removal mining and valley fills, l"he massive
          damage wrought upon people and the landscape as a result are unacceptable.  These
          practices bury important headwater streams, destroy biologically rich forest ecosystems,
          damage drinking-water sources used by millions of people, cause frequent and severe
          flooding^ and wreck the quality of Hfe in Appalachian communities. Leveling mountains and
          burying streams is wrong and must stop.
    
          I welcome scientific studies that document the widespread and irreversible damage die coal
          industry is doing to Appalachian Yet this HIS rejects—-without meaningful consideration—
          speclhc restrictions on the use of valley fills. These restrictions could be based on si&e of the
          fillj cumulative impacts, types of streams affected, or value of the aquatic resources in the
          region.
    
          I am opposed to any changes that would weaken the laws and regulations that protect clean
          water. In particular, I oppose the proposal to eliminate the stream buffer-zone rule that
          prohibits mining activity within 100 feet of streams. [.Alternatives 1 and 3 would eliminate
          the rulej while Alternative 3 would "clarify7' it by saying that, it does not apply to valley fills.]
          This rule should be strictly enforced for valley fills and in all other cases.
    1-9
    1-7
    1-10
          I do not su|)port Alternative 1,2> or 3 as described in the KIS report None of these, options J -.
          will protect Appalachian forests, water, or commtmttie-s.                                j
    
          Thank you,
          Niall Cardan
                                                  OX\\ \ rp rM r W/YVAT^, is
                                                  Sn I   & ^^S
                                                                                                         4-2
                                                                                                          1-10
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-976
                                                                                                                                                                                 Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Glenn Gaskill
                                                                                                                                                                              Suzanne Gayetsky
                                                                                                                _     r
                                                                         REC'D OCT 1 52003
    Box 21.5
    Mabscott, WV
    25871
    
    Oct. 9,2003
                Mr. John Forren, US EPA
                1650 Arch St.
                Philadelphia. PA 19130
               Regarding the EIS on mountaintop removal:
               I grew up on a dairy farm in Eastern Ohio.  We had strip mines all around us; they left
               behind Mghwalls, deep ponds where almost nothing lived, orange water in the creeks, and
               a land that would barely grow pokeberries,  let alone trees.
               When 1 moved to Whitesville, WV in 1976,! thought, "they know how to mine coal
               here." The mines were deep in the mountain, the creeks and rivers below them didn't
               seeni to be polluted, and whole communities were based on those mines.
               After living away from WV for 20 years and then corning back in 1999,1 realized that
               strip mining had come back, with bigger everything.  I couldn't believe the Coal River
               Valley. It was gone. The places I used to hike and canoe are now either flood-ravaged or
               filled with rock and rubble. 1 visited Larry  Gibson's place on what is left of Kayford
               Mountain. Even his dead relatives aren't safe there, the flyrock bouncing off the
               headstones and the graves sinking from the mountain being cut away from the cemetery.
    
                  I have followed closely the attempts by WV Highlands and Ohio Valley
               Environmental Coalition and others to slow this destruction, and  the  attempts by the coal
               companies and all their business and political cronies to speed it up.  So regarding this
               document, which ideally would itemize tntr's effects and provide alternatives, it smells
               badly.
    
                 I disagree with all 3 alternatives provided  by this statement They are not alternatives at
               all, to anyone who loves the land.
    
                  1 am offended that this proposes to do away with the provision for no mining within
               100 feet of streams.
    
                  I propose another alternative; embrace the spirit of the clean water act and decide that
               if coal cannot be mined economically by underground mining, leave it in the ground.
                Yours-Truiy,
                 $L
                 Glenn Gaskill
                                                                                 1-9
                                                                                 1-5
    
    
                                                                                 1-8
                                                                                                                                                                                            J-1VJ?1!
    ^                           hpfMk
                                                                                                            I <
            _utfebuiLtt.^.Bl: toxttoc5iJtilljpBk^fert&.,
     ^jttfiMaswiAfttt* ftSi_t>t-B\iLsfciA>|.» MVisAv,
        JcliiCUiU-trf .-tk-..(lttfeU.(Al<3n.-CfiudWv- i)W
    ^XJtt)^u -iktJb -ties-tAJ -^ - jj*firmW*5fr &nAr
                                                                                                                                                   ^                         	—
                                                                                                                                                                                             1-10
                                                    1-10
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                            A-977
                                    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Mary Gee
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Melissa Gee
                                                                                    .REC'D
    7/17/03
    
    John Forren
    US EPA/3ES3{p
    1650 ArcnSfrest
    Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
    
    In your Environmental Impact Stalament & Forest Management Plan, please include strategy to STOP
    MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL, vailey Mils, logging, ourning/mitttng/mowing, herbicides and recreational
    vehicles phis heavy equipment use in oiir tests! These practices, AKA environmental terrorism, are an
    attack on each one of us as well  as on oar precious home, mother earth. Mother nature is not just»
    spendable resource. It's the centering force in our web of vital life forces.  There is no earthly reason to
    control the awesome farces of the natural world to live together wisely OB this earth at petce with
    ourselves.
                  Very truly
                                                                                                               1-8
                  Ms.Maty
                  56 j One Run
                  Lexington, Ky. 40505
     jBeeember 15,2003
    
    . Mr. John Forren EPA                                                  "*""  ' " ""**
     U.S.6PAOEA30)                                   "                          ~"f
     ISSOAreilSt.
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
     Dear Mr. John Forreri EPA,
    
     It is unconscionable that the Bush administration plans to continue to 1st coal companies destroy
     App&laehia wish mining practices that leva! moustaintops, wipe out ibrasts and bury streams in the valleys
     behw, Moirataifttop removal roinfeg and valley iilisshould not be allowed and the kws and regulations
     tirat protect clean water must aot b® weakened. la parttcular, I oppose the proposal to change the stream
     buffer zone rule that prohibit mining activity withto 100 feet of streams. This rule should be stietly
     enforced tor valley fills and is sli other cases.
    
     1 am a native of West Vkgiraa Md still have relatives whom I visit often. I am proud of my heritage and 1
     love my native state, t am sickened by this display of corporate greed and t0tal disregard for hataan life
     and our need for cieafi water.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1-9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1-10
                                                                                                                                                     YOU MUST not allow this cbstrufitfen U> mHtinut because tere is ample evidimce that the practice of
                                                                                                                                                     Riling valleys and streams with waste is damaging to the enviroment and the commaaitias of
                                                                                                                                                     Please do not weaken fee laws thai are meaat to prtsect Appa^ians but please eaiforce regaktioos
                                                                                                                                                     hole! tafefeg cosipBiif^ ao^oistable fbr tbeif actleais.
                                                                                                                                                                                            fte strem buffa zone nj
                                                                                                                                                     Please help do the right flting for oar chfldrea's fissire, I arge you to rejeta ftiis proposed rule chaege and
                                                                                                                                                     do alt ia your jrower to protect the Appalachian mountains.
                                                                                                                                                      Ul View Dr
                                                                                                                                                      Beoa^KC 28607-7951
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                            A-978
                                                                           Section A -  Citizens
    

    -------
    Ms, Gee
                                                                                 DanGeiger
                            REC'D  JMU8
    
                                                         ^net/en
                                                                                  1-9
                       Dan Geiger
                                              cc:    "Wilson, Jeff
                       , "Caylor, Bill"
                                                
                                  08714/03 04:10 PM     Subject: Draft EIS on mouuintop cod
                       mining and associated valley fills in Appalckia
    
                       John Forren
                       U.S. EPA
                       1650 Arch Street
                       Philadelphia, PA 19403
    
                       Dear Mr. Forren:
    
                       Please accept these cotuttieats concerning the dtaft mountaintop EIS and
                       include them as part of the public comment record.
                                                                                                          I am Vice President, Enginfietiag at fames Rivet Coal Service Company, a
                                                                                                          subsidiary of fames Rivet Coal Company (JRCQ. JRCC operates
                                                                                                          underground coal mines in six East Kentucky Counties and employs some
                                                                                                          1000 people.
                       'Hie valley fill controversy has been characterised as effecting mainly
                       mountaintop removal surface mining. It has even been said that ceasing
                       raountaintop mining would be no loss because die coal and employment
                       could be replaced by uadetgmtind mining. This is simply not true.
    
                       Underground mines depend on valley fills jtist as much as surface mines.
                       Deep mined coal is mixed with extraneous material, mainly sandstone,
                       shale, and clay. 'Ibis raw coal is too high in ash and too low in heat
                       value to be sold to electric utilities and must be processed to remove
                       the impurities.
    
                       The resulting rock and coal/clay fines must be disposed of in a safe,
                       permanent, economical location. Due to the mountain/valley topography
                       of Appalachia, the only practical place to store this material is at the
                       heads of valleys in refuse piles and coal shiny inipoundtMents.
    
                       It has been suggested that this material could be used to backfill old
                       high walls or placed on reclaimed mountain top mines. While this might
                                                                                                                                                                         11-1-2
                                                                                                                                                                         13-3-5
     MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-979
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                        Andy Oelston
                be practical occasionally, usually it is not. Coal preparation plants
                a.re generally built in volleys while surface mines are usually a
                considerable distance away, both horizontally and vertically.
    
                Most alternate schemes can be made to work if cost is not an issue. If
                deep mines have no practical method of waste disposal, they will be
                uncompetitive in die market place and cease to exist.  Deep mines need
                valley fills.
    
                Dan Ociger. P.K.
                Vice President, Engineering
                James Rive Coal Service Company
                1374Hwy 192E,
                London, KY 40741-3123
    13-3-5
                                 	Forwarded by David Rider/RJ/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 11:39 AM	
    
    
                                                                         R3 Mountaintop@EPA
    To:
    ''Andy .1. Oelston™
               cc:
                 Subject: Please amend the draft E1S on mountaintop removal coal
                                 mming
                                             01/05/200401:36
                                             PM
                                 Mr. John Forren
                                 Project Manager
                                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (3EA30)
                                 1650 Arch Street
                                 Philadelphia, PA 19103
                                 Email: mountaintop.r3@epa.gov
                                 Dear Mr. Forren,
    
                                 Please consider amending the EPA's draft environmental impact statement
                                 to limit the environmental impact of mountaintop removal mining. 1 was
                                 surprised to learn that the Bush administration plans to relax existing
                                 limits.
    
                                 The draft EIS posits that the environmental effects of mountaintop
                                 removal are widespread, devastating and permanent, so the draft EtS
                                 should contain restrictions on the size of valley fills, limits on the
                                 number of acres of forest removed, protections for wildlife habitat, and
                                 comprehensive planning for the local communities that depend on the
                                 region's natural resources. With the modem underground coal mining
                                 technolojpes available today, I see no reason why the Bush
                                 administration proposes weakening existing environmental protections and
                                 allowing mountaintop removal and associated valley fills to be
                                 accelerated.
    
                                 The Bush administration would better represent the public's interest by
                                 implementing alternatives that reduce the environmental impacts of
                                 mountaimtop removal and protect unmined natural resources and
                                 communities in Appalachia.  Please amend the draft EIS in  accordance
                                 with the E and P of your agency's anagram.
                                 Best regards,
    
                                 Andy Gelston
    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                 Mike George
              Corporate Headquarters
              217 Billings Farm Road
              White River Junction, VT, USA 05001-9486
              TEL: (802) 296-2321 ext, 226 FAX: (802) 296-2325
              E-mail: ajg@couceptsnrec.com
              visit us at: www.concept.snrec.com
              This email irseasage and any attachments are for the sole use of the
              intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential
              information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from
              disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
              prohibited. If you are not the intended recipients, please contact the
              sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of
              the message as well as any attachments to the original message.
                     -— Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM —-
                                  "nrikeg@iil.edu"
                                  
    -------
    Meagan Gibson
    
           .
                                   '£> Jtt 2 3 2ffl?
    
    
               0400\-C flwol
                      iftf«r/^..wx5>.
                                           -^^
         .  .<|Vy»>
                                      \4              ,
                                                                  1-9
                                                                  1-10
                                                                                                                 fa/v .wuj
                      4-
                                                                                      c
                                                                                      i?
                                                                                                  am/M •J(Vva,-V.'th^
                                                                                                v^ ar^
                                                                                                 i	3ft
                                                                                                                                            1-7
                                                                      1-10
                                                                                                                                .
                                                                                                                 ^
    
                                                                                                                                 erf"
                                                                                                                                            1-5
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-982
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                               LaryGlen
                                        	.	
    
                                  ^                     .
                                                '-
                                                                                                                 ty
                                                                                                               - 2/5
    LL.
                                  '^_^,,,:^^s^l^^^^^J^....j^I.,. a^Q- -^M^k^^l^-^u^^*!fa..lia^i
                                                         t4-r J.r<,Sjip J&£r.. ..| •
    
                                                                                          T
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-983
                                                Secf/on ^ - Citizens
    

    -------
    Christopher Goddard
                                                                                                GayGoforth
                                                  REC'D DEC 2 9.
                                                                                                                                                 3815 Brookview Road
                                                                                                                                                 Austin, TX 78722-1323
                                                                                                                                                 January 19, 2004
                   Mr. JohnForrea
                   U.S.EPA(3EA30)
                   1650 Arch St.
                   Philadelphia, PA 19103
                   December 20,2003
                   Subject: Please Stop Destructive Slip-Mining
                   Dear Mr. Forren,
    
                   I recently read an aitiete about the horrible conditions bom for the people and the
                   environment ihat are being created in the Appalachian mountains through the practice of
                   strip-mining. Streams are being heavily polluted or even buried. Surrounding forests are
                   destroyed. The health of the people in the region Is declining as well. The ever-present
                   dust in the air in some areas causes people to develop asthma or other rang problems.
    
                   Strip-mining may be a major source of income, tat what is being lost in the process?
                   American citizens in this area are suffering to send coal and the majority of profits out of
                   their community, irreparable environmental damage is being done as well.
    
                   Please, 1 ask that yo« do what is right and protect the people and environment of
                   Appalachia, 1 do not support Alternative 1,2, or 3 as described in the draft EIS report.
                   Noae of these options will protect Appalachian forests, water, or communities. In
                   particular, 1 oppose tiie proposal to eliminate the stream buffter-mne rule that prohibits
                   mining activity within 100 feet of streams. This rule should be strictly enforced for valley
                   fills and in all other cases.
    
                   Leveling mountains and bwymg stteams is wrong and must stop. Please act for 1he
                   people and the land.
    
                   Sincerely,
    1-9
    1-5
    1-10
                   Christopher Ooddard
                   18012201 RawlingsHaU
                   Gainesville, FL 32612
                             Mr, John Forren
                             Environmental Protection Agency
                             Ariel Rios Building
                             1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
                             Mail Code 3213A
                             Washington, DC 20460
    
                             Dear Mr. Forren:
    I oppose the proposal to change the stream buffer zone rule that
    prohibits mining activity within 100 feet of streams.  This rule should
    be enforced for valley fills.
    
    I cannot imagine why the federal government is proposing to continue
    allowing coal companies to destroy a functional, beautiful part of our
    country by blowing up mountalntops and forests, and dumping that
    land in the rivers below.
    
    The laws and regulations that protect America's land and  clean water
    must not be weakened, as this practice does—they should be
    strengthened.
    
    Last summer, my husband and I went on a car and camping vacation
    through West Virginia.  Mountaintop removal  will ruin the health and
    beauty of the land and water of that state plus others. This in turn will
    hurt the state's economy.
    
    I strongly  oppose this terrible practice and the further proposed rule
    change to remove whole places of mountains and ruin the forests,
    rivers, and valleys. This benefits only a few people—the principals of
    mining companies.
    
    Surely compassionate conservatism doesnt Include this!  I want my
    tax dollars spent on protecting America's wonderful natural land,
    wildlife, water, and air resources.
    
    I urge you to oppose the mountalntop/dumping practice.
                                                                                                           1-10
                                                                                                           1-9
                                                                                                                                                 Sincerely,
    
                                                                                                                                                 Jwb
                                                                                                                                                 Gay Gofortff
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-984
                                                                                                                                                                         Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Crystal Good
                                                                                                                                   Donny Good
    	Forwarded by David Ilider/R3/USEPA/US on 08/21/03 11:08 AM	
    
              CGoodwoman@aQl.co
              m           To:   R3 Mountaiatop@EPA
                         cc:
              08/14/03 03:40 PM   Subject: Mountain top removal comments
    PLEASE STOP MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL.
    Crystal Good
    8 Arlington Ct
    Charles ton WV 25301
                                                                   i _n
                                                                                  *«**!*  •.*.-'
                                                                                  *•*,
                                                                                  * *'
                                                                                  *•*
                                                                                  **
    
                                                                                  *.**
                                                                                  *.
                                                                                    *
                                                                                    *
                                                                                   y
                                                                                   * *
                                                                                   *  i
                                                                                   *:
                                                                                   -**
                                                                                            .**.*".
                                                                                             JL
    ^"***i**»**  /
                •.*
                •»
                8
                * *
                .*:
                                                                                                                        *
                                                                                                                        > *
                                                                                                                        ( *
    
                                                                                                                       !**:
                                                                                                                       * ^_*
                                                                                                                        *
                                                                                                                       *•  *•
                                                                                                                        •  *
                                                                                                                        *  *
                                                                                                                        ."*
                                                                                                                       >*;
                                                                                                                       •*"
                                                                                                                         *
                                                                                                                       *r
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                   A-985
                                                                                                                                     Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Joanne Granzow
                                                                                     Katherine Green
                                                                                        1-9
                                                                                        1-10
    
                      Lexington Herald Leader
                      I was appalled to read that the environmental agency is now considering mountain top
                      removal (strip mining) for coal.
                      Our country is coining apart at the seams now. Why add insult to injury!
                      Do those in power realize wliat the consequences are, not only now but also for years to
                      come to our mountains and the folks mat live in those areas.
                      Homes are destroyed by mod slides and flooding time after time. Nature took care of the
                      problems of erosion and disasters until the strip mining was done several years ago. It is
                      taking years to recover and repair what was lost then.
                      It will not help the economy for the ones mat need die help but only line the pockets of
                      the big corporations.
                      Our roads, railroads, education and energy are being neglected, as is everything else in
                      our own country. We know where the funds are going but isn't it time we took care of
                      our own?
                      I am disappointed in our representatives for not making our state a priory and put party
                      lines on the back burner for just a little while.  Kentucky people have elected them and
                      their loyalties should be to them.
                      We citizens must open our eyes and see the havoc that is upon us. Our country we once
                      knew is slipping away!
                      We are Americans.
                      We have shown strength before.
                      Let us speak out and get involved!
                      Kathcrine M. Green
    
                      Copy to:
                      John Forren
                      U.S.EPA(3E530)
                      1650 Aroh Street
                      Philadelphia, Pa.19103
    
                      Rep. Ernest Fletcher
                      U.S. House of Representatives
                      Washington, DC 20515
    
                      Pres. George Bush
                      The White House
                      1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
                      Washington, DC 20500
                                                                                                                                                                                               1-10
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-986
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Margaret Gregg
                                                                                                                                                                    Robert Gipe
                                                                                    10-2-2
                lotaPotref
                   BPA(3ES30)
                650An*St
                         PA 19103
                disappointed and angiy that the federal government ignored its own studies when it
                              rather tb;m strengthening, protect.'ore; for peopk and (he
     and count ray blessings every day
    that iave been diiTuptsd, damaged and/
    witnessed the tragic upheaval of
    destroyed by stflp jMffito||.* ^ -
                     you for your coastderatfos,
                Limestone IN 37681423 257 3875
                           .com
                co: President G.W. Busk
                                                     'REC'D  SEPO 82083
    
    
                                                          Robert Gipe
                                                          P.O. Box 1394
                                                          Harlan.KY 40831
    
    John Forren, US EPA (3ES30)
    1650 Arch Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
    Dear Mr. Forren:
    
    I live in Harlan County, Kentucky at the headwaters of the Cumberland River. We have
    had nearly a hundred years of coal mining in our community. We have very little clean
    water. We once had plenty.
    
    The draft environmental impact statement on mountaintop removal published recently
    by the Bush administration is a slap in the face of everyone who needs water to
    survive. It is a malicious, poisonous, shortsighted, misanthropic, hateful, greedy, anti-
    democratic document.
    
    I pray that the people who put it before the public will live long enough to see the
    errors of their ways and correct them. I pray that the people who wrote this document
    never have to drink the greasy black water that comes out of the spigots of people in
    the American coalfields. I pray that they never have to pull their sleeping children out
    of a home flooded as a result of rain on poorly reclaimed strip jobs.
    
    My message to President Bush and all the f ormulators and enforcers of his self-
    serving, callous, cynical, dangerous energy policy is this: I support none of the
    proposed alternatives In your environmental Impact statement. I oppose Mountaintop
    Removal Mining. Enforce SMCR A the way It was written. Enforce the Clean Water Act
    the way it was written.
    
    Good people don't have to get sick and die just so this country can have electricity.
    We can do better.  Pursue alternatives.
    
    Elected officials are supposed to look out for the Interests of all the people-not just
    their fraternity brothers, family friends, and corporate cronies. Quit acting like
    gangsters and start acting like statesman. Or pursue another line of work.
    
    Sincerely,
                                                                                                          Robert Gipe
                                                                                                                                                                                        1-5
    
                                                                                                                                                                                        1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                  A-987
                                                                                                                            Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Karen Grabb
                                                                                          Robert Hallick
              Karen Grubb
                                    cc:
                                       Subject: Mining E1S
                          08/20/03 12:12 PM
              Mr. John Forren, US EPA
              1650 Arch Street
              Philadelphia, PA 19130
    
              Mr. Forren,
    
              Mountaintop Removal destroys streams, contaminates drinking water,
              causes
              flooding, makes moonscapes out of the beautiful Appalachian Mountains —
              some of the world's oldest mountains, causes blasting damage to
              residents
              homeSj air pollution to residents, destroys hardwood forests and
              wildlife
              habitats, destroys Appalachian culture and heritage, defies the
              executive
              order regarding environmental justice for low income people, destroys
              jobs
              and is environmentally insane.
    
              Mountaintop Remox'al should be stopped now!  Ihe recommendations in the
              EIS
              Statement are a sham in that they ignore the scientific evidence and
              recommend
              speeding up the process in permitting mountain top removal. No economic
              gain can justify the process of mountairttop removal.
    
              Karen Grubb
              21 Beverly Circle
              Fairmont^ WV  26554
    1-9
                      Robert       Hallick
                      Date:   1/02/2004
                      City:,   West Reading State: PA    Zip:    19611
    
                      I am happy to learn that the Bush administration plans to continue to let coal companies
                      change Appaiachia with, mining practices that level mountaiiJtops, wipe out forests, bury
                      streams, and help eonirftunities. It is important/to do mining for resources, as lo'tig as the
                      replanting of trees  is in effect the mining could very well help the beautification of out
                      countries mountains•. In light of these facts, I urge you to consider alternatives that
                      increase the enyiroranetital impacts of mcmtitaintop removal. Thank you for your
                      consideration of this important issue,.
                     1-11
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
             A-988
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Emilie Hamilton
                                                . If JREC'D jJAN 0
                  M fJ6hn> Torrent
                                                           3, 2004
                  1650 ArchStreet
                  Philadelphia* PA  19103
    
                  Dear Mr f orrery
                                                    upjetwtes THe-
                  wtewa^e' jent me- described- tiKe* tntenttorvof tHe-BitiJv
                  to- destroy $ve- beauty of <4ppaltfw^Ua/ wt
                                      U4tf&irtti)p*', djeo
                                      wiMtifohabttat:],
                                                fEIS j
                                         envf^tttunentel/ effectfrof
                           exceedingly ccwefad/ Cn/^te- cC«ct«€«>n*/ fntwle-
                                                         f: AU/ltf&
                                                                   1-9
                                                                   1-10
                      j ASK vou wor ro M^KE rr EASIER
                      C(9RP«9fMTl<9NS TO OBT/4IW PERMITS TO 4LLOVU THIS
                      FORM Of MOUWTAJWTOP REMOVAL CO4L MIWIW<5.
    
                                                                                             1200
                                  mot<*vtaMtep
                                    ;t2Z' directiy
    wtte^of PRECJOltS
    be- permanently «itered-
                                              de*tJT»yed'IF<4LLOVVE'D by
                                                                                             please- do- not" Kicr^tce' tfte- land' and/ live' people- f
                      Theu^hyou/ for yow jertott*' c&mider attcm> of
                      $t&- very t
                                                                          1-9
                                                                                                                      PO Sox/ 52/1 1 Putney Rd-.
                                                                                                                      teverett, Mi4 01054
                                                                                                                      413 -54S -9328
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-989
                                            Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    HannJ.
    US
                      Ffe»toA»\
             .ArcW SK
          Oe«r
                        A
          "X
             ca/y..
                           J^SJLj^hs^L.
                                                            1-10
    
    
                                                                                                        (  (
    
      «^S_a/£^
    
    -A^*&to-_»_
    
                                                                                            r
    
                                                                                                   g«£.i^^L_-^k&lC-
    
                                                                                                iJk^^^al^L^CSv-	I
                                                                                                                            I
    
    
                                                                                f\£r     «  C  (•>
                                                                               ^QS&£^^j^£^L&-~,
    
                                                                                                     ^
                                                                                                   ^
    
                                                                                             ^so^^^
                                                                                                                             '
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium                      A-990
                                                                                                                  Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Karl Hanzel
                                                                                                     Alice Hardin
                 — Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:58 PM —
    
                           Karl Hanzel
                                     cc:
                                        Subject: Strengthen draft EIS on mountaintop removal coal mining
                           01 /Q5/2004 02:02
                           PM
                                                                                                                       -----  Forwarded by David Rider/RJ/USEPA/US on 01/C-3/J1C04 C2:01 PM -----
                                                        bvIOTIS horjrific examples o£ deatiuotIon thi$. h-sis
                                  caused in  our country, as well as others.
                                  T  am sending a message of an adamant WO to mountaintop mining.
                                  Thank You,
                   1-9
                 Sincerely,
    
                 Karl Hanzel
                 736 Wagonwheel Gap
                 Boulder, CO 80302
                 USA
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-991
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Jerry Hardt
                                                                                                       Bill Hardy
      	Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:52 PM	
    
                  Jerry Hatdt
                              cc:
                                Subject: EIS statement MTR
                  01/05/200410:02
                  AM
      John Forren
      U.S. EPA (3ES30)
      1650 Arch Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
      Dear Mr. Fotren,
    
      Given tile imduigs oi the EIS released last May and my own observation and expedience, I
      ttnd it absurd that the Bush administration is proposing to ease restrictions on rnountaintop
      removal mining. 1 encourage EPA and the administration to reject ail the alternatives
      presented in the EIS and move toward a ban on surface mining in steep slope areas and the
      elimination of valley fills.
    
      An interim step in this direction would be to simply enforce the law as it now exists.
    
      The preferred alternative represents a total abrogation of die EPA's responsibility to protect
      the environment and safeguard human health. It is a total sell-out to big-money interests at
      the expense of the people who live in die Appalachian coalfields. It is a statement that
      people don't matter and that the administration does not care if the people of eastern
      Kentucky and West: Virginia have any future.
    
      I encourage you to read your own study. Pay attention to the findings that the environmental
      effects of mountamtop removal are widespread, devastating, and permanent. Pay attention
      to the iact that eliminating valley fills would have a minimal economic impact, especially
      when compared to the massive negative impacts of not banning valley fills. Remember that
      we are not |ust talking about dirt and rock, we are talking about peoples' homes and
      communities.
    
      Don't play with peoples' lives and futures as political favors. Reject the HIS
      recommendations, strengthen environmental protections and enforce the law.
    
      Jetty Hardt
      P.O. Box 697
      Salyetsvillc, K.Y 41465
      606-349-2593
    1-10
    1-5
                                    Dear  Forren:
                                                                                                           1-11
                                    Bill Hardy
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-992
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Roy Harless, Jr.
                                                                                                                                                     Ronda Harper
             Mr. Forren,
                                                 REC'D OCT28.2BJ
         I have lived here in the same place for fifty-nine years,
    and watched the coal industry destroy our mountains with
    blasting, destroy streams with runoff from mines and
    preparation plants, destroy our roads with overloaded coal
    trucks, destroy our homes and lives with flooding caused by
    broken impoundments, and ruin our health with coal dust
    My families water well went dry sixteen years ago because of
    mountain top removal blasting. I worked in the coal mines
    here for thirty-one years until I was disabled three years ago
    and had to retire. I am firmly against mountain top removal
    coal mining.  -
                 i
                                        Sincerely,
                                             Roy B. Harless Jr.
                                             HCR 78 Box 5324
                                             Barrett, WV 25208
                                                                             1 -9
                                                                                                      Environmental  Impact States'ent oti Mounts in top Restoval
    Deai." Hr. tTyirt-stj".
    
    My name is Ronda Haip^r and I live  in Hunting-ton, W»,  My family1;?
    homeplaee is ir, Li.nuo.lK County,  5?V.  Cur property or. the M;id Paver wa
    once aurrou tided by beautiful n^cuntaia wilderness, but it is quickly
    ibecoudng a tiay island paradise  .surrotmcled by rrieuntaintop destryctioK
    The holiowat vrtieie my gi^iidsath^r and giandfaUu-tr, mother/ and uncles
    ones walked, -garderied, and hunted are gone. Moat cf the stcea,ms
    my
    cousins and j wac;i§4 ssnd sv?am as  children are cone.  As I walk a
                                                                                                                                                                       1-9
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                             A-993
                                                       Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                       Mark Harris
      DeliveredDate:. 01/04/2004 03:55:29:PM
    
      My name is Ronda Harper and .1 live in Huntingotn, WV.  My family's hqmeplace is in
      Lincoln County,. WV. Our property on the Mud River was once surrounded by beautiful
      mountain wilderness, but is it quickly becoming a tiny island paradise surrounded by
      mountaintop destruction. The hollows where my grandmother, grandfather, mother, and
      uncles once walked, gardened, and hunted 4re gone. Most of the streams where tny
      cousins and I Waded and swam as children are gone. As 1 walk along the one last
      remaining stream on  our property I find frogs, turtles, and salamanders.  My heart breaks
      for them for soon they will be buried beneath valley, fill. Birds and wildlife are being
      driven away along with  families who can no longer bear the blasting near their homes
      and breathing the clouds of black dust.  Our family is trying desperately to hold on to our
      beautiful homeplace, but the coal company is making this VERY difficult,  West
      Virginians who live near MTR sites have been driven, out, flooded out, and. forced to sell
      out.  Mountaintop removal has to stop.
    1-9
                               — Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01 :S8 PM —
    
                                         Mark Harris
                                                    oo:
                                                     Subject: Fix draft EIS to protect streams from rnountalntc
                                         01/01/2004 07:40
                                         PM
    Dear Mr, Forren,
    
    i strongly urge you to add provisions to the EPA's
    draft EIS that will prevent destruction of streams by
    mountaintop removal mining.
    
    Although the draft EIS recognizes tie problem of
    valley fills that bury streams, it proposes no
    restrictions on the size of those valley fills.
    
    Rather than act on your own studies, which recognize
    the problem of valley fills that bury streams, you are
    proposing a "preferred alternative" that weakens
    existing environmental protections and allows valley
    fills to continue at an accelerated rate.
    
    ! urge you to follow through on the Bush
    administrations stated commitment to clean water by
    adopting alternatives that stop destruction of
    mountain streams by mourtaintop removal mining and
    then implement those measures.
    
    Sincerely,
    Mark Harris
    PO Box 682375
    Park City, UT 84068
                                                                                                                                                                                              1-10
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
          A-994
                                                            Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Erica Harvey
                                                                                                                                                 Tracy Hasuga
           y,
                    Qs
                         a
                                     kj  you
                                      th
                                     Va//?.y  -f?7/s ,
        ,    Qs
    coa
                  H
                             s.
                                                         ,5/9
                                                                 '5
                                                           pwer
                                                              pay
                                                             to
                                                                                  1-9
                                                                                      — Fotwatded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:59 PM -—
    
                                                                                                  "to aring20s_99@y a
                                                                                                  too.com"         To:    R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                                                                                                  
    -------
    Marlon Henn
                                                                                                         DanHensley
                  — Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:52 PU —
    
                             Marion
                             «marlon4|>twcny.rr.    To:   R3 MountaintopOEPA
                             GO!T!>           CO:
                                          Subject destructive operations
                             12/30/200311:13
                             AM
                  To Whom it may concern;
    
                  I do not envy you in your position, being tugged at from all directions.
    
                  Big business have there interest and the lonely citizen has only one
                  voice in a crowd of thousands. I ask you to consider the issues before
                  you concerning the environment and any destruction to it.
    
                  You are charged with a huge reconcilability, but keep in mind that what
                  you do affects all man kind, not just in the US but all over the world.
    
                  At what point are we the US going to be happy with things, the
                  environment, just the way they are. Are we so starved that we need to
                  destroy virgin land for the sake of a company to make profits. I think
                  not. Look beyond your desk, beyond your self and think about all the
                  people that you will hurt by pressure from the big business that keeps
                  knocking on your door wanting to bend your ear.
    
                  Please do not destroy some of the last remaining treasures we have left.
    
                  Respectfully
    
                  Marlon Henn
                  311 N. Collinjjivood Ave.
                  Syracuse, NY 13206
    i-9
                                                                  :BEC'D JAN 2
                                                                                         ts.
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
               A-996
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Robert Hensley
                                                                                                  J. Michael Herr
                                       Robert M. Hensley, D.V.M.
    
                                1025 Creekside Lane  Nicholaavilie, KY 40356
    
                                            859 271-2920
               19Augu«t2003
               Mr. John Forren
               1650 Arch St.
               Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
               Dear Sir:
    
               I am opposed to the concept and practice of disturbing the mountain top topography to
               mote "efficiently" and "economically" gain tccess to the coal seams thereunder. TMs
               approach to mining may be good for the bottom line of the coal companies, but it most
               certainly is not for the adjacent environment or its inhabitants.;
    
               Compounding this unconscionable technique is the disruption, if not destruction, of
               contiguous waterways with the overburden or spoil. This practice flies in the fece of
               existing laws which attempt to preserve, if not improve, the water quality in these areas.
               The proposed changes would reduce the 100 foot buffer zone which attempts to protect
               existing streams and would exacerbate conditions of many already degraded by mining
               activity.
    
               In sum, we must not continue the history of atese of these areas simply for additional
               profit It is time that the quality of life for the inhabitants and their environment be given
               a higher priority than the profit margins of the corporations causing this destruction.
                          DeliveredDate: 01/06/2004 05:07:38 PM
    
                          I lived and worked in Raleigh and Fay-cite County, WV, for 21 years until moving to CT
                          in Sept, 2001, and I will never forget the beauty and feeling of the hills of that state.- The
                          mountain top removal projects had been going on for quite some time, obviously, and
                          every time there was exposure in the press or by driving by one of the sites there was
                          always a sick feeling in the gut. The extent to "Which the current Administration is intent
                          on producing profits for their high-placed friends at the expense of the natural  beauty
                          and ecologically pristine conditions of those mountains is a travesty  beyond words. Coal
                          is useful and necessary; of csiurse. Mine it another way.  Period. We can afford it. Stop
                          this wasteful aiid arrogant process.  Now.
    
                          LMichael Herr
                       1-9
    1-9
              cc:KFTC
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-997
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Caroline Mice
                                                                                                  Susan Hickman
                 — Forwarded by David RIder/R3/USEPA/US Oft 01/08/2004 01:58 PM —
    
                            cjhice@yahoo.com
                                        To:   R3 MountaintopQEPA
                            01*5/200409:46     co:
                            AM           Subject: Don't fill our streams with waste materials
                                     U.S. &A
                                                                                      1/2 0/2
    
    
    
                                                                             SEC'D JAN 2 S
                                                      2i«
                 Dear Mr. John Forren EPA,
    
                 It is unconscionable that the Bush administration plans to continue to
                 let coal companies destroy Appalachia with mining practices that level
                 mountaintops, wipe out forests and bury streams in the valleys below.
                 Mountaintop removal mining and valley fills should not be allowed and
                 the laws and regulations that protect clean water must not be weakened.
                 In particular, I oppose the proposal to change the stream buffer zone
                 rule that prohibits mining activity within 100 feet of streams.  This
                 rule should be strictly enforced for valley fills and in all other
                 cases.
                 Sincerely,
    
                 Caroline Mice
                 4353 Main St Fl 2
                 Philadelphia, PA 19127-1415
                                      If."-
    1-9
    
    
    1-10
    Mr,
                                                                       1-9
                                                                                                               1-10
                                                                                                                                                                                   'BEC'D JAN 2
    MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-998
                                                     Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Sanford Higginbotham
                                                                                                                                            Monica Hill
    	ForH-arded by David Rider/RVUSEPA/US ^n 11/20/2C03 04:42 PM —•—
    
                      Q-anforci
                      Hiyyiiibulisaia          To:      R3
    Mcu n ta i n t op$ E iJA
                      
    -------
    Marty Hiller
                                                                                           DanitaHines
             —- Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:59 PM	
    
                         "hifler@alurn,mit.
                         edxi" 
    -------
    Robert Hiser
                                                                                              Paul Hodder
             —- Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:59 PM -—
    
                          rbhiserl @aol.com
                                        To:    R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                          01/0-1/200408:45     cc:
                          AM             Subject: Mmmtaintop Mining
             After living seventeen years in the Wheeling, WV area and seeing first
             hand
             the moonscape created by surface mining in Belmont County, OH, I cannot
             believe
             we an; willing to sacrifice our mountains to the same fate.
             I equate this mining method to cigarette smoking, you know that drawing
             smoke
             into your lungs can't be good for you yet you do it.
             The small number of jobs and little tax money derived from these
             operation vS
             cannot possibly be worth the removal for all time of the beauty and
             function
             that nature has provided us since the beginnings of time.
             Let us Please, for once, use some common sense and make  some sensible
             decisions for our future generations,
             Robert B. Hiser
             Elkview, WV.
    1-9
                               	Forwarded by David Ridct/R3/USEPA/US on 01/20/2004 09:08 AM	
    
                                          Paul Hodder
                                                   cc:
                                                       Subject:
                                          01/19/200406:27
                                          PM
    
                               I received information on the impending EIS on rnountaintop coal mining and am
                               wondering if that would also affect the type of road construction going on now in the state
                               of West Virginia. I've seen the results and thtv view is devastating. My understanding is that.
                               as they blow the top otf of these mountains that they are also removing the coal so that they
                               can increase the  amount oi acid rain falling on the streams in this part of
    Thanks,
    Paul A. Hodder
    Manager, Software Development
    CatalystRx
    301-548-2956
    phodde c@c atalysttx.com
    okO.bmp
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
             A-1001
                                                                                                                                                                      Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Sharon Hodges
                                                                                      Steve Hodges
                                                                                     1-10
                          	Forwarded by David Ridet/R3/USEPA/US on 01/12/2004 02:49 PM -
    
                                    Steve I lodges
                                              cc:
                                                 Subject: motmtaintop removal
                                    01/06/2004 04:34
                                    PM
    
                          John Forren
                          EPA
    
                          Dear Mr. Forren,
    
                          I oppose mountaintop removal and valley fills and any change in the nile
                          protecting stream buffer ^ones. I am disappointed and angry that the
                          federal government is ignoring its own studies by proposing to .reduce
                          protections for people and the environment.  I demand a new study that
                          looks at the alternatives to prevent new rnountaintop removal and valley
                          fill operations and to stop the existing ones within 5 years or by the
                          expiration of the current miaifig permit, whichever date occurs first.
    
                          Sincerely,
    
                          Steve Hodges
                          594 Hoot Owl  Hollow
                          Kyles Ford, TO 37765
                                                                                                                                                                                        1-5
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-1002
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    AndyHodgman
                                                                                                                        Karen Holl
                                                                       REC'D  JAN2S
                         Mr. John Fojrren
                         U.S.  EPA
                                                                                   Cfasi 17, 2D04
                         16SO Arch Street
                         £D>iladelphia, PA 19X03
                         Dear l£r, .-^orcea,' ."--,. -
    
                         Please eonsidar th*  permanent ramifications of the proposed weakening
                         of eavicoBinsstttal policy regarding isountaintop strip  laining foz coal.  It
                         is iterative that we protect our resources despite  efforts to the
                         contrary by fch« currant pcesitienfeial administration  to do otherwise-  It
                         would  be v«ry disappointing ,to find out in the future that the trickle
                         down effect wer& even more harmful 'than now believed by such a
                         practice. I do not believe the ftnvironHiftnt is worth  sacrificing  in  any
                         instance aad natch l«ss tot the strip mining of coal  mimed by'such Ki&atis
                         as blowing the tops  off jsotrntaifts .  It ia toifarfctmate titat the • political
                         cirdaasta&ces currently dictate a weak emvlrommental policy but  it  is '
                         tima to stand up and take jaotice whether Democrat or Rrap-ublican  and
                         this would b« a step in the right direction.
    
                         Regards,
    
                         Andy Hod^fman                 "        "              '             ,  -      .
                         1911 W.. BelX&.Blaiae Av«
                         Chicago, 1L. 60613
    1-10
                                          UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ
                                                                                                                                               BEftKELEY • DAVIS . iBVINfi • LOS ANKEUHS > MSOD • RIVERSIDE • Mff CaSGD •
                                                                                            ,BB®'D  JAN 2
                                                                                                              6 2Ml
    January 20, 2(K)4
    JohfiFoiTBIl
    U.S. EPA (3BS3Q)
    1650 Arcli Ste^:
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
    DearMr.Famut,
    
    1 am writing in opposition to the Bash administration plans to continue to let coaj companies
    destroy Appakchia wife ifitoiug practices that level moantalntops, destroy foresls and tmry
    streEHES M the valleys below. Eves the administration's drali BavtoaaMKoSd. taipact Stat«saqt
    (BIS) cm moontaintQp removal coal ralBmg acknowledges that Use envimsineatal effects of this
    practice are devsstatmg and pennaseat As a scientist wtso b^i studied ecos^^saai r«covery after
    mining I ksow ti^ extent of the effects of tege-sc&Ie co&l surface ujjiri^ Evm mds^ the best
    of conditions recovery of these ecosystems can be stow, bat whea large areas of forest are
    cleared dispersal of aeeds to colonize fee areas is smtmai wMeh may impede recovery ftirther.
    Tnestreamsin tMsrcgi
    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Mark Homer
                      I urge you to show soipe common sense and prevent the loosening of regulatiotis that help to
                      protect the people and ecosystems of this regbu tea tills devastating practice.
    
                      Sincerely,
    
                       /£,— a. fbtf
                      Karen Holl,Ph,D,
    
                      Holl, K, D, 2002.  The effect of coal suriaw sine revegetatiott practices on long-term
                            vegetation recovery. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:960-970.
                      Holl, K. D. and J. Cams, Jr. 1994.  Vegetatianal community development on reclaimed
                            coal sur&CG mines in Virginia. Bulletin cf the Torrey Botanical Club 121:327-337.
           December 16,2003
    
           Mr. John Forren EPA
           U.S. EPA (3EA30)
           1650 Arch St
           Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
           Dear Mr. John Forrea EPA,
    
           It is unconscionable that tfie Bush administration plans to continue to let coal companies
           destroy Appalacbia with mining practices that level mountaintops, wipe out forests and
           bury streams in the valleys below.  Motmtatatop removal mining and valley fills should
           not be allowed and the laws and regulations that protect clean water must cot be
           weakened.  In particular, I oppose the proposal to change the stream buffer zone rule that
           prohibits mining activity within 100 feet of steams. This role should be strictly enforced
           for valley fills and in all other cases.
    
           The federal government has ignored its own studies on protections for people and the
           environment I, therefore, do not support any of the three alternatives contained witbin
           the Environmental Impact Statement Report All three options will make it easier for
           companies to destroy streams, endangering wildlife and nearby communities.
           Once they are gone, they will be gone forever.
    
    ~~~a&r* Note: I am a native Philadelphia!!, graduate of Central High School and the University of
           Pennsylvania. 1 would not want Tennessee's beauty destroyed any more than I would
           Pennsylvania's.
    
           Sincerely,
                                                                                                              1-9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        1-10
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        1-5
                                                                                                                                             Mark Homer
                                                                                                                                             601 S Peters Rd
                                                                                                                                             Apt 55
                                                                                                                                             Knoxville, TO 37922-4358
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
    A-1004
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    John Honeck
                                                                                              John Hopkins
      DeliveredDate:  01/05/2004 12:52:43. PM
    
      The way coal is removed in Mquntaintppremoval mining needs to be changed from the
      way it has been  done in the past: Personally I would like to see it .stopped altogether. But
      I know that is not a .reality today. The extractive industry, «a well as all those in. the coal
      consumption chain, need to make their companies as environmentally'benign as possible.
      It is my understanding/that in the past enyirottnientaj laws have been broken by
      companies practicing rrwuntaiatep removal mining. This needs, to stop, not by rewriting
      the law so that illegal practices can be made legal (every criminal would want that), but
      by enforcement and prosecution.
    
      Motmtaintop removal is not only extremely eiivirSftnieritaily degrading but it also has
      serious consequences for the communities around the mine. This societal dimension, also
      needs addressing. I believe that even if the coal extractive companies were to be
      environmentally and socially.eonscieace coal would still be very competitive with other
      enetgy .sources.  Thank you, John Honeck J15
      W Newhall #7, Waukesha WI53186.
    1-9
    -— Forwarded by David Rider/RMJSEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:48 PM -—
    
               John Hopkins
                   To:    R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                            cc:
               01/06/200404:14     Subject: Comment on mountaintop removal mining EIS
               PM
    
    I oppose loosening rates on mountaintop removal mining.
    
    Of all forms of resource extraction, large scale surface mining has one of the longest lasting and
    most radical impacts on the land. Timber, gas, or petroleum extraction can have severe impacts,
    expecially if not managed properly for environmental considerations, but most of the impact of
    these activities will fade after a few hundred years. With MTR mining, the alteration of the
    natural landforms, rocks, tnd streams of the Appalachians will persist on a geologic timescale,
    thousands or tens of thousands of years. We arent using these resources to produce durable
    goods such as steel—most of it will be burned for a one shot production of energy. And with
    regard to development of industry, flood-proof housing, etc. there is enough land surface-mined
    already (o allow for hundreds of years of building.
    
    Astronomers have given us magnificent photos of deep space, and physicists concepts of the
    infinitesimal. These provide us with glimpses of "the mind of God" (however one conceives of
    the creative force behind the universe). These realms remain distant visions to us as humans. But
    a human can walk across a wild mountain, one can touch it and smell it. The human world is a
    wondrous—and hortifio-part of nature too, but the natural world is uniquely grounding for
    mental and spiritual health because it bypasses the immensely tangled layers of human ideas,
    goals, and conceits.
    
    The earth doesn't cafe. The loosers will be our children, our descendents. For a party of a eoupie-
    of-hundred yeare of cheap energy, West Virginia children of centuries to come will inherit not a
    landscape that gives us a peek at the "mind of God" but instead a landscape that is pockmarked
    with laadfills and slumping sandtrap-Iike features, a
    landscape of human designs and motives.
    
    Now I'm as impure as the next guy, I'm addicted like everyone else to this cheap energy. And of
    course, most of the land that isn't uninhabitable in the world i* dedicated to human purposes.
    Buts it's & question of degree. Where we we going to stop? How can we start turning in a
    different direction so that we don't have to continue shredding wild lands to maintain our
    civilization? The tools of late industrial civilization give us the ability to destroy huge areas in
    record time.
    But they also give us alternatives, too-little discussed and valued, to move in different directions-
    -without going back to the stone age.
    
    John H Hopkins
    e-mail, wrmfv@yshoo.com
                                                                                                          1-10
                                                                                                                                                                                                  1-9
    MTM/VF Draft PEiS Public Comment Compendium
         A-1005
                                                                     Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Patricia Hopkins
                                                                                                                        Pierre Howard
              	Forwarded by David Wder/R3/USEPA/US on 01,73/2004 09:38 AM	
                        "Patricia R.
                        HopMfls"
              By Mountaintop Removal Mining
     To:   R3 Mountaintop@EPA
    am   cc:
    Subject: Please Limit the Destruction Caused
                                                                               2843 Dover Road NortLrest
                                                                                 Atlaata, Georgia 30327
                                                                          1-9
                                                                                                                        PffiRBEHOWAKD
                        01/12/200406:07
                        PM
              Patricia R, Hopkins
              75 Raymond Street
              Biddeford, ME 04005
              January 12,2004
    
               John Forren
              US EPA (3EA30)
              1650 Arch Street
              Philadelphia, PA 19103
              Dear Forren:
    
              75 Raymond Street
    
              Cordially,
    
    
              Patricia R. Hopkins
                                                                                                                                8-1-2
                                                                                                                                1-9
                                                                                                                                  (^^C^/^t^/
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                  A-1006
    Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Renee Hoyos
                                                                                                              Patrick Huber
                — Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/23/2004 09:42 AM —-
    
                           " re nee (^tcwn.o rg"
                           < cenee           To:    R3 M0tuitaintop@EPA
                                        cc:
                           01/21/2004 08:52    Subject:  Support dean waler!
                           AM
    
                Mr, John I-often
                U,$."EPA(3UA3G)
    
                Dear Mr. Forren,
    
                Pksise reduce the harmful effects of mountain k>p removal coal mining to protect natural resources
                and eomtmirtitiC'S Kfid do not weaken enyironmental protections that, apply to the- companies that are
                conducting mountaintop removal.
    
                Tine draft Environmental Impact Statement (BIS) on motmtaintop removal should be rewritten to
                recommend limits on the ske of valley fills that bury steams and imperil wildltte.
    1-10
    
    1-7
    
    1-10
                Sincerely,
                Rente Hoyos
                327 E. Quincy Avc
                knoxvilk.TN 37917
                                                                                                   Patrick Huber
                                                                                                   721 B. 11*81
                                                                                                   Davis, CA 95616
                                             Dew EPA:
          I am writing ia regards to the mining technique 
    -------
    Barbara Hutchinson-Smith
                                 Barbara
                                 Hutchisen-Smith
                                                         Subject:  My plea  for
           John rorxen,  Environmental  Protection Agency
           r.S. FPA (3F,A70)
    
           Philadelphia,  PA 191.03
           I am  lifelong resident ot  the  state  of 5«feot Virginia, the mountain
           state.
           K€J are a people who feel protected by our mountains and the beauty they
           display.
           There are many pfeople in this state whose 1 i veil hood is derived from
           tourism.
           If our ?'tcurttair..3 are allowed to be devistated by the practice of
           mountain top
           removal who will want to corns to our  beautiful state?  We sin-ply cannot
           statid
           by and watch silently while wo  are made the energy sacrifice zone for
           Airier i ca .
           This Ls an obscene practice and must  be curtailed completely! am
           opposed
           to any
           changes that would weaksn the laws and regulations that prcr,e.ct our
           rivers and
           streams from the effects cf mountaintop mining and valley fills.  As a
           result,
           I ani opposed to each of the ali.ernatives evaluated in your May 23, 2003
    
           Knvi rcninerit^: Tjripaot Statement:  (BIS) .
    
           Your draft EIS contains indisputable  evidence ct tne devastating and
           irreversible
           envircn.cvsr.tal harm caused by mountain top ninlng.  other agency studies
           also shew
           that, incurs, tain top raining contributes to flooding disasters in mountain
    11-7-2
    1-10
    
    
    1-5
    
    
    4-2
                            Unfortunately, each of the alternatives in the draft SIS ignores the
                            findings
                            of these atudie,:-; and the very purpose of the EIS- to find ways to
                            minimize/ to
                            the Kiaxitnujn extent prsct icai, the environmental con sequences of
                            tneu n t a i n t op m I n i n g.
                            7he draft EIS does not examine a single alternative that, would reduce
                            those impacts.
    Worse, your "p£-Cened alternative" would clearly ii:crease the daraaqe
    fro Eft mountaintop
    mining by eliminating the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act'a
    buffer
    seme rule that prohibits mining activities that disturb any ares within
    100 ffeet
    of larQ'&t ^treaius, eliffiimating the current, limit on usino nationwide
    permits to
    approve valley fills in West Virginia that are larger than 250 acres,
    and giving
    the Office of Surface Mining a significant new role. in. clean Water Act
    permitting
    for mount a in top fain ing (a rols- it cioos not have unuer current lav/} .
    
    Our environiiie-ntal laws require, and the citizens of the? region deserve,
    a full
    evaluation of ways to reduce the unacceptable impacts of mountaintop
    mining.
    I urge you to abandon your "preferred alternative" and to rssvaluate a
    full irancf®
    of options that wi 11 minimize the enormous erivironn'iental and economic
    damage cau^od
    by mountaintop mining and valley fills.
    
    Thank you for your consideration.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Ea,rt>ar a Hu ten isQii~3ro.i th
    211 Dwyer Ln
    Lewisburg, WV 24901-1205
    USA
    bhsonghiidScilynet,net
                                                                                                                                                                                      4-2
    MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
             A-1008
                                                                Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Martha Hutson
                                                                                                        Carole Hyre
                	Forwarded by David Rider/S3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM •
                Mining
    om" 
    -------
    Robert lies
                                                                                                                                    Michael Jablonski
                	Forwarded by David Ridet/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM -—
                              "bobiles@ j uno .com
                              " 
    -------
    Donnie Jackson
                                                                             Gordon James
        August 4,2003
        To whom it may concern:
                      Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/12/2004 02:45 PM —
    
                                Gordon James
                                         cc:
                                          Subject: Strengthen draft EtS on mountaintop removal coal mining
                                1200/200307:42
                                PM
        I feel the need to express my opinion regarding the draft EIS.  I have
        worked with the mining industry for many years and feel they are doing I i n  i -
        a good job in reclaiming the land they mine. This was not the case       I ' V"J""
        years ago, but improvements have been made and today the land is
        much more useful after it is mined.  A majority of the water pollution    I 5.5.?
        comes from garbage being dumped in our streams. Our wildlife
    population is on the increase.
    
    Without the coal mining industry, people in Eastern Kentucky would be
    devastated. We are among the poorest counties in the nation, and
    without the coal industry I do not see how a lot of our families that rely
    on the coal industry to provide for them would survive.
    
    I feel the regulations are strict enough and that they are being properly
    enforced. I do not believe that a change in the regulations is necessary
    at this time.
                                                                             7-2-2
                                                                             11-1-2
                                                                             1-12
                      December 30, 2003
    
                      Mr. John Forren
                      Project Manager
                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (3EA30)
                      1650 Arch Street
                      Philadelphia, PA 19103
    
                      Dear Mr. Forren,
    
                      Please change the EPA's draft environmental impact statement
                      on rnountaintop removal mining. This is a horrible destruction
                      of Appalachian ecosystems and beautiful natural areas.
                      Sincerely,
    
                      Gordon James
                      3036 S. Cherry Way
                      Denver, CO 80222
                      USA
                                                                                                                                                                      1-9
        Thank yon,
        Donnie Jackson
        260 Belles Fork Rd.
        Manchester, KY 40962
    MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
    A-1011
                                                                                                                                                     Section A - Citizens
    

    -------
    Roberta James
                                                                                              Phyllis Jenness
                                       "REC'D  A<.'8
                                                                                                                                                              2g28B
                     My name is Roberta James, I have worked for Kentucky Coal Association for over
               thirty years, I have seen many changes throuj^i the years, especially in the areas of
               reclamation. The industry has turned old mine site» into wild life habitats, airports, schools,
               hospitals, golf courses, parks, housing, etc.  It has given the mountainous areas of eastern
               Kentucky much needed fiat land to improve their economies and has brought more jabs to the
               area,
    
                     The coal industry is a heavily regulated industry.  The coal companies are required by    1 Q_'J_')
               law to reclaim the land once mining is done. It is reclaimed to equal of better than status then
               before mining began.  Kentucky has had many years of raceesg

      -------
      John Iodine, Jr.
                                            REC-DOEC2S
                          24
                                  TtS 31830
         W..S Ew>
                                                               1-5
      
                                                                                   US,
                                                                                     '
                                                                                                                f>l^^
                                                                       8-1-2
      
      MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1013
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Emily Johnson
                                                                                                     Jane Johnson
               iro;n Mountaintop Mining
                                      11/07/2003  09:12
                                      PK
                                          Jane Johnson
                                          82AntiochRd
                                          Crab Orchard, TO 37723
                                                                                                                              JULY 22,2003
                                              "REC'D JAN2328M
                                       nge that v.ould  weaken  Lhe laws arid .recmlaLions
               that
               p.u>tw;t:  cur  r! vers and 3tre?Mr>s f rest th^  effects  of mount.a int.op mi ni ng
               and valley
               iiiia.   A3 a result,  I am opposed to  each  of  the alternatives evaluated
               in your
               Hay 29,  £003 draft Environmental Impact  Statement {EISJ.
      1-10
      
      1-5
                                                                                                                              JohnForren
                                                                                                                              US EPA
                                                                                                                              1650 Arch St
                                                                                                                              Philadelphia, PA 19103
       Twenty-two people have reported that their houses have been badly shaken up by
      blasting from the Cumberland Coal Company mine on Smith Mountain in Cumberland
      County, Tennessee,
      
       Of these twenty-two peoplea twelve have reported damage to their houses and property.
      
       It is NOT legal to damage houses and property with blasting tern a mine: the Surface
      Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) requires operators to design a blasting
      plan which will prevent injuries to persons and property outside tie Permit Area, legal
      number 30CFR817.67.
      
       It is extremely important that the above law, 30CERS17.67, be enforced.
      
      Sincerely,
                                                                                                                                        9      I I
                                                                                                                                      ^A    XWwA*—•
                                                                                                                                       
      -------
      John Johnson
                                                                                                                                      Andrew Jones
                                                                                                                  August 1, 2003
         John        Johnson
         Date:  1/04/2004
         City:  Chattanooga  State:  TN
      Zip:  37401
         Will facilitate Destruction: The idea that such a practice as mountain top removal is even
         allowed, let alone requires a scientific study, shows just how insane the US Government
         and its corporate sponsors have become. It is patently obvious that mountain top removal
         is genocide and ecocide of the highest order. Simply, it destroys life,-. Why do you need to
         do a study to figure that out? As mountain top a removal destroys all life that it comes
         near, both human and non-human, it should be ILLEGAL and abolished. If you profit
         blinded fools can not see the destruction caused by mountain top removal and the
         subsequent necessity of banning the practice, than, you are no longer worthy of our
         respect or your job.. In short, ABOLISH, OUTLAW, BAN'or otherwise make illegal
         mountain top removal and ALL other variations of destructive strip mining or RESIGN.
         There is no need to belabor the finer points of your draft BIS here. Mountain top removal
         ~ destroys the living mountain, forest and aquatic ecosystems that make life possible and.
         desirable in Southern and Central Appaljichia.
      
         For that reason alone it should be abolished. Mate it illegal or the outraged populace  will
         make your ineffectual bureaucracy obsolete. Eor the mountains, John Johnson of, but not
         .necessarily.for,. Ratuah Earth First, P.O. Box 281 Chattanooga, TN 37401  ps. please put
         my US  postal address (above) on all future NEPA scoping and comment lists relating gto
         mountain top removal in central and southern appalachia. pps. please respond so that I
         know you received these comments.
                                                     1-9
                                                                                                                                                                          8fC ? 4
       My home is to the heart of your study area and in the belly of the
      beast— the beast is the greedy, irresponsible coal barons and the
      corrupt regulatory agencies arid politicians that serve as the
      minions of this beast
      
      This draft EB is a blueprint for continued assault upon the people
      of Appalachia, a declaration of war upon our children, their
      children and GOD'S creation. Enough, STOP Mountaintop
      Removal, NOW!!!!! HSOJ  JKl/Uy Tons fff &fpk>St(£&
       CISCO. ir\ %34/-acKia at day?
      This EB encourages the coal industry to continue to use — to rape
      and take — Appalachia and her people— as a national sacrifice
      zone.
      
      This EIS did NOT study the cumulative effects of environmental,
      community, human, cultural; health and socio-economic impacts
      of post, present and future Valley fill mining. How did you study
      the environmental justice impacts in this draft? You did not study
      the cultural, communrty, people and property being destroyed by
      this mining method, you dismissed ft.
                                                                                I demand a revised EIS that includes cumulative impacts of
                                                                                cultural, social, emotional, and spiritual and health problems
                                                                                of communities affected by Mountaintop Removal
      
                                                                                A partial cultural study already exists, this study by Dr. Mary
                                                                                Hufford is available on the Library of Congress website and Dr.
                                                                                Hufford—Dr. of Ethnography can be reached at the University of
                                                                                Perm. Our mountain culture has been her long before the white
                                                                                settlers came and before
                                                                                Commercial coal mining began. Our culture will be here long after
                                                                                the coal is gone!
                                                                                                                                                Q
                                                                                                                                              10-7-2
                                                                                                                                                                                9-4-2
      MTIWVF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                                                         A-1015
                                                      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
                    It is believed that many people in Mountaintop Removal
                    Effected communities suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder—
                    -from blasting and flooding. How dare you dismiss the suffering of
                    low income and the invisible minority people of central
                    Appalachia!! How dare you dismiss and defy the Executive Order
                    dealing with environmental justice, the low income and minority
                    people.
      
                    Your own study says that this area is well above the average in
                    poverty and unemployment. "Where is the study on socio-economic
                    problems of the area? Why are the people in the coal rich counties
                    the poorest? What are the ACTUAL costs to the communities and
                    people that suffer the effects of Mountaintop Removal? This
                    mining effects the very poor, the powerless and oppressedpeople.
                    Economic Development of these artificial sites? Only t> |§of these
                    destroyed mountains are ever given any economic development for
                    the affected communities. Where is the study on this?—I want to
                    see the figures and a study on how much "prosperity" goes back to
                    Buglar Hollow or Bob White or Montcoal, or any small mining
                    community.
      
                    In the last 6 months, 2 schools in the Coal River Valley,
                    Both surrounded by many Massey mining permits, was closed.
                    Sending our children on very, very long bus rides. One was at
                    Montcoal—Marsh Fork High School-—where is the support—
                    where's the money? The Raleigh County Board of Educations said
                    it does NOT receive a red cent from coal tax for education—coal
                    says it gives—who is lying? I want to see a report on that
      
                    The scientific evidence of this study shows that Mountaintop
                    Removal is environmentally insane, but the recommendations by
                    the administration is to make it easier for the greedy coal
                    companies to destroy everything, which leads me to believe that
      10-7-2
      10-2-2
      even worse scientific evidence was omitted from Ms study. Even
      so, your report makes an airtight case against your conclusions.
      Your report and your conclusions strongly contradict Did a
      complete idiot write the conclusions?
      
      AS a fellow Christian I challenge President Bush to come to the
      coalfield hollows in central Appalachia and talk with the blasted,
      flooded, poor and the oppressed people impacted by Monntaintop
      Removal. I ask President Bush to investigate his agencies, No true
      Christian would allow these evil abuses to continue. I am sure once
      the President discovers these crimes against the citizens of
      Appalachia, he will stop Mountaitrtop Removal. NO toe GOD-
      fearing man would allow these crimes to continue.
      
      People should NOT have to make a choice between a job now and
      destroying their children's ftrture, making their neighbors suffer
      and selling their eternal souls in the bargain.
      Revelation 11:18
      Thy wrath is come, that they should be judged, and that thou
      shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets and to
      the saints and them that fear thy name, small and great; and
      shouldest destroy them which destroy the Earth.
      
      HOW VERY, VERY ARROGANT OF MAN TO THINK HE
      CAN DESTROY GOD'S CREATION.
      MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
              A-1016
                                                 Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Deborah Jones
                                                                                                                                           Lora Jones
                        Mr. JohnForren
                        U.S. EPA
                        1650 Arch St.
                        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                        19103
      WEC-D
      JAW 0 5 2004
      	Forwarded by David Rider/83/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM	
      
                  "twmwj@patrnedia.n
                  et" 
      -------
      Mary Lou Jones
      
                                            i ltru,nn£rijk>fi
                                                      r
                                   L-^
                             *i±-^Ju^
                                                                                             eLfifi^aL^uLj a^Ag.'- GjKrx.tgM. ."Maj£r..kJeuJtJ.	U^faAi^uA
                                                                                                                                                   I-9
                                                                                                                                                   I-IO
      
      
      MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1018
                                                                                                                                      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      TimJones
                                                                                        Richard Jorgensen
             —- Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/O7/2U04 03:32 PM	
      
                          deforest@atisttn.r
                          (.com           To:    R3 Moimtmntop(3>EPA
                                       cc:
                          01/03/200411:02     Subject: Comments on Draft programmatic
             Knvwnnmenlol Impact Statement on mnuntaintop
                          PM              removal coal mining
      
             Enviromental Protection Agency En wofttnental Impact Statement
      
      
             Dear Knvirouiental Protection Agency Environmental Impact Statement,
      
             F'm writing in regards lo Bush administration plans to continue to let coal companies
             destroy Appakchia with mining practices that level mounlaintops, wipe out forests
             and bury streams iit the valleys below.
      
             Are you freaking. NUTS???
      
             Sincerely,
      
             Tim fones
             313 J-one Oak Drive
             Austin, Texas 78704
      1-9
      Mr. Jcto IBrran
      OS SPA (3S4JO)
      1650 Aroh ».
      PMJadaljMa, PA
      Dw Slri
      
           Ha- QVW a eentary,  sSsoe ^ie ^Du^dlng of the woFlxl'a flr$t
      pa2*k» the gjhitdd s&at^a h@is baon a
      That Is, obviously, tha wry nlislon »f jear1
          Sftas, I find it horritts that our ootmtpy and y««r atanoy should pemlt
      the dr&stlo d^frad&tlcm of the Appalaohl&i ecosystom 1
                do ov^x^thing in your potrar to |xl&o9 this praotida vhloh
               sevsa hundred idlss of streaffis umtar the strlctist
          thank you.
                                                                                                            1-9
                                                                                                                           31 Oasa&rar 2003                            Rlohard
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
            A-1019
                                                       Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Tom Joy
                                                                                      f?EO'D  J.FC 3
                                                            December 28,2003
                                         Tom Joy
                                         1158 Hlghtop Road, Lot 188
                                         Blacksburg, VA 24060
                           To:           John Forren
                                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (3EA30)
                                         1660 An* 8t
                                         Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
                           Subject       Comment* on draft Mountalntop Removal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
      
                           Dear Mr. Forren:
      
                           I an opposed  to mountalntop  removal and valley ills. I beli'sve that Ms Immoral and Illegal
                           method of  mining  should be  hatted Immediately and  emphasis placed on developing  the
                           technology to mine thin teams of coal from underground. Alternatively, a method should be found
                           to compensate coal companies for  not mining coal that can currently only bs removed by
                           mountaintop removal.
      
                           My specific comments on the HS follow:
      
                               1.  The EIS  appears  to be an  attempt at mtsrjirectfon.  It largely bypasses the primary
                                  environmental  Impact  of the  mining itself  and  addresses  only the  secondary
                                  environmental Impact to contiguous areas that occurs after the mining is over.
      
                               2,  The BS is based  on the ftnpSict premise that afl of the coal that Is present must be
                                  removed. In locations wh©r@ underground mining is not an option, this generally means
                                  mountslntop removal mining. However, to use  mourttaintop removal mining requires
                                  accepting an enormous and irrevocable environmental Impact - the total eradication of
                                  tha existing topography, hydrology, and ecology in the areas to be mined and Hied. The
                                  only justfeations provided for this wholesale environmental destruction are the improved
                                  efficiency and lower cost of coal removal. Only the morally bankrupt couM regard these
                                  Justifications as sufficient
      
                               3.  In the EIS, misgation is proposed as a  meaningful response to the environmental effects
                                  of mountaintop removal mining. In reality, the concept of migration Ms completely to
                                  address the extremes of habitat destruction that characterize mountaintop removal
                                  mining. There is no way to miiigats U» total loss of a mountain, valley or headwater
                                  stream, let alone  the  systematic eradication of  thousands of them throughout  the
                                  Appalachian region. These entires are unique  and  irreplaceable, and the esthete,
                                  cultural, environmental, and economic consequences of their destruction can never be
                                  undone. Their loss will be a sad fact of life and a heavy burden to be borne by an future
                                  generations.
      
                               4.  The EIS  focuses primarily on stream loss and downstream  hydrologic and ecoicgic
                                  consequences of valley Has. It falls to consider what consequences might result from th®
                                  absence of the mountain that supplied flie fill. What are the possible alterations in local
                                  climatic conditions,  e.g., wind patterns,  rainfall  patterns,  rainfall  amounts and
                                  temperatures that might occur if one or several existing mountains were to be removed?
      
                               S.  The end result of the coal-mining methods that are addressed by the EIS, particularly
                                  mountsintop removal mining, must be to alter the topography of an appreciable extent of
                                  the Appalachian  Valley and Ridge Province. The BS does not consider how the eventual
      1-9
             removal of 30 to 40 percent of the mountains might alter regional climtBc conditions and
             how that might affect the regional ecology.
      
         6.  The EIS should address tha possibility that valley fills may be used to conceal the
             unpermitted dumping of non-hazardous and hazardous wastes in addition to mine spoil.
             Eyewitnesses have observed large numbers of used tires being disposed of in valley figs,
             and it la widely  believed  by area residents that frequent clandestine dumping of
             hazardous wastes &n valley fills also occurs.
      
         7.  The EIS should consider as an alternative the use of underground mine® sione to remove
             coal. Ml the prized Appalachian regional  attributes of esthetics, ecology, and culture
             depend on the continued physical presence of the Appalachian Mountains themselves.
             Intact, the Appalachians represent an Inexhaustible source of economic and lifestyle
             benefits to residents and visitors. By using only underground mines, original contour,
             hydrology, and ecology would be largely preserved. Thus, flie most exireme negative
             Impacts associated with mountaintop removal mining would be eSminated.
      
             If it is the case, as the EIS states, tot coal seams  less than 28 inches In thickness
             cannot be mined  economically from underground, coal companies could receive a tax
             credit or other compensation for "banking* the coal In such areas. This would provide
             time  for the development of technology that would  allow that coal  to be mined
             economically from underground. If the coai companies were compensated using money
             derived from tourism, they would have an incentive to conduct their mining  and coal
             processing operations in art environmentally responsible manner.
      
      Please feel free to contact me regarding any of then comments.
      
      Sincerely,
                                                                                                                                        9-2-2
                                                   Tom Joy
      5-7-3
      5-6-2
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                  A-1020
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Edward Kadane
                                                                                                                                                RayKamstra
                  .... Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/200403:32 PM	
      
                              *tn$pectorl2@aol.€
                              om'*           cc:
                                Subject;  No fo Mountain Top Removal!
                  01/06/2004 12:43
                  PM
                  Please respond to
                  tkamstra
      
      folm Fotren,
      
      I oppose moutititiiitop temx>val aitd valley fills and arty change in the buffer 2one rule, I  | .
      I'm disappointed and aiigcy that tke federal govcoinient ignored its own studies when
      it proposed weakening, rathet ihan streugthenitig, protections lot people sutd the        ] " 1 0
      environment.
      
      Sincerely,
      
      Ray K^instra
      Maldeti, MA
                  Edward Kadane
                  7'134Tokalon
                  Dallas, TX 75214
                  nspecfor'l 2@aol,com
      MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                         A-1021
                                                                                                                                                                                    Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Dan Kash
                                                                                                                             Barry Katzen
                       Mr. Johfi Foneu
                       U.S. EPA
                       1650 Arch Street
                       Philadelphia, PA 19103
      REC'D JAH1 22004
                           RE: Comments OK Draft Enviroamenta! Impact Statement on
                                           Removal Mining and Valley Fills.
      
                             r. Fen-en,
                             Never in ^i my years of watching the coal industry despoil our lat^s,
                       communities have I seen a study about this rogufi iadustry so biased and so cynical as to
                       dafy bei^f. Even, to aa ifflot the destructive impact of ittoimtaintop racjovai is eye-
                       popping and hard to believe.
                             Fiflish yeur sttuly with a Httie hoi^sty. RecoHmMEad wh&t is right, not wto is
                       politicaily right. We n
      -------
      ErinKazee
                                                                                          Robert Keiilbach
          DelivetedDate: 01/06/2004 04:10:46 PM
          Dear Mr. John Forren, project Manager,
      
          Dear Mr. Forren:.
      
          The current practice of mountain top rernoval for easier access to coal is a foolhardy one
          that both directly, and indirectly endangers people and the environment they live in.
          Any brief research into the topic would show that only detrimental consequences result
          from this popular practice; it strips the land of essential.nutrients, robs countless of
          species of their homes, and pollutes waterways.  The litany of its harmful effects
          is virtually endless. This is not even taking into consideration the deleterious effects of
          fossil fuel consumption.  Even land reclamation projects are not sufficient in remedying
          the environments that were entirely ravaged; the original array of species
          cannot generally function in the vastly changed ecosystem, and only generalist species
          migrate into the reclaimed region.  It is a
          sign of environmental degradation when an abundance of generalist - not specialist -
          species inhabit an area because that signifies
          that it cannot support the higher qualities- of the specialists.
          The damage done to the environment is irreparable, and this alone should be enough to
          prove that the practice's disadvantages far
          outweigh its few advantages. As a whole, people often forget that we .depend upon the
          land for resources still, and this generation
          is not the last. But if we continue to treat  the land with sudi disrespect, it will not last far
          into the future. John Muk said,
          "How glorious.a greeting the sun..gives the mountains!", but at this rate, there may one
          day be no .mountains on which the sun can
          light its happy beams.
          Moreover, the harmful pollutants that are  produced by both mining and the burning of
          fossil fuels are causing, global warming, as
          well as respiratory diseases and other poor living conditions.
          Ansel Adams once: succinctly stated, "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own
          government to save the environment." However,
          this need not be the case.  The government has in its power to protect - nourish) celebrate
          - the environment. I strongly implore
          you to consider what you're doing to the environment - as well as to your posterity and
          yourself. Thank you for your time and
          consideration.
                     	Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/30/2004 11:21 AM	
      1-9
                                 < rakmet          To:
                                               cc:
                                 01/14/200406:40
                                 PM
                                           R3 Mountaintop@EPA
      
                                       Subject Support clean water!
      Mr. John Forren
      U.S. EPA (3EA30)
      
      Dear Mr. Forren,
      
      Please reduce the harmful effects of mountaintop removal coal mining to protect natural
      resources and communities and do not weaken environmental protections that apply to the
      companies that are conducting mountaintop removal.
      
      The draft Environmental Impact Statement (HIS) on mountaintop removal should be
      rewritten to recommend limits on the size of valley fills that, bury streams and imperil
      wildlife.
      
      The draft Environmental Impact Statement should not do away with a surface mining rule
      that makes it illegal for mining activities to disturb areas within 100 feet of streams.
      
      Sincerely,
      
      Robert Keiilbach
      134-28 60 Ave
      Flushing, NY 11355
      1-10
      
      
      1-7
      
      
      1-6
                                  Sincerely,
                                   Erin Rettee Kaxee
          Erin Kazee
          Rt. 1 .Box 547
          Hat woods, KY 41139
          erinfcflzee@yahoo.com
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-1023
                                                                         Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Mary Corsi Kelley
                                                                                                                                                                                 Cindy Kendrick
                                                                    'REC'D
                                                                           910 Sunset Road
                                                                   Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103
                                                                            August25, 2003
       Mr. John Forren, U.S. EPA (3ES30)
       1650 Arch Street
       Philadelphia, Pa 19103
       Dear Sir,
       I am wMBng to comment on the unfortunate, vague and inadequate racomrrisnciattons
       made for action In response to EIS report regardhg mountaintDp removal mining and
       wlley fills.
       I am a graduate of Berea College and my mother was a Kentuckian.  She would not only
       be shocked and dismayed (as lam also) at the wreckage erf her tjaauttuf state but would
       want to protest the cavalier way In which the current administrate is "responding" to an EIS
       report documenting the extreme damage occurring at the hands of the coal companies in
       Kentucky.
       Your raport specifies weak and vague aBsmaflves to correct the continuing Irrevereible
       damage being done to mountain streams and terrain.  Why? Evidence In the report clearly
       Indicated a need for a more specific and preventive role for our government
       It all bolls down to who lives and loves Kentucky most:
       Is It the coal companies with their Mind need for profits In a state tat rain do without this
       kind of destructive coal mining?
       is It President Bush who has already a long track record of assaults against the environment
      to profit big busienss?
       Is It lawmakers in Frankfort, whose knees are too weak to behave like they should in
      opposing the continual destruction of their state for political gain?
      You answer,
      Sincerely yours,
                                                                                             1-5
               Mary Core Kelley            |
                                                                                                               	Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 11:39 AM -—
      
                                                                                                                           Cindy Kendrick
                                                                                                                                   cc:
                                                                                                                                         Subject: Comments on Mountaintop Removal EIS
                                                                                                                           01/01/200401:23
                                                                                                                           PM
         Cindy Kendrick
         7317DunstenDrive
         Knoxville, TN 37931-1804
         phone: 865-386-6382
      
         January 1,2004
      
      Mr. John Forren
      U.S. EPA (3EA30)
      1650 Arch Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
      Dear Mr. Forren:
      
      Comments on Moiintaintop Removal
      
      While pondering the short-sightedness of the EIS on Mountaintop Removal,
      I am reminded of the words of Rachel Carson, in a letter to the editor
      of the Washington Post in 1963...
         ... the way is being cleared for a raid upon our natural resources
         that is without parallel within the present century.
      
         The real wealth of the Nation lies in the resources of the earth
         -- soil, water, forests, minerals, and wildlife. To utilize them
         for present needs while insuring their preservation for future
         generations requires a delicately balanced and  continuing program.
         based on the most extensive research. Their administration is not
         properly, and cannot be, a matter of politics.
      
         By long traditioBj the agencies responsible for these resources
         have been directed by men of professional stature and experience,
         who have understood, respected, and been guided by the findings of
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                             A-1024
                                                                    Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
                      their scienti sts	
      
                      For many years public-spirited citizens throughout the country
                      have been working for the conservation of the natural resources,
                      realizing their vital importance to the Nation. Apparently their
                      hard-won progress is to be wiped out, as a politically minded
                      Administration returns us to the dark ages of unrestrained
                      exploitation and destruction.
      
                      It is one of the ironies of out times that, while concentrating on
                      the defense of our country against enemies from without, we should
                      be so heedless of those who would destroy it from within.
                   Forty years later, these words seem written specifically for today's
                   crisis. We are indeed in a crisis situation. Much of the damage being
                   wrought upon our natural resources under false or foolish pretenses of
                   economic growth, national security, energy security, and progress is
                   irreversible and irreparable.  W© ourselves are becoming our worst
                   enemy, I appeal to you, John Forren, to be one of those "men of
                   professional stature and experience,"  to be guided by science and
                   reason, to take a leadership role to protect those resources that
                   define our Country - and begin by completely reshaping this miserably
                   inadequate EIS for mountainlop removal.
      
                   Embarrassingly, while the report acknowledges the significant damage
                   inflicted by mountaintop removal and valley fill, it does not examine a
                   single alternative that would reduce this damage. In fact, protection is
                   substantially weakened.  While this Administration claims to use science
                   as a basis for its policies and there is plenty of solid science to show
                   that mountaintop removal and valley fill are extremely damaging, this
                   EIS gives greater license to coal companies to behead our Appalachian
                   mountains and bury our precious streams.  I am certainly opposed to
                   weakening the stream buffer zone rule. In fact, 100 feet is not enough
                   buffer to protect our fragile stream ecosystems against the acid
                   leachate and siltation of such massive destruction. The stream buffer
                   rule - or a stronger version - should be strictly enforced for all
                   cases, including valley fills.
      
                   I am opposed to all three alternatives in the EIS, since none of them
                   provides reasonable protection for our vital natural resources and
                   neighboring communities. Since no reasonably protective measures can be
                   offered to mitigate resulting damage, I am opposed to mount&intop
                   removal mining, as well as crossridge mining, which would purport to
                   restore obliterated mountaintops. The practice of filling valleys with
                   rubble from decimated mountaintops is entirely ill-conceived, and
                   certainly without scientific basis.
                                    As ! examine this EIS, I «m angry - angry that this irresponsible and
                                    stwrt-sighted set of alternatives is being pt»»h«d forward; angry that
                                    the mountains, forests, wildlife, clean water, and communities of
                                    Appalachia are treated with ill regard; aagry that industry is being
                                    given great power over common people; and angry that voices like mine
                                    these days are falling on deaf ears.  I hope you, Joto Forren, will be
                                    different.
      
                                    Sincerely,
      
                                    Cindy Kendrick
      1-5
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                A-1025
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Oren Kennedy
                                                                                       Often Kennedy
                                                                                       418N,Fairview
                                                                                       Laming MI  48912
                           Mr. John Forren, U.S. EPA (3EA30)
                           1650 Arch Street
                           Philadelphia, PA 19103
                           Dear Mr. Foiten,
      
                           I am writing m opposition to the Action Alternatives that are proposed within the Draft
                           Environmental Impact Statement on Appalachian Moun^dntop MiningTValley Fill permitting.!
                           rurtfaer support the No Action option test this study, or modifications for Action Alternative I.
      
                           As listed in the Federal Register, the reason for this document was "to prepare an E&vironsietitai
                           Impact Statement to Consider Policies, Guidance, and Processes to Mmimize the Environmental
                           Impacts of Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills io the Appalachian Coalfields.1* 1 feel that the
                           Action Alternatives th^ are proposed within the DEIS do sot mafee a serious attempt for the
                           ffiiniinizatiGii of environmental impacts. Rather than, an aSampt at impact minimization, the
                           document stresses ths needs fer permit expediency fbr industry,
      
                           I understand that some definitions of terms do need to be standardized betwean the EPA, ACOB,
                           and OSM However, 1 feet that feis should largely be between the EPA and ACOE, as
                           traditionally done witfa 404 pemuttiag, with OSM to fee a following agency and accept the agreed
                           upon deflnitkras aad metrics decided by the EPA and ACOE. It is my understanding that feere are
                           definitions for acceptable fills, and biometrics under prop-ess on the delineation of headwater
                           streams which would be usefel for da&ttion standardization. The worlcshop oa "The Value of
                           Headwater Streams" noted on the EPA website seems to be an example of work in progress. The
                           Draft BUS shows a disturbing proposal to transfer a large portion of the definition of terms to
                           those utilized and proposed by OSM, with OSM taking over as the lead ageacy &rNWP 21 and
                           Individual Permit decision coordination.
      
                           Nationwide permit coverage, in general terms, are for project with low, routine impacts for
                           which there axe & large number of permit applications. For wetland permits, the nationwide
                           coverage Is ap to 1/2 sere. Under KWP 21, the coverage is for a ip^eater area of impact In the
                           Executive Summary of the DEIS, it is stated that the actual sumbers of permits for NW coverage
                           has actually been decreasing. If the mustier of permit applications is decreasing, why does the
                           DEIS propose that fee process fee made easier for mdusity? Industry fa very aware of the coverage
                           for KW1P 21 - is it in the best ialerests of "miniiaizlsg itnp^T to ease tiie permit system?
                           Furthermore, it should show feat the current Individual Permit coverage is sot making the permit
                           review process more difficult.
      
                           Mitigation for fills within wetlands under 404 permitting is utilized to offset unavoidable impacts.
                           This is usually done within the sxisttog waterbody basin. For MTM/VF permits, I believe that
                           more coasiderattos should be gives to 'feasible and prudent alternatives* fbr fee permit proposal
                           before mitigation Is decided upon. Furthermore, fee very nature of MT&5/VT appHcatioBs means
                           that mitigation wfthia fee ©dstiag waterfoody basia would be very difficult to provide. The 0EIS
                           went kto depth m the focts feat diverse forestatiOE would be proposed, for mitigation efforts, but
                           it ignored the basic premises En which mitigation is to be utilized for.
                                                   ' There were positive statements within the DEIS feat valley fitk can sometimes have wetlands
                                                    develop oa them, aad feat the fill areas cm be also be used Ibr subdivision/land use development.
                                                    I Had these remarks to be irresponsible within a document feat is headlined fbr minimization of
                                                            eiflal impacts.
                                                    I urge that 8» Action Alternatives proposed withto the DEIS should be abandoned, and that the   I  i   i
                                                    agencies involved with MIMAT peoatts work                                             1-1
                                                                                                                                                              Sincerely,
                                                                   S/rfesf
      1-1
      12-1-3
      MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                  A-1026
      Section A  - Citizens
      

      -------
      Carol Anne Kilgore
                                                                     REC'D  AU8262083
                    August 21,2003
                    Mt. 3ohn Forren
                    U. S. EPA
                    1650 Arch St.
                    Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
                    Dear Mt. Forren
      
                    On July 22™11 attended both sessions of the public hearing in Hazard, Ky. regarding
                    Mountaintop Mining. I am proud to say that I support Mountamtop Mining. 1 was bom
                    and raised in Hazard, Ky. My grandfather worked in the mining industry and my dad had
                    a tire dealership that relied on the coal industry.  My husband is now self-employed
                    related to the coal industry. He has been a coal miner and owns coal trucks and I work
                    for Pine Branch Coal Sales.  I feel that I know enough about coat mining to express my
                    opinion about the advantage of mountaintop mining and disgust at the extremist who
                    oppose it but seem to have no facts.
      
                    My husband has done many different jobs in the mining industry for 25 years. He is very
                    knowledgeable in the blending of coal that is loaded into rail cars and barges to be
                    shipped to power plants. As you know it is very important that the quality meet
                    regulations.  My husband has loaded holes for Wasting, operated equipment, loaded trains
                    and barges and bought and sold coal and mining equipment. This has afforded us a good
                    living.
      
                    My office, a mine office, has  two very large windows that look out at green pasture land
                    and a big pond Ml of ftsh.  1 have worked here for 11 plus years.  There is always
                    wildlife around the pond whether it is geese or 10 pound turtles. The deer are more
                    plentiful every year.  We caution people when driving down Kentucky Highway 28 to
                    watch for deer. U is one of the most beautiful and natural places in Kentucky.
      
                    My husband and I chose to build a home close to the Pine Branch Coal Sales operation.  I
                    live within walking distance of where there is currently mountaintop mining.  I live a five
                    minute drive from where mountaintop mining was turned into a cattle ranch that is used
                    by the University of Kentucky. These opponents talk of the land being deprived of
                    wildlife because of mountaintop mining.  1 have  lived in my house for 12 years and each
                    year there is more wildlife. There are two foxes  that come in my yard every evening
                    about dusk. There are deer, raccoons, squirrels and rabbits in my yard daily. There is a
                    pileated woodpecker that is boring holes in my house. We try to scare it away but it
      1-11
      7-2-2
      comes back,  i know some of these extreme environmentalist would rather 1 leave it alone
      to peck my house down. I've heard the men on the jobs talk of seeing coyotes, turkeys,
      bears and elk. We have our own wildlife preserve. It is beautiful.
      
      At the public hearing 1 heard comments about the flyover festival from the Kentuckians
      for the commonwealth. I have flown over this area many times and am in awe each time.
      It is amazing to see the development taking place and development that has taken place.
      I am 43 years old and have seen much growth. My daughter was bom a month after the
      Hazard ARM Regional Medical Center was open. This is on land that was mined.  This is
      only one of many facilities, businesses and homes in this area that have been built on land
      that has been developed because of mountaintop mining. We would not have many of
      the opportunities for economic development had it not been for mountaintop mining.
      
      These opponents talk of the bad quality of our water. The water that comes off the job
      where t work is filtered over the rocks and is clean when U reaches  the streams. It is what
      people throw and flush into our waterways that are contaminating them.
      
      The coal industry's very good for the economy of eastern Kentucky,  The coal
      companies in eastern Kentucky are very generous to organizations and especially schools.
      Public education in this area depends on coal severance money and the generosity of the
      coal companies.
      
       I appreciate that there are agencies that regulate the different industries. There should
      be. I am asking that we not be so over regulated that we're driveft out of business. This
      is where we want to live and raise a family. Please consider our industry and what it
      means to this area.  Please consider the people that are proud of this industry and what
      they contribute to it everyday.
      
      Thank you.
      
      Yours truly,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      7-2-2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       10-3-2
                                                                                                                         11-4-2
                                                                                                                         11-2-2
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                 A-1027
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Sterling Kinnell
                                                                                                                Laura Klein
                                                                                                                               Forwarded by David  Rid&r/R3/USEPA/U3 on  01/12/2004 02:4? it-
                        January 2,2004
                                                                                                                               Mountaintop@EPA
                                                                                                                                                        Laura A klein
                                                                                                                                                        
      -------
      Jennifer Knaggs
                                                                                                                            Gerri Kolesar
          First Name: Jennifer  Last Name: Knaggs   letter Date:
          City:  Lansing      State:  MI    Zip:   48912
      1/06/2004
          I have seen first hand what happens in a community devestated by mountain top removal. 1 have
          seen hills millions of years old flattened, homes and schools turned into turned into parking lots,
          people terroized out of thier community only for companies to gain mineral rights. The
          Appalachian people are some of the poorest in the United States, and the richness of their
          beautiful land is being shoveled into oblivion. They say there will be jobs with the coal
          companies. I have stood with 10 people inside on* monster shovel, 'Big John', with room for at
          least 40 more ....A shovel like that can crush a mountain and empty t coal seetn in a matter of
          we^ks to days. With one person behind the wh«sel. Thai dots not create "jobs'1.1 have seen
          streams dried up from th« mountain tops thrown into the valley. Wells that give water to
          peoples' homes, gone empty or polluted. Entire ecosystems sacrificed, so that we have more
          unclean energy.
      
          They say that these sites will be reconstructed, unless it is seen that they are fit for better uses.
          "Better Uses" often means a Walrnart parking lot, n a small community, damaging their already
          fragile economy, with low income wages, and money leaving the community to a distant
          corporation. Or it is "reconstructed", which means importing wildlife that will grow quickly, but
          will not replenish the soil for future crops  or forests. Importing animals that do not belong in that
          habitat damaging the ecosystem. Is this a  solution? Coal is already inefficient, dirty, artd soon to
          be untlependable resource. Coal plants spend millions of dollars trying to rid themselves of me
          left over radioactive ash created from burning coal into energy. And they still don't spend
          enough. People and wildlife arc still being posioned from their "clean air" practices. Instead of
          supporting mountain top removal. I highly suggest the financial support of renewable resources,
          such as wind and solar energy. They are the cleanest and least harmful methods of creating
          energy. 1 urge you to not support Mountwa Top Removal. It is not a solution to our energy
          crisises, but a creating more problems.
                                                                                                                                                us e * ad
                                                       M&Sfatf*2*' />*
                                                       /^M#**fc, M
                                  1-9
                                                                                "Ml
                                                                                                                                      ,   CX      ,
                                                                                                              f                    JCd-.fa'buur
                                                                                                                           &            £f
                                                                                                                                                                                  /
                                                                                                                                       1-5
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                       A-1029
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Vanessa Kranda
                                                                                             Jud Kratzer
              —- Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/200401:59 PM	
      
                          ' vkranda@C[ualcomm
                          .com" 
      -------
      Scott Kravitz
                                                                                                   TomKruzen
               —- Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/200401:59 PM	
      
                            "oaklattdistgjhotaiai
                            l.com"             cc:   Catla Klein ,
                                Andy Mahler ,
                                                          Ken Midkiff , Scott
                                Dye 
                                            12/22/2003 12:44     Subject  Mountain top removal
                                            PM
                                            Please respond Co
              Dear Mr. John Fotren, Project Manager,
      
              Dear Mr. Forren:
      
              The Bush administration has a terrible habit of interpreting information
              to support its own predetermined agenda. In this latest case it has
              decided that tnounaintop removal for mining purposes should continue,
              despite the government's own studies indicating the irreversible damage
              of such a practice.
      
              Please do not accept this short-sighted and  terribly destructive agenda.
              Please amend the draft EIS to recommend restrictions on the scope of
              mountaintop removals, and elevate protection of wildlife and rural
              communities to their proper place as the top consideration in any
              proposed mining operation.
      
              Sincerely,
              Scott Kravitz
              Scott Kravitz
              2796 Casiano Rd.
              Los Angeles, CA 90077
              oaklandis@hotmail.com
      1-7
      December 22, 2003
      
      Dear Mr, Poteen,
      
      Blowing up mountains and filling in valH^s to get at die coal as cheap as possible is
      reprehensible. It is the ultimate in mining destruction, and like Humpty Dumpty,
      those mountains, valties arid the all the living things that depend on them arc gone
      forever, including human beings. What of CONSERVATION? A penny saved is a
      penny earned- We've recently purchased a Prius and get 45 mpg average! What if
      iJTeryone did that? What it everyone upgraded their appliances and light bulbs to be
      entsrry saving?^? Maybe we wouldn't have to destroy the beautiful Appalachians
      in .Kentucky arid West Virginia!
      
      The Bush admininsttadon plan to expand this terrible process is flat out wrong. Put
      the "protection *' in the EPA and deny the expansion of ]VfoiifU;$in top removal. If
      you procede with Bush's plan, you will be irrevocably be destoying out natural
      heritage just as surely as if a terrorist dove a plain into the Statue of Liberty. You will
      also be destroying a culture and many communities in the  Appalachians. This is
      NOT your mandate. ..to destroy., .it's to PROTECT! Do yout job!!!
      
      Sincerely,
      
      Tom Krusien, President
      Qfcark Rrrerkeepet Network
      213 East 3rd St
      Mt View, Missouri, 65548
                                                                                                         1-9
                                 Free Web Email & Filter Enhancements.
                                 http://www.fteewebemail.com/filtertoots/
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
               A-1031
                                                                Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Glenn Ruehne
                                                                                             KaraKukovich
                   —- Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:32 PM	
      
      
                                 "keen_2bcrazy@yah
                                 oo.com''            To:     R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                                 
      -------
                            Safety. I recognize and am thankful that the number of coal miners killed on the job fell
                            from 67 in 2002 to 55 deaths in 2003.  And while mountaintop mining may not be as
                            dangerous as deep coal mining, there are other trade tsSs.
      
                            Jobs. It appears that the local residents do not benefit much from the extraction of coal
                            by giant machines that rip off the top of the mountain to get at coal True, in some areas
                            there are coal-fired plants that use the coal, but these are so efficient these days, there are
                            few permanent jobs.  A lot of public support Sot mountaintop mining is based upon a
                            misconception that it will create many jobs.  And what happens to the rest of (he
                            mountain top that has been leveled? I understand, for example, that 15-25 percent of
                            West Virginia mountains have been leveled &r mining. For the most part, what remains
                            is abandoned, unproductive, and does not contribute to flie local tax base or general jobs.
      
                            Regeneration of the ferest. I take exception to the introductory statement on page ES-3
                            that the "nateal succession by trees.,.was slowed."   Slowed? These forests have been
                            taken down to stump many times in the past centuries and were able to regenerate.
                            Previously, you could have stood in the same place Daniel Boone walked and see the
                            same spedes of trees that had been cut and regrown. Do you truly believe that could
                            happen again? The HS introductory statements cannot mean that in the same way the
                            forest can be what it was before. The forest is not able to grow back the same way it did
                            in past was. Bis different this time around.  There is no SOU, on which to grow. There
                            is not the natural flow of waters that would be held by the soil that is now gone.  This is
                            simply not «ome problem that can be managed by some forestry plan. This is not some
                            "cap" that you take off and put back ("recovery efforts") which is the impression that
                            some pro-mining interests make. Everything that was tfae ibrest is gone.  It is no  more.
      
                            We all live downstream. The page ES-4 statistic is that only ,..("1.2% of streams) were
                            covered by valley fills from 1985 to 2001."  This statement mtoimiae! the overall effect
                            of valley fills. A total of 6,800 fiUs sounds lite a lot of affected communities to me. In
                            hollers where the sun is shaded much of the day because of the steepness of the
                            mountains, it does not take much in the way of valley fills to accentuate the effect of
                            unimpeded water to those downstream. I am mindful that it is the mountaintoji that is
                            being taken away, so that water flows fester and quicker right from the beginning.
      
                            Macroinvertibrates. Befiare I went to college, I was a stream monitor in my home
                            neighborhood. I understand well how the smallest changes can affect these insect
                            harbingers of an unhealthy stream. In Virginia, for example, you can still see the changes
                            in (he river bank that were wrought by English colonial traders in the 1600s when they
                            altered rivers (and the aflected streams) to access the cotton offloading sites. We look
                            Ibr the tiniest of eddies and current changes in feeder streams to find the
                            macroinvcrtibrales that tell us about the health of the stream. I can only imagine  what the
                            whoosh of a spring rain does in an area that has been suddenly in-filled as a part of
                            mountaintop mining.  It's probably all gone. I doubt that there is any life left.
      7-5-4
      10-2-4
                                                  "Require reclamation with tress as th» post mining laid use."  (PageES-8) I am very
                                                  interested in how this can be done. Does this mean make it the way it was before? Do
                                                  you track in torn and tons of forest loam of the ktad that S« waste&lly pushed over into
                                                  the valleys along with the trees in the first place? And where would you get the soil in
                                                  which to plant the new trees?  Does not that imply that you would have to dig up some
                                                  other pristine place to find the very same kind of soil in which the trees grew before
                                                  mountaintop mining was begun?  So, now TWO places would be befouled?
      
                                                  I appreciate all the studies and work mat has been done to date to document the effect
                                                  mouutaiBtop mining hts on the environment. In &ct, the studies show that considerable
                                                  damage has been done. The result should be that we reduce the occurrence of
                                                  mouutaintop mining.
                                                  I do not believe that it should be continued until all the mountain tops are gone. The US
                                                  does not go ik enough in requiring protection! for valley fills, it does not really save the
                                                  habitats for all categories of animals, and it does not mitigate damage to the water system
                                                  created by mountaintop mining, in my view. The EIS is a start It should not be
                                                  considered our society" s approval to continue mountaintop mining as we do today,
      
                                                  Thank you,
                        19-2-4
                        1-9
                                                  KaraL Kukovieh
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                 A-1033
      Section A  - Citizens
      

      -------
      Kenneth M, Kukovich
               	Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 11:39 AM	
      
                           Kenneth Kukovich
                                     cc:
                                           Subject:  Kenneth M. Kukovich Comment on Mountaintop
               Mining EIS
                           01/04/2004 11:46 PM
                           Please respond to
                           kukovicWockhart
               H:n:seheij»s-mierosofi-eom:office:0ffice*' l>
               Kenneth M. Kukovich
               39Q1 N. 13th Street
               Arlington, VA 22201
               H:(703)525-8592
               kukovichiockliart (2Mnifidspring.com
               January 4, 2004
      
               Mr. John Forren
               U.S. EPA (3EA30)
               1650 Arch Street
               Philadelphia, PA 19103
               mountaintop.r3@epa.gov
                            net loss.  The energy we gain is at the expense the destruction of the
                            habitat, the iatetruplkia of natural wafer flows and purification, sad
                            the sheer change in the topography and geology of an area.
      
                            The habitat is forcwr changed. The forert and its soil that is scraped
                            off the mountain is not rhe same despite the "restoration'* that is made
                            after the coal is taken out. I realize that these are private lands.
                            However, we are all stewards of th«i earth, and this extreme  method of
                            extraction in some of our most valuable areas of biodiversity is
                            something for which our next generations will not forgive us.
      
                            The EIS studies have documented but 1 believe minimized the danger to
                            water supplies.  A restored inouiitaintop mine site initially looks as
                            manicured as a golf course.  The rip- rapped new drainage paths, and the
                            holding ponds appear to set tlje foundation for water to begin its path
                            to the ocean. Of course, there is nothing like the forest into  which
                            such rain fell where if was purified by tie layers of sediments and
                            rocks butt! up over centuries. I understand that elsewhere in the
                            country we are seeking areas of farmland and natural ftiarshl&nd to
                            naturally purify the water instead of using chemicals and mechanical
                            means to cleanse our water. So why do we allow a functioning ecosystem
                            to be destroyed in  the ease of mountainlop mining?
      
                            Finally, I heard it said, and read by mountaintop mining advocates, that
                            such "leveling" of the mountains i* actually a good thing, that it will
                            bring jobs and create opportunity for those who have not had it because
                            of the mountains.  It would seem a reasonable proposal, then, that
                            mountaintop mining be halted until all of the currently cleaied-off
                            mountains are full of fair-paying permanent jobs by environmentally and
                            economically sustainable industries.
      
                            Sincerely,
      
                            Kenaeth M. Kukovich
      9-2-2
      7-5-2
                                                                                                                                                                                                       5-1-2
               Re: Comment on the Draft ProgrammMie Environmental Impact, Statement
               (Draft BIS)
                   on Mountaintop Coal Mining and Associated Valley Fills.
      
               Dear Mr. Forren:
      
               I have had the experience of being on a mountainlop mining site for two
               continuous weeks. 1 believe my observations and comments may be of
               value in your review of the EIS.
      
               My general comment is that extraction of coal by mountainlop mining in a
      MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1034
                                                                                                                                                                                       Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      JohnL
                                                                                                                                                                                Alexandra Lamb
                	Forwarded by David Rider/RMJSEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM -—
      
      
                                                       R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                                           cc:
                             01/06/200402:57     Sub
                Mining
      "jalefra@lanset.e
      om*' p@BPA
      
      Subject:  Mountaintop Mining,'Valley Fill DHLS
      Mr. John Konrea
      U.S. EPA(3EA30)
      1650 Arch Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
      Dear Mr. Forren;
      
      I would like to comment on the Draft programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft
      EIS) on mountaintop coal mining and associated valley fills in Appala^nia released by ihe U.S.
      Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
      Service, U.S. Office of Surface Miiiings and West Virginia Department of Environmental
      Protection,
      
      The Draft EIS confirms thai mounlaintop coal mining and valley fills in Appalaebia have caused
      massive, irreparable environmental damage, including the destruction or degradation of
      appmximately 1200 miles of headwater streams and kindreds of square miles of forest
      
      Despiie tliis devastation caused by mountaintop coat mining, the preferred alternative
      (Alternative 2) would undermine existing environmental protections and permit trie destruction
      of an additional 350 square miles of mountains, streams, and tbrests. Furthermore, it is
      inaccurate and misleading to describe the replacement of native hardwood forest, which
      are biologically diverse and offer critical wildlife habitat, with grassland plateaus or replanted
      hardwood forest && "reclamation."
      
      I also strongly disagree with the Draft EIS claim that the preferred alternative "would support
      efficient, environmentally responsible production of energy resources.H It is an abhorrent waste
      of our nation's natural resources to mine coal by blowing up mountains and burying entire
      streams and valleys in waste. The EPA is wrong to support - at any cost - coat power, which
      produces more air pollution a»d contributes more toward global warming that  any other
      electricity source, rather item promoting energy conservation and efficiency and renewable
      ettergy sources. I expect the federal government, to conserve our natural resources and to
      promote responsible stewardship of the environment,
      
      I urge the EPA to amend the Draft EIS to protect Appalachia's natural resources.
      
      Thank you.
      
      Sincerely,
      Alexandra Lamb
      13230 Chandler Boulevard
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91401
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    1-9
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                      A-1035
                                                                        Section A -  Citizens
      

      -------
      Sloane Lamb
               — Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 11:30 AM	
                                                  To:    R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                                                  senator@wyden.senate.gov, oregon@gsmitli.senate.gov.
                  "Lamb, Sloane T."
                             cc:
      write. eari@inail.house. gov
                               Subject; Draft EIS mountaimtop coal mining
                  01/06/2004 12:04
                  PM
               Mr. John Forren
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (3EA30)
               1650 Arch Street
               Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
               Dear Mr. Forren:
      
               Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental
               Impact
               Statement (EIS) on mountaintop coal mining and associated valley fills
               in
               Appal achia.
      
               Mountaintop coal mining and valley fills have caused widespread and
               permanent damage to the Appalachian environment, as is made evident in
               the
               Draft EIS. Such activities have led lo the degradation or destruction of
               vast stretches of forest and more than 1000 miles of headwater streams,
               imperiled wildlife, and destroyed communities.
      
               The preferred alternative in the Draft EIS would, among other things,
               eliminate the surface mining rule that makes it illegal to disturb areas
               within 100 feet of streams unless it can be demonstrated that they will
               be
               harmed. This not only enables the mining companies to obtain permits
               that
               can result in serious destruction too easily, but it removes the onus of
               protecting our environment from the EPA, where it belongs.
      
               Our country's natural resources are not limited to coal and natural gas.
               Indeed, our country counts among its natural resources the very habitat
                                                                                    1-9
                                                                                    1-10
      being irrevocably damaged by these obscene practices by the coal-mining
      industry. The EPA sheuM .not condone the degttuctidB of additional
      habitat—mountains, forests  and streams—at tte expense of furthering
      the
      production of coal power, an industry that contributes more toward air
      pollution than any other source of electricity. Instead, your agency
      should
      be promoting energy conservation and efficient and renewable energy
      sources.
      
      I therefore urge the EPA to amend the Draft ELS.
      
      Thank you.
      
      Sincerely,
      Sloane T, Lamb
      283 5 NE 27th Avenue
      Portland, OR 97212
                                                                                                                   Sloane T. Lamb
                                                                                                                   Global Marketing and Communications
                                                                                                                   AlliaaceBernstein Institutional Investment Management
                                                                                                                   A Unit of Alliance Capital, L.P.
                                                                                                                   www.institutional.alliancebernstein.com
                                                                                                                   Bus.: 503-493-4301
                                                                                                                   Fax:415-217-8111
                                                                                                                   Iambst(j§bern3tein,com
      The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged
      and confidential information and is intended only for the use of the
      p@rson{s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an
      employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
      intended recipient, any review, dissemination, distribution or
      duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not
      the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately by reply
      e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Piease note that
      we do not accept account orders and/or instructions by e-mail, and
      therefore will not  be responsible for carrying out such orders and/or
      instructions.
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                              A-1036
                                                                  Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Melissa Lambert
                                                                                                                Denise Lamobaw
                    Melissa Lambert
                    West Virginia Wesleyan College
                    59 College Avenue
                    Buckhannon, WV 26201
                                                                                      31 October 2003
      
                                                                                      US EPA (3ES30)
                                                                                    c/o Mr, John Forren
                                                                                      1650 Arch Street
                                                                                Philadelphia, PA 19130
                    Dear Mr. Fortes:
                    I am writing in regards to the current Environmental Impact Statement on mountain top removal
                    raining and valley fills. According to this statement, current and future mining operations could
                    potentially result in the loss of 1,500 acres of fbrost. It also states that  "...scientists have found
                    little evidence to support coal industry claims that modern reclamation can bring new life to land
                    that is flattened by motintaintop removal," Ffom !9&S  to 2001, ntountaintop removal operations
                    burled 724 miles of Central Appalachian streams. Overall, however 1,200 miles of streams have
                    been impacted by valley fills. This harms aquatic life downstream from these fills and produces
                    Selenium in these same  streams. At the current rate of mountaiatop removal operations, 2,230
                    miles of Appalachian forests will be lost by 2012. All this information comes straight from the
                    EIS.
      
                    However, even though this report catalogues both the devastation already incurred and the threat
                    ongoing mountaitttop removal operations pose to Appalachian streams, forests, and aquatic life. It
                    does not advise against its practice. Inconsistent with Its own findings, the recommendations
                    Included in the HIS illustrate blatant disregard to the documented devastation of mountalntop
                    removal mining and valley fills. Also, absent Awn this document, but equally devastating, Is the
                    impact of mouatamtop removal mining on communities adjaegnt  to these operations. Blasting,
                    valley fills, persistent flooding, and forced displacement, among other factors, continues to plague
                    coalfield communities. Not enly Is raoutiiatntop removal permanently  altering West Virginia's
                    environment, it is permanently depopulating many coalfield towns.
      
                    In conclusion, based on the previously  stated reasons, the current EIS is simply unacceptable, I
                    demand, as a resident of West Virginia, that the EPA draft environmental policies that reflect -
                    rather than  ignore - its own findings on mountaintop removal's environments! damage in our
                    state. We can do better than this.
                   Thank you for yoor time and consideration.
                                                                                            Sincerely,
                                                                                                 £X'
      1-9
      
                                                                                                                                1-9
                                                                                                                                1-10
      4-2
                                                                                      Melissa Lambert
       MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                  A-1037
      Section A  -  Citizens
      

      -------
      Jackie Lancaster
                                                                                                                                                                                           Susan Lander
      «-» Forwarded by David Rider/RMJ SEP A/US on 01/08/2004 01:58 PM -----
      
      
                                      R3 Mountaintop^El'A
                         !1dj mcl an caster@.co
                         x.net"         To;
                                      Subject: Please Stop Destructive Mountaintop Removal Mining
                         01/06/200403:03
                         FM
              Dear Mr. John Forren, Project Manager,
      
              I grew up in West Virginia. There is uo more beautiful stale, My lather ran many of the mines
              in West Virginia and Kentucky.  I strongly urge you to amend (lie EPA's draft environmental
              impact statement so as to slop tnounlainiop removal mining. 1 fmd it unconscionable (Thai the
              Bush administration pians to continue to let coal companies destroy Appalachia with mining
              practices that level moimtaintops, wipe out forests, bury streams and destroy communities.
      
              The Bush administration must consider alternatives that stop the mountsintop removal  mining
              and then implement measures to protect natural resources and communities in Appalachia. No
              amount of coa! is worth the destruction of streams, forests, wildlife and communities. I urge you
              to immediately amend the draft EIS accordingly.
      
              Sincerely,
              Jackie McQuadc Lancaster
      
              Jackie Lancaster
              3 39 East J Street
              Chula Vista, CA 91910
              dj melaneasie r@cox.ne1
                                                                                       1-9
                                                                                                                               	Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/09/2004 02:49 PM -—
      
      
                                                                                                                                                                        R3 Moimtaintop@EPA
      To:
                  Susan Lander
                            cc:
                                Subject; Amend EPA environmental impact statement
                  01/01/2004 11:58
                  AM
      
      I am dismayed by the plans to continue to allow mining practices in
      Appalachia which would level mountain tops, and do serious damage to
      forests, streams, and communities.
      
      According lo Ihe draft BIS, the environmental effects of mountaintop
      removal are both severely damaging and permanent.  Despite this, there
      seem to be no protections for either the natural resources (forests,
      wildlife, streams) or for the communitie» that depend on these
      resources.
      
      Worst of all, the "preferred alternative'' for dealing with the massive
      problems posed by mountain top removal mining ignores the
      administration's own studies!
      
      I urge you to turn to alternatives that protect natural resources and
      communities on Appalachia.
      
      Susan Lander
      Ashland, Oregon
                                                                                                                                                                                                    1-9
      MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                                                                                                 A-1038
                                 Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Jennifer Lantz
                John Forren
                U.S,EPA(3ES30)
                J 650 Arch Street
                Philadelphia, PA 19103
      "REC'D  JAW 0 2 $M
                Mr, John Forren,
      
                I am writing to you, in defense of oar precious environment I will start oy saying I have never
                written so many environmental defense letters, as J have since Bush, Jr. took office. Daily I
                find myself wondering why this aduriuistratioH i&vors corporations over our environment, our
                future, our children's health and oar own. Is money that precious? How precious will it be
                when all of our natural resources, oar clean rivers, our clean air - are gone?  I have learned one
                tiring above all else while growing into an adult: Even if all material things we taken from you,
                and you still have your family, Mends and Mfe - then all is good because none of those material
                things were important; for they can be replaced.  Onr children cannot be replaced, our family
                cannot be replaced, and our mountains cannot be replaced.
      
                I am opposed to mountaintop removal mining and valley fiBs of any kind. How dare our          | i  n
                government allow corporations come iato our {brents, our wilderness" homes and diminish what    '
                little natural toven we have left in this world!  What we need is an alternative energy policy, not
                a more consuming energy policy Bke that of which Bash would like passed. More coat, more
                oil, more pollution, more chemical agents in the rivers and streams is what is happening wift
                these 'Bush Policies' - don't we have enough polluters already? The fish in the Ohio tee
                already labeled as unhealthy to eat, where we obtain our water - yet more development and
                energy sources are being planned. If we keep dumping more pollutants into these streams, and
                adding to the air pollution through coal and oil exploration, then what we have is a future health
                disaster on our hands. Is that what our government wants to happen to the American people?
                We already cannot ftce rising health care costs and our government will not give us national
                healthcare like the many other industrialized nations of fte world.
      
                Therefore, we are looking at disease, deformation, brain dysfunctions, bleak skies and blank
                futures - all over mosey and corporate power, because we cannot get enough - if this is allowed
                to keep happening. It is never enough is it? Tell you what,..If you stop the mining, I will talk
                to the people about being conservative and controlling the population. I personally could care
                less if we did ran out of fuel and energy, because it has caused chaos, war, violence, greed and
                hate. I do not need any of those effects, nor do our children. If we run out, we ran oot. Maybe
                if government coneenftated on educating people on the effects they are having on (he
                environment, instead of removing our environment to Make more money off people - we would
                not have these problems.  Instead, this could be a letter of appreciation for looking out for our
                environment and saving it from corporate destruction. I hope that  in the near future I will have
                the opportunity to write such a nice note to you.
      
                 Page 1 of 2                        JL                                      12/28/2003
      '••   '•                          T?ED'D JM ft 2 MR
      
       Furthermore, I do not support Alternatives #1,2 or 3 contained within the HS report. Hone of
       these options will protect our water or our communities. The only alternative to protect our
       water, wilderness and communities is to stop to mining and mountain removal. Enough is
       enough and the people, environment and future of America have a word on this issue. We have
       spoken. We hope our government will hear us.
      
       Thask you for your attention. Please read a short summation of sustainabiHty for our ftiture at
       http://wwwJsoscofifereace.org.au/papers/Sanders.pdf
                                                                                          Sincerely,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              1-5
                                                                                         "Only wfaea Ute last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been
                                                                                         eaugt&,..wili we realise tfaat we can sot eat j&G&ey." *- Native American proverb
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                   A-1039
                                                                          Section A  - Citizens
      

      -------
              Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 11:18 AM
      
                           Jennifer, la ntz@m
                           sightbb.com        To:     R3 Mountamtop@EPA
                                                Subject: fust Say No To Mountain Top Removal
      U.&. KPA (3KS3U)
                   John H of tcn
                   
      -------
      TimLarrick
                                                                                                                 Jessica Lavin
                                                                                                                1-12
                                                                                                                                                   First INamc:   Jessica Last Name;
                                                                                                                                                                City:  Httptwell
                                                                                                                                                                                  :Siate:  MB
                                                                          letter Date:  .l./LV2EK)4
                                                                          Zip:   04079
                              This j*ast November I had the opportunity to attend a week long training .session for those who
                              work to create social change, On the 10 hottt drivy with one of my colleagues we discussed many
                              issues facing mn environment today. We titlked about the health md air issues associated wiih
                              US electronic waste heing^hippad to Asia, wy talked about the war ia Iraq, about glohatizatioft
                              and free trade, but the 'most intem.Ung Uiing we. Utlked about- was my cpifeaf ties work to stop the
                              destructive coal mining practice ol muimutifitop removal. He told me-about liviirg id Appalitdvia
                              with Korne families who's health, Bveliehood, home towns and pristine surroundings were being
                              threatened by con! coti^anie^. My rractioft -"Coal coftipaMies si.Hl do thai irt the United States!"
                              Of'course, my co-worker couldn't believe, I hatt never h^-aftf of such acfs, I guess I hsd been
                              living in my .isolated part of. the OS for way tootoeg. As the week progressed, 1 met more and
                              more people who worked to improve the lives of others through seeming 'low income housing in
                              the inner eitys of Philadelphia, chasing dtug dealers and prostietutes of ihs comers of thier streets
                              in Camden New Jersey, fightittg A10S in impoverished countries. A,nd ~ still the story that
                              struck my heart was the simple fact that even in the. US we,siil! allow-" coal-compaiiies to"
                              ptafttasratly devastate our people atid our efivironmefit. The US is one of the most sophisticated
                              countries in the world? At-the end of the  week the message- i t«ok away was there is stilt
                              opportunities for us to create change in society, it may noE happen fast, but if all do our part we
                              can make a difference. It's your turn i® do'tbs tight thing! Slop allowing coal companies to
                              destroy oiir nations soil and threatetvthe health of many people. I»ste&d of allowing mountaintap
                              removal to continue i«jd in msuiyeaws increaseJra^lefi^ntafterRJttjvtf me|tstires(- You CAN
                              reduce stream and forest loss by placing strong restrictions on Ihe sia® of valley fills. • You CAN
                              implement measures that require evaluating alter'Mtives for individual projects. - You CAN
                              implement measures thai require evaluating iregiotiaj alteiritauvi^ so that the t;urnulative impact of
                              the destruction «uised by motmtaiutop removal is addressed. For the sake of Appalachian men,
                              women and children, thier heritage and our environment PLEASE stop ibis devastating act?
                              Wouldn't Appalaehta be a great place for windmills?
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           1-9
      MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
      A-1041
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Phyllis Law
                                                                                                     F. Carey Lea
                     December 18,2003
                     John Forren
                     US Environmental Protection Agency
                     1650 Arch Street
                     Philadelphia, PA
                     19103
                     Dear Mr. Forren,
                     I oppose any changes that would weaken laws and regulations that protect
                     clean water in the stats of West Virginia. I oppose eliminition of the stream
                     buffer zone that prohibits miring activity within 100 feet of streams.
      
                     We  must adhere to  improving environmental  protection to aquatic and
                     terrestrial  ecosystems.   We must  also eradicate  the widespread and
                     irreversible damage the coal industry is doing to Appalachia, and the once
                     beautiful mountains of West Virginia.
      
                     The BIS draft must not be approved or accepted.
       1-10
       9-2-2
      14-2
                                  	Forwarded by David Ridei/RJAJSEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM -
      
                                              Carey Lea
                                                        cc:
                                                           Subject:
                                              12/25/2003 10:27
                                              AM
      Dear Mr.Forren
      
      1 am writing to tell you that 1 »m opposed
      to mountaintop removal coal minii]g,I think the practice and
      its results speak for th«mselves-unemployment,eimroiimental
      destraction,and the destruction of local communities.Of
      course the industry has its own self-serving rosy
      scenario.but for those of us who live in the area,the rosy
      scenario is laughable.I urge you to consider the will of
      the peoplejiot the industry.
      
      Sincerely,
      F.Carey Lea
      353 Groundhog Ridge
      Spencer. WV 25276
                                                                                                             1-9
                      Sincerely yours,
                     Phyllis H. Law
                     137 Loretta Avenue
                     Mansbee, WV 26037
                     304-527-1522
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                 A-1042
                                                                  Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Elaine Leach
                                                                                                                          Carole Levenson
               —- Forwarded by Da-rid Rider/R3/USEPA/US OB 01/08/2004 01:59 PM	
                           "eleach@brainerd.
                           net" 
      -------
      Igal Levy
                                                                             Elizabeth Lewis
              	Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM	
      
                         "textract@attbi.c
                         om" 
      -------
      Norma Lewis
                                                                                                                                    Tom Lewis
          "REC'D  M.,  2 5 20!
      Notnia Lewis
      Lincoln WV 25508
      My 20,2003
      "REC'D JAH 2 3
          Dear EPA,                                                 ">
      
          The BIS does not evaluate alternatives to valley fills, it should
      
          Other uses for the rock need to be considered. Economic development plans should have
          as a main focus ~ how to capitalize on another one of West Virginia's resources-
          sandstone. Other parts of the country mine sandstone. Glass manufacturers should be
          encouraged to build plants where the sandstone has already been mined for them. Block
          and stone siding companies should be encouraged to build factories in areas where they
          can use the rocks that otherwise would haw tnmed into valley fill.
      
          The streams and the mountain valley micro habitats are irretrievably lost when valley fills
          are constructed. This to an irretrievable and irreversible impact. Trie mitigation should be
          that the coal companies must develop markets, pay into a tad, or somehow encourage
          businesses that use the stone (block manufacturers, stone siding companies, manufactured
          stone products, glass manufacturers). China is a large stone manufacturer. Instead of
          importing these product"! from China, the US government should subsidize companies
          that produce products with coal mining overburden. If there was both, a federal subsidy
          and a coal company fund, then there could be an attractive business opportunity.
      
          Yes, this would require a different type of thinking. It appears to be a radical concept All
          industrial innovations seem far- fetched when first proposed. Who would have thought
          that chemical  companies could successfully use product substitution or sell their
          hazardous waste? It is part of everyday practice now but it was not twenty years ago.
          Please do not  dismiss this concept as a weird  public comment Please try to circulate the
          idea and see how it could be studied and implemented.
                               1-8
                               10-3-5
                               9-5-3
                                                        U.S.HPA
                                                        Attn: JohnFoiren
                                                        1650 As* Street
                                                        Wlactelptiia, PA 19101
                                                        Mr. J
                                                        0.S.EPA0EA30)
                                                        comnmnittes and do not weafcra environmental protections that an% to fl» companies tta»aie conducting
                                                        Thadi-jflEnvironmcsntal Impact Statement (EIS) on mountaintop removal should be rewritten to
                                                        m»ramend limits on the size of valley fills fliatbniysliEainsmdmipcrtl wildlife.
      
                                                        lie draft Environmental Ijrtpact Statement rfiould not do away with a surface mining Die that makes it
                                                        illegal for mming^etivities to distmtarEaswithia ICO feet of streains.
                                                           1-10
                                                        Tom
                                                        356FbteBd
                                                        Oroase Potato Fauns, MI 48230
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                         A-1045
                                                                                                                                                                                       Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      BettaLeyland
                                                                                                    EricLillyblad
                            bettaleyl@excite.
                            com          To:   R3 Mountairtoo@EPA
                                         cc:
                            01/05/200404:20    Subject: Comments on draft programmatic EIS on
                  rnountaintop removal coal mining
                            PM
                                     Mr. John Forren
                                     Project Manager
                                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (3EA30)
                                     1650 Arch Street.   .
                                     Philadelphia, PA 19103
                                                       ftEC'D JAN 05:
                                                                                                                        Subject:  Draft EIS on rnountaintop removal coal mining
                  Mr. John Forren
                  U.S. GPA(3EA3Q)
                  1650 Arch Street
                  Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
                  Dear Mr. Forren,
      
                  I find it unconscionable that the Bush administration plans to
                  continue to let coal companies destroy Appalachia with mining
                  practices that level mountaintops, wipe out forests, bury
                  streams, and destroy communities.
      
                  THIS IS A RAPE OF OUR COUNTRY BY THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION.
      
                  IT SEEMS THAT EVERYTHING THEY DO IS GEARED TOWARD TURNING THIS
                  COUNTRY INTO A SERFDOM, RULED BY A SELECT FEW.
      
                  I HAVE GRANDCHILDREN AND GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN, AND I WILL NOT LET
                  THIS HAPPEN.
                  Sincerely,
      
                  Betta Leyland
                  65 Franklin Drive
                  Doylestown
                  Ohio, Ohio 44230
                  Representative Ralph Regula
                  Senator George Voinovich
                  Senator Mike DeVWne
      1-9
                                                                                                                        12/31/03
      Dear Mr. Forren,
      
      I am writing regarding the EPA's draft environmental impact statement on
      mountaintop removal mining.  From my understanding of this practice and
      the findings of the draft BS, i believe that mountaintop removal mining
      creates unacceptable hazards to human health and the environment.
      
      As such, I do not believe that the Bush administration should advance plans
      to allow this mining practice, which can level mountaintops, wipe out forests,
      bury streams and displace communities.  Rather, at a minimum, I believe the
      draft EIS should be strengthened to effect proper restrictions on the size of
      valley fills and the number of acres of forest that can be
      destroyed/stripped, and to ensure  protection of streams and associated
      flora and fauna which can be damaged or destroyed by the mountaintop
      mining removal and fill practice.
      
      I do not favor the Bush administration's "preferred alternative", which
      actually weakens environmental protections for human health and the
      environment by allowing mountaintop removal and associated valley fills to
      continue at an accelerated rate.  Ptease ensure that the Bush administration
      is held to the high standard they espouse in the popular media, and earnestly
      and honestly consider (and implement) alternatives that  reduce the
      environmental impacts of mountaintop removal, in a way that protects
      America's natural resources and the Appalachian communities where this
      damaging approach to mining Is practiced (and proposed to be expanded).
                                                                                                              1-9
                                                                                                              1-5
                                                                                                              1-10
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
               A-1046
                                                                                                                                                                                Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
                                                                                                                                                                                        JoanLinville
                     Thank you for your time in considering my concerns and the concerns of the
                     American people regarding the sensitive issue of protecting human health
                     and the environment.
                     With kind regards,
                     Eric Ullyblad
                     9505 207th St. N.
                     Forest Lake, MN S5025-8903
                     clillyblad@aol.com
                                                                                                                                                                    REC'D QEC 1  1m
                                                                                                                                             Mr, John Forren
                                                                                                                                                U.S. EPA
                                                                                                                                               1650 Arch St
                                                                                                                                          Philadelphia, PA 19103
                     I oppose the practice of mountamtop removal mining. This mining is destroying our
                    communities, homes and lives. We are constantly flooded, in homes that we have spent
                       our lives in.  We are being pushed out of our homes by the destruction caused by
                      mountaintop removal mining Our roads are being shut down ever time it rains this
                      makes our rescue personal useless to us.  Our tax dollars ate what fixes all the mess
                      caused by the mining going OB around us. No wonder mining is so profitable we as
                     citizens pick up the bill OB the devastation caused by the mine companies. Please stop
                    this insanity its killing out entire communities. Not to mention the effects it's having oa
                    our environment The habitats of our animals are destroyed, running the wildlife away.
                    Our streams are filled with rock that the mine companies pfle into these valley fills. The
                      waters get ap and have no where to go but into peoples homes. Our mountains are
                    exploding with water. These outbreaks come out into people's yard and underneath their
                    homes. Our homes are literally being blasted off their foundations or the earth is opening
                    up and swallowing them. Please stop the practice of mountaintop removal coal mining
                          and save our homeland, our children's fcture and very possibly our lives
                                                                                                                                  Name
      
                                                                                                                                  Phone
                                                                                                                                                                                               1-9
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1047
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Joe Linville
               -— Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 11:39 AM	
      
                           "Linville, Joe"
                                    cc:
                                        Subject:  Comment on Mountaintop Mining -- Draft EIS
                           01/06/200403:48
                           PM
                                   I hope the out come of this process is in the best interest of all the
                                   people.
      
                                   Sincerely,
      
                                   William J, Linville, II
                                   698 Lick Creek Road
                                                                                                                        Danville, WV 25053
               Greetings,
               
                     As a life loag resident of southern West Virginia I would
               like to make a comment regarding the regulations the EPA Draft EIS on
               mounteiiitop mining.
      
                     First and foremost, COAL is West Virginia. Without COAL, the
               State of West Virginia would be economically depressed.
      
                     The good Lord above has provided us with an abundance of
               natural resources and he has blessed our region with COAL, so therefore
               I feel we can find a happy medium for all parties involved.
      
               COAL is very vital and I am wondering if you can put a price tag on the
               economic impact this natural resource has on our state. The coal
               industry employees thousands of men and women in our state and what
               would happen to those jobs if stringent regulations were put into place,
               that forced mining companies out of business? Not only wcnild miners
               loose their jobs, but the thousands of support jobs as well.
      
               Bottom line  I feel with good regulations, coal companies can mine the
               coal effectively and feasibly, provide West Virginian's with good paying
               jobs, provide a good tax base for the state and continue to help balance
               the environment
      
               1 feel reclamation is a major factor in this equation. I have had the
               opportunity to see first hand many 'mountaintop removal' mine sites.
               before, during and after the fact. Yes, there is no doubt that during
               the mining process, the land is not one of the prettiest sights, but
               neither is the construction of a local highway or a neighborhood
               shopping mall. However the finished product is different story.
                                   Joe Linville
                                   Standard Job Administrator
                                   C.I. ¥/alker Machinery Co,
                                   (304) 949-6400 x2283
                                   jlinville@walker-cat.com
      11-4-2
      11-1-2
      19-1-2
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
               A-1048
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Nannie Linville
                                                              Curt Livingston, Sr.
                           CM
      
      
      
      
      
                           f^
                                                                                                           CURT A. LlMNdSTON, SR.
                                                                                                                                 DEC 2 (
                                                                                                                                                1-10
       MTMA/F Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1049
                                                                                                                                   Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Julie Longman-Pollard
                                                                                                      Sherry Lorenz
               	Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USBPA/US on 01/09/2004 02:49 PM	
      
                           J1P
                                       cc:
                                         Subject:  Mountaintop removal for coal mining
                           12/30/2003 07:26
                           PM
      
               Mt. John Forren
               Project Manager
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (3EA30)
               1650 Arch Street
               Philadelpriifl, PA 19103
               Email: tnountaintop.r3@epa.gov
               Dear Mr. Forren,
      
               I understand that the EPA's draft environmental impact statement
               propose* no restrictions on the size of valley fills that bury streams,
               no limits on the number of acres of forest that can be destroyed, no
               protections for imperiled wildlife and no safeguards for the communities
               that depend on the region's natural resources for themselves and future
               generations. Yet according to the draft E1S the Bush administration lias
               released, the environmental effects of mountaititop removal are
               widespread, devastating and permanent. The social effects to the people
               and their communities are also aegative, particularly in the long term.
      
               According to the information I have read President Bush's administration
               will ignore their own studies and propose weakening existing
               environmental protections and allowing mountaintop  removal and
               associated valley fills to continue. Alternatives that reduce the
               environmental impacts of mountaititop removal would seem to make more
               sense  for the future of the human and wildlife communities of
               Appalachia, the companies that harvest this natural resource, and the
               American people, For these reasons I would urge you to consider amending
               the draft EIS with proposals for restricting the negative impacts of
               this type of mining.
      
                Sincerely,
      
               Julie Longman-Pollard
               PO Box 577
               St. Manes, ID 83861
               jlp@smgazette.com
      1-5
                                     Forwarded by David Rider/R3/l'SEPA/US cm OB/28/03 05:06 PM -
      
                                                 Site-fry Lotenx
                                                             cc:
                                                               Subject; WVA Mouutaintop Removals..,
                                                 08/24/03 06:36 PM
                                     August 24, 2003
      
                                     To: The EPA, Region 3
                                     From: Sherry Loreiiz, Fort Mill, South Carolina
      My name is Sherry Lorenz, I live in Fort Mill, South Carolina, and I am a
      •member of the Henry's Knob Group of the Sierra Club m Rock Hill, SC. I am
      an avid hiker/backpacker and outdoors enthusiast. I feel best when seeing and
      hearing the sounds of nature, it is a wonderful respite from the everyday noises
      find pressures of life, the honking of cars, non-stop music in  the stores,
      telephones, beepers,, shrieking ambulances and police cruisers, and many other
      noise-nuisances that disrupt and burden OUF cbtily lives. What more beautiful is
      there than being able to take a break in the wings of nature and "recuperate" so
      that we can all take on another week of stress and hardship,  However, in
      ^YOUR* Stale, the State of West Virginia, this birthright is being taken away
      from its people. "They ate being terrorized by these horrible mountftintop
      removals, & practice that ts unspeakable to say the least 1 have seen pictures
      and have talked to people who live this nightmare day-in and day-out, people
      who see nothing but dust when they step oxit of thek homes and look around,
      total utter destruction and mayhem. You know as well as 1 know, that many
      have died as a result of mudslides th^t are a part of mountaintop removals^
      maiy have lost their homes due to damage from the blasting^, many were
      forced to sell their properties for almost nothing, many simply have no place to
      go and suffer silently, and many have developed health problems they would
      never have had before these removals started.. Yes, I know, I have spoken to
      people that live in Bob VX'Tiite, WVA and Dorothy, WVA.  And yes again, 1 am
      awaire that the blastings and dumpings known as 'Valley fill"  occurs on private
                                                                                                               1-9
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                A-1050
                                                                 Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
                                                                                                                     She r i. y Lor en z
               coal company load, however, the results extend far beyond it's borders,
               destroying; comrnunities alonst with the environment. It is nothing but a living:
                    s   -zy                &                             *•&     *   ' *gj
               nightmare. Already, mote than 1,200 miles of headwater streams have been
               directly impacted by mountain top removal operations, and 724 of streams have
               been buried.  More than 300,000 acres of hardwood forest Imvc been removed,
               many of them just buried along with the rock and fill.  It's a total environmental
               disaster. I don't even live in West Virginia, but I  am horrified and feel the pain
               of the people that have to deal with this,  I so respect what God lias given us to
               protect, enjoy and cherish, I treat nature like it was a fragile flower.  Which it is.
               We all know that the Bush Administration is promoting and allowing this,
               however, common sense will tell us that this practice of MTRis totally
               unacceptable. Is our land free game for just a few of the rich and powerful?  Is
               this democracy? Is this hi the best interests of the land and of the people? I
               know '"you'*" know the answer to this. I am therefore kindly asking you to
               HELP STOP tliis insanity,  I will be traveling to Bob White, WVA, soon  to
               take pictures of the mined areas and I'll be showing them to m? fellow
               environmentalists here in Rock Hill. I know they will be shocked,
      
               I hope to hear from you, I would like a response—a response that makes sense
               and wiO give hope to me and the people of West  Virginia and the surrounding
               states.  I care about our Planet, I care about the future of my children and
               grand child ren, and what they will inherit, and I also care about the people of
               West Virginia, Virginia, Tenneessec, Kentucky and other places that are being
               dcstrncted. Let us all do what's right.
      
               Sincerely yours,
               Sherry Lorenz
      1-9
      Dear EPA,  Region. 3,
      
      I apprsci.ate  your reply,  I **nesded**  to hear frots you. When  we dc
      rec-eSv4; to be heard,  because **I CARE**  about
      Planet.
                                                                                                                3-3
                                                       R5 MG'jntaintop
                                                       Seat by; David
                                                                                                                     Se  very much appreciate your  eonyaenta on the MTK DEIS.   The cojKment
                                                                                                                     period is  still open and vd.ll doss on January  &  ,  2004.      We plan
                                                                                                                     to
                                                                                                                     respond to cojaraentj after th.s close of the coraaeilt period  and during
                                                                                                                     the
                                                                                                                     preparation of the Final E1S.   Responses tc comments,  including yDarsf
                                                                                                                     will be released to the public as  part of this Final  EIS.   Given the
                                                                                                                     sssny hundreds of cciwseRts ws  have  received thus far,  and the many
                                                                                                                     thousands  we expect to receive before the end o£ the  comment period, w
                                                                                                                     will be responding categorically to ail coiftifsants He  receive on the
                                                                                                                     Draft
                                                                                                                     EIS.
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                A-1051
                                                                                                                                                                                    Secf/on A - Citizens
      

      -------
                                                                                                                                                                             David & Marsha Low
                                                                                                                           Forwarded by David Rider/R3/US£PA/US on 01/08/2004 01:58 PM -
                                                                                                                                     net           To:   R3 Mountaintop@>EPA
                                                                                                                                                 oc:
                                                                                                                                     12/17/200303:40    Subject;  Comments on draft programmatic EIS on
                                                                                                                           mountalntop removal coal mining
                                                                                                                                     PM
          Mountalntop Removals
                                                            Subject:  Best Virginia
                                                                                         3-2
                              Mr. John Forren
                              U.S, EPA(3£A30)
                              1650 Arch Street
                              Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
                              Dear Mr. Forren,
      
                              I find it unconscionable that the Bush administration plans to
                              continue to iet coa! companies destroy AppaJachia with mining
                              practices that level mountaintops, wipe out forests,  bury
                              streams, and destroy oommuniies.
      
                              PLEASE CONSIDER LIMITING YOU  PLAN TO ONLY, SAY, 30% OF THE
                              MOUNTAINS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE DESTROYED,
      
                              The Bush administration really must consider alternatives that
                              reduce the environmental impacts of mountaintop removal.
                                                                                                                           Sincerely,
      
                                                                                                                           David and Marsha Low
                                                                                                                           8018 Hammond Road
                                                                                                                           Cheltenham, Pennsylvania 19012
      
                                                                                                                           cc:
                                                                                                                           Senator Aden Specter
                                                                                                                           Senator Rick Santorum
                                                                                                                           Representative Chaka Fattah
                                                                                                                                                                                                1-9
                                                                                                                                                                                                1-8
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1052
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Benjamin Lowman
                                                                                                            LoisLudwig
      Dear Mr. Forren,
      
      I am writing in regard to the public comments accepted for the Draft Programmatic
      Environmental Impacts Statement on Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia. I am a
      professional biologist by vocation: therefore, my comments will be restricted to those areas in
      which I am inherently familiar, I will attempt to be succinct in my points of criticism; however,
      the breadth of the inadequacies of this report far exceeds the potential for a single, thorough
      evaluation by any one individual.
      
      First, I must bring to surface the fact that many of the leading regional experts in the fields of
      science in which this study focused were not selected to participate.  These experts, particularly
      those in academia, neither conducted the field research nor interpreted the data collected;
      consequently, a study not completed by the preeminent experts will always be subject to
      scrutiny.  It seems counterintuitive that a study of this magnitude, upon which so much emphasis
      has been placed, would fail to incorporate these individuals, many of whom have devoted a
      lifetime of study on the topics dealt with in this document.
      
      I also have deep concerns with the language used in many portions of the scientific analyses and
      conclusions. For example, the loss of habitat to organisms that specialize in and require such
      habitat to complete critical  portions of life history will most certainly be impacted by the
      proposed action. In this document, many habitat  specialists were considered to be "possibly"
      affected, or "may be" detrimentally influenced by an action which will most certainly lead to
      population declines.  Again, the scientific personnel must be both confident and competent in
      order to make such assertions, but in this case, they were neither.
      
      The study fails to consider the potential problems associated with large-scale land disturbance
      and the encroachment of exotic and invasive species. In the realm of vegetation alone, the
      potential for colonization of reclaimed mine sites by  aggressive nuisance species is extremely
      high.  The establishment of such species (e.g. Ailanihus altissinw] in large monocultures will not
      only cost taxpayers millions of dollars to control but  also stands to threaten the timber industry as
      a whole.  Furthermore, species that are rarely encountered in the region due to range restrictions
      cannot be considered as rare in regard to global, national, or state status.  If this were the case,
      nuisance species such as Passer domesticus would have once  been considered rare under this
      convention.
      
      In conclusion, this study is incomplete.  It is strong on implications and conclusions that are not
      supported by the research conducted in this study or documented in the scientific literature. It is
      a perversion of true science, in which facts are established based on observations leading to
      expertise—this study is vacant in both.
      
      Respectfully yours,
      Benjamin M. Lowman
       9-2-2
       18-2-2
      4-2
                                        Mr.foBnFanen,USEPA                                J~^EC D  AUS 2 0
                                        1650 Arch Street
                                        Philadelphia, PA 19130
      Bear Mr, Forren,
      
      I am writing to comment on the EB OB Mountaintop Removal Scientific proof confirms
      the knowledge of local residents that mountaintop removal/valley fill coal mining is
      Irreversibly and substantially harming the forests toA streams of West Virginia and
      Kentucky.
      
      Throughout central Appalachia, some of the most productive and diverse temperate
      hardwood forests in the world have been destroyed when coal companies blast off
      hundreds of feet of mmmtaintops to get tha seams of coal. In most circumstances, the
      fenner lash forests wll remain degraded as gassy, unproductive scrubland for at toast
      several centuries. These unproductive grasslands cover nearly 20% of some southern
      West Virginia counties.
      
      Millions of tons of nibble from the former mountains are pushed into the adjacent
      valleys. Coal companies have already buried hundreds of miles of Appalachian streams,
      destroying not only the streams themselves, bat creating disastrous impacts to
      downstream waterways and towns. As residents point out, mountaintop removal is also
      devastating the culture and communities of the region.
      
      Despite an Ms evidence of hum, (he BIS draft does not iBConunend curbing the
      environmental harm caused by mountaintop removal, but asks the agencies that are
      supposed to be regulating coal mining to streamline tte way they work together.
      
      I love ow West Virginia mountains and qptnd a tot of time hiking, hiking, bird watching,
      photographing, sad enjoying the beauty of our special state. I sat very concerned for my
      children and 0»idchild»n who wfll hive mash fess space to recreate and recuperate. In a
      world of ever increasing stress, these mountains and streams at all the more necessary
      fiw daUy renewal of the spirit, not to mention Ufe-snstaining water without which ttate
      can be no life.
      
      I believe the EXS should show the real impacts of motmtaintop removal and offer real
      solutions, not push forward a harmful agenda of destruction.
                                        Sincerely,
       1-9
      
      
       7-5-2
      
      
       5-7-2
      
      110-2-2
                                                                                                                                Lois A Ludwig
       MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                 A-1053
                                                                                                                                                                                             Section A  - Citizens
      

      -------
      Tom Luther
                                                                          Grace Glaser-Lynch & Thomas Lynch
               — Forwarded by Dax-id Ridei/R3/lBEPA/US on 01/08/200401:59 PM.	
                    "lutliert@asme.org
                    " plied ketv. SQBZK of tfce erBscts of niaditfai' vwc we su^gated over buodxeds of years,
                                     but war is still unacceptable. Government should work for the people now, with
                                     regt}|a$ioi£s thai ijra&ct oar e
                                                                                                                    which depends on the state retaining and protet-ring its natural besuity, provides more jobs
                                                                                                                    than do "extractive industries" (Chiirleston Gsttette December 8, 2003). In addition to
                                                                                                                    direct employment thn-e are many people that benefit from travel and tourism, such as
                                                                                                                    moseuivolved in me arts, entertainment and the businesses involved in building and
                                                                                                                    maintaining second homes. The conditions that promote tourism are negated by tlie
                                                                                                                    realities of Mountahi Top Removal mining.  The draft EIS reports negative impacts yet
                                                                                                                    recommends stre^milinmg the nerrratting process rather than setting rcEisonabte limits to
                                                                                                                    the mining pi actice.
      
                                                                                                                    We ovm a dMimiakii^ biBiness &tt uses WV liatdwoods. We ba^re so^pctfied ourselves
                                                                                                                    and raised a family by responsibly har.-esting maple, hickory, cherry, oak and walnut,
                                                                                                                    turning these native trees into "value added" furniture. We depend on tourism to market
                                                                                                                    our products within the state. .
      -------
      AnnLynnworth
                                                                                                                                                            Lawrence Lyon
                  — Forwarded fcy David Ridar/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 0158 PM —
                  mining
      Ann Lynnworth
      
                  oe:
      12/30/200305:12
      
      PM
                                              To:   R3 MountaintopgEPA
      
                                              Subject: Strengthen draft EIS on mountaintop removal coal
                                                                  January 2,2004
                                                             Lawrence B. Lyon, Jr.
                                                                 114 Center Street
                                                      Madison, West Virginia 25130
                                                                   (304)369-2131
                  December 30, 2003
      
                  Mr. John Forren
                  Project Manager
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (3EA30)
                  1650 Arch Street
                  Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
                  Dear Mr. Forren,
      
                  I strongly urge you to amend the EPA's draft environmental impact
                  statement so as to limit the effects of devastating mountaintop
                  removal mining
                  Sincerely,
      
                  Ann Lynnworth
                  241 Main Street
                  Littleton, NH 03574
                  USA
                                                                  1-9
      Mr. John Forren
      U. S. EJP.A.
      (3 EA 30) 1650 Arck Street
      Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
      
      DearSfc
      
      I could show you land that was surface mined fifty years ago, I would have to show ft to
      you because it is covered wifli trees.
      
      The reason so many people get flooded in West Virginia is because of the contour of the
      land. Too many people live at the bottom of the drain. They need to move to higher
      ground.
      
      When the Stele Road Commission or a stopping mall fills a valley no one objects. When
      a coal company plans to flfl a valley there are many objections. Water will find its level
      regardless of valley fill.
      
      America is too dependent on foreign energy and West Virginia needs level ground for
      housing and industry above the flood plain.
      
                                                 Sincerely,
                                                                                                                                                                                              1-11
                                                                                                                                                            Lawrence B. Lyon, Jr.
      MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
                                                                           A-1055
                                                                   Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Malcolm MacPherson
                                                                                                                                         Andy Mahler
                                       Malcolm R, MacPherson, Ph.D.
                     Mr. John BOTCH EPA
                     U.S. WA (3EA30)
                     1650 Arch St
                     Philadelphia, PA 19103
                                                                               January 2,2004
                     Dear Mr. Porren:
      
                     It has come to My attention that the EPA is Deposing rule changes governing mountaintop re-
                     moval for mining ia AppalaeMa. This practice has buried whole valleys with tailings and other     1   „
                     debits.  It has mandated streams, wiped oat forests, polluted water supplies, destroyed wildlife     1-9
                     habitat, and negatively altered nearby communities. These mining practices are unethical and
                     unprincipled
      
                     We must have laws and regulations that protect clean water. We need to strengthen protections
                     for rural people and the environment The federal government has ignored Its own studies in this
                     regard.  It is time for sanity in mining practices.
      
                     Therefore, I oppose all three alternatives listed in the Bnvironmenlal Impact Statement Report !   j  J-5
                     tether oppose the proposal to change the stream buffer zone rule tint prohibits mining activity   L  ,   , />
                     within lOOfeetof streams. This rule should be strictly enforced ftffsnytnintog activity.         j  I — 1 V
      
                     Thank you for hearing my concerns.
                      Sincerely,
                            . M^Phfirsoa
                     34 Coyntt Mountain »d
                     Santa Be, NM 87505-8178
                     $t Coyote Mountain Road
                     Santa Fe,NM87S05
      Phoxe: 505-9»-95m
        fax: 505-983-8699
       Mr. John Forren                                          —.»»-»  i»u H % 1»Si
       US. EPA (3EA30)        '                             RpG D «»« u   «""
       1650ArchSt '   .              •                    .      .  •
       Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
       Dear Mr. .Forren
      
       Having witnessed first-hand the abpmhation euphemisficaltyrefeired to as
       mountalntop removal, 1 consider it to be the most destructive peacetime activity
       in human Msfary.. Were this level of destruction perpetrated against our country
       the work of a foreign power, it would be consfdored an ACT OF WAR, It is a
       desecration, a tragedy and an outrage. I am disgusted, but not surprsed to
       learn that the Bush administration plans to conf nue to let coal companies wage
       war on AppdacNa with mining practices that level mouniaintops, wipe out
       forests, bury streams, and destroy communities.
      
       According1 to the administration's draft Environmental Impact Stcrtementps) on
       mountalntop removal coal mining, the environmental effects of mountaintop
       removal are widespread, devastating, and permanent Yet the draft EIS           ,  _
      , proposes no restrictions on the size of valley Ms that bury streams, no limits on the   1 -o
       number of acres of forest that can be destroyed, no protections for imperiled
       wildlife, and no safeguards for the communities of people that depend on the
       region's natural resources for themselves and future generations.
      
       The lush-Appalachian forests that are being destroyed are representative of the
       mixed mesophyfc forest, first described by pioneering forest ecologist E. Lucy
       Braun. The mixed mesophyfc Is the oldest and most biologically diverse
       hardwood forest in North America and one of the two most biologically diverse
       temperate forests on Earth. World WildBfe Fund says this area is a biodiversity
       hotspot that, if saved, wi go far in protecfina the vast variety of life on Earth.
       These forests provide habitat and breeding grounds for an incredible wealth of
       plant and orimal Bfe, including a melodious array of flitting, colorful neotropical
       migrant birds.        .    •        .•
      
       These verdant forests, sheltering mountains and stream-fed valleys have nurtured
       Appalachian culture for over 200 years, and before that were the hunting         I -y
       grounds of native peoples. They are our national natural heritage and must be
       protected for the abundance they provide if allowed to function as they have
       for thousands of years. Instead, in West Virginia alone, at (east SCO square miles
       of our temperate forests, home to so much dfversfly and beauty, have been
       permanenfly annihilated. Coal companies have forever buried over 1,200 mfes
       of biologically crucial Appalachian headwaters streams.
      
       The blasting has ruined homes and water wefe, as well as people's nerves. "Fly
       rock," mom aptly named fly boulder, con nain off mountafns, endangering
       resident's Jv« and homes. Hundreds of folk and entire communities are being
       displaced as homes get in the way of the 2Q-story-high draglines. Heavy rains
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                          A-1056
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Craig Mains
             Wtiifcot
                                                                                                                                                                     IRSC'D
                         can gush off the clearest, compacted MTR sites, flooding the commurttas
                         below. Coal trucks overloaded with twice the legal weight-limits are out of
                         control. Wiling people and tearing up roads and bridges which taxpayers hove to
                         paytoftc.                                                    ,
      
                         Mountaintop removal generates huge amounts of waste. While the solid waste
                         becomes valley Ms, Iquid waste is stored in massive, dangerous coal slurry •
                         impoundments, often built in the headwaters of a watershed. The slurry Is a
                         witch's brew of watej"us«d to wash the coal for market, carcinogenic chemicals
                         used in the washing process and coal fines {small particles) laderi with all the
                         compounds found in coal, including to»c heavy metals such as arsenic and
                         mercury. Frequent biackwaterspls from these impoundments choke the life out
                         of streams. One *
      
      Mr. Forren, I live in north-c»ntral West Virginia. While surface mining It present in my
      area, vary littis of it would qualify as mountaintop mining.  What wa do have, however,
      are hundreds of stream miles thai are, for all practical purposes, biologically dead due to
      acid mine drainage.  Every day when 1 drive by orange streams 1 am mmiffcfed of the
      permanently damaged environment I live in. Many citizens group®, privati industry, and
      state and federal agencies are now engaged in efforte to rehabilitate these "streams. We
      are finding that It is very expensive and the efforts are almost always less Irian what was
      hoped for.  I consistently hear people Justify the destruction of these stream^ by saying
      that it happened during an earlier era when people didn't valua the envlronront as much
                                                                                                                   7-2-2
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                A-1057
                                                                   Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
                                               "REC'D JAN 0 2
                                                                                                                                                                                         O. Mandrussow
                                                   {page 2 of 2, Craig Mains)
      
      or that much of the destruction was an unpleasant, but necessary by-product of the
      Worid War I and II efforts,
      
      Mountalntop mining is a continuation of the same type of disregard tor the environment
      that left us with hundreds of miles of dead streams in north-central West Virginia, The
      difference Is that by now we should know better and that we cannot use the convenient   1  Q
      excuse of It being a war sacrifice. Another important difference is that burying streams Is
      permanent. We can always hold out hope that acid mine drainage streams will someday
      be able to be truly restored since they at least still physically exist. There is no hope that
      a stream will some day be restored once it is buried under thousands of tons of fill.
      
      i encourage you to amend the drat EIS to include an option that allows for no valley fills. I ] _g
      I believe that some day the technology will exist to mine the coal without removing      '
      mountain tops and without burying streams. It will be a shame and a tragedy if, whan
      that day comes, we have irreversibly filled in thousands of more miles of living streams.
      W« have killed enough streams In Appalachia with acid mine drainage.  Let*s not bury
      what's left.
                  Sincerely,
                  Craig I
                  137 Hoffman Ave.
                  Morgantown, WV 26505
      
                                                                                                                                                                                                         1-9
      MTM/VF Draft PE1S Pubiic Comment Compendium
                                                                                         A-1058
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Carli Mareneck
           -— Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01/08/2004 01:43 PM	
      
                       Carli Mateneck
                                 cc:
                                     Subject: E.I.S, comments
                       01/06/200401:06
                       PM
      
           Attention: Mr, John Forren- U.S. EPA
      
           This is the final day for commentary on the Environmental Impact Statement
           regarding nioxmtaintop removal. My last minute comments come oot out of not ox
           of negligence but rather the difficulty of facing such grim facts and the irresponsibl
           behavior that leads to them.
      
           It is IB? understanding that the purpose of the E.I.S. is to evaluate options for
           IMPROVING agency programs that would contribute to REDUCING the adverse
           environmental impacts of mountaintop removal mining.
      
           The E.I.S. clearly states that there has already been devastating impact from
           mountaintop removal including destruction of almost 7% of our region's forests
           andl,200 miles of pristine headwater streams now buried under fill front mining.
      
           The "preferred alternative" suggested within the E.I.S. is simply a travesty .Rather tli
           protecting or reducing the irrevocable impacts of MTR this "alternative will plainly
           make it easier for coal companies to get mining permits by eliminating the buffer 2C
           rule and changing the current limit on nationwide permits.
      
           I honestly don't understand how those responsible for this sham can live with your
           consciences. You are paid by our tax dollars for the express purpose in your agencii
           name: Environmental PROTECTION Agency yet you spend your waking hours
           dismantling the laws for protecting the envitonment.lt is a disgrace. The agency
           should be called Emrronmental Pollution  Agency. It is ironic that citizens must do;
           private funds to litigate against agencies supported with our tax dollars to iiphold la
           you are hired to uphold for us.
      
           The other irony is that it makes no sense. The coal achieved through these method;
           will not solve the long term needs for power and the damage is irrevocable. In Wes
           Virginia, our pristine water and scenic beauty are our stoagest asset for developmer
           of tourism and a strong economy. Your agency should be working on alternative
                             energy development not colluding with old king coal. For sbame on your sham, It-
                             would be instructive if it were your home which would fall to ruin under the bkstin
                             Only then might you act to protect these lands from wanton and unnecessary
                             destruction.
      
                             Sincerely, Carli Mateneck
      1-5
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
          A-1059
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Peter Mareneck
                                                                                          Rog Marjay
        DeliveredDate: 01/06/2004 07:35:02 PM
                                                                                                          Mining
        Attention Mr, John Borren/US EPA:
      
          When you are. considering our citizen input on the wanton destruction called
        Mountaintop Removal Mining, please, act as if it is your family's home that is being
        rattled apart; as if it is your.mother's gravesite that is being buried forever,: your lifetime
        of hard work and dedication that is being leveled.
      
        This activity is nothing less than rape, .If you and your agency condones and permits this
        attrocity to  the. lives and properties of your fellow Americans, you might .as well be
        condoning and permitting the. rape of our daughters.  You have the power
        & responsibility to stop this horror, Mr. Forren.  We're counting on you to listen to your
        conscience and stand up to end this
        brutal and selfish nightmare.
                                 Sincerely, P.A.MarenecM Sweet Springs, WV
      1-9
      Plss.se know that  cur church has a partner parish  church  in Appalachia,
      and so
      we have a special interest in the people.  Please do  evei y thiuy you can
      to
      protset Appalachian, streams snd rivers front rftoutaintofp mining
      pollution.
      It is
      a disgrace  that raining companies can so easily remove a  whole
      mountainLop to
      get at the  coal and thc?n dump the debris into Appalachian wteis.
                                                                                                   1-9
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
           A-1060
                                                               Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Thomas Marshalek
                                                                                     Martin
               .— Forwarded by David Rider/RMJSEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM	
      
                       "tom@btoomingiutt.
                       com" 
      -------
           management at West Virginia University, where he taught fo:
           11 years. Maxey also'has worked 15 years as a forester for
           Westvaco Corp, and seven years for Georgia Pacific.
           Although the law requires mined land to be reclaimed for an
           equal or greater use than its pre-mining use, most becomes
           grassland, not a timber-rich forest, Maxey says. And procedti
           that could make the land good for trees are not being widely
           used, he says.
               Timber is  the only renewable natural resource and the
           industry  employs more than 30,000 people, Maxey says. By
           comparison, the coal industry employs about 18,000, includ:
           about 4,400 at surface mines, according to the WestVirginla
           Coal Association.
               Maxey also says that Underwood has never consulted hi
           on forestry issues during the governor's two-year tenure.
           "For 44 years I went to work with enthusiasm. I couldn't wait
           get to work. The last two years I had to force myself," says
           Maxey, 64.
               The  only contact he had with Underwood's office was af
           Secretary of State Ken Hechler, an opponent of mountaintop
           removal,  quoted Maxey as saying the  practice had "destroyec
           250,000 acres of forest.
               Two Underwood aides called him and ordered him to
           issue a rebuttal, Maxey says. Instead, he put out a statement
           saying 300,000 acres of forest had been "disturbed."
               "I had to, against my will, really,  say that it could be
           properly  reforested.... That isn't what I really wanted to say.
           That's what I was told to say," Maxey says.
               "Absolutely untrue," says Underwood spokesman Dan
           Page, one of the two aides Maxey says pressured him.
           Page says he called Maxey to see if Hechler had quoted him
           correctly.
               He and Jimmy Wedge, who says he called Maxey on an
           unrelated matter, say they suggested Maxey clarify his positi
           if he believed Hechler had misrepresented it.
               "I've never ordered anybody to do anything against his
               will and wouldn't," Page said.
                   Maxey would not have been fired for publicly opposing
               mountaintop removal, he said. Neither he nor Wedge knew
               why it took Underwood so long to reappoint Maxey.
                   If he could not live with the Underwood administration's
               opinion on mountaintop removal, "Why did he take the job?"
               Wedge asked.
                   Maxey also says he was pressured by the state DEP and the
               federal OSM to approve a phrase Maxey says would justify
               leveling mountains. The agencies wanted the phrase to be
               included in specifications written by the Division of Forestry
               for voluntary reclamation of mines into woodlands.        	
                   The phrase, which is in 1997 state surface mining
               regulations, says flat or gently rolling land on a site reclaimed
               to woodland is "essential for the operation of mechanical
               harvesting equipment."
                   Maxey says the idea that timber can be cut only on flat
               land is ridiculous because loggers have used automated
               equipment on West Virginia's hills for decades.
                   John Ailes, chief of the DBF's Office of Mining and
               Reclamation, says someone in his office may have asked Maxey
               to include the phrase only to emphasize the existing law.
                   "We want to try to get more reforestation. That's
               important," Ailes says. "I don't understand where he's coming
               from at all."
                   Dennis Boyles, regulatory programs specialist at the OSM's
               Charleston office, denied his agency pressured Maxey.
               Boyles says the phrase refers to an exception  to the 1977 law
               that requires mountaintop removal mines to be reclaimed to
               their "approximate original contour."
                   Coal operators do not have to do that if they prove the site
               can be logged only with equipment that cannot be used on
               hills.
                   Maxey says few mines are reclaimed to their "approximate
               original contour."
                   Also, most mines strip topsoil and do not replace  it, Maxey
      MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
      A-1062
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
           says. The soil that Is returned is covered with lime and
           hydroseeded with grasses, which makes the ground too
           alkaline for trees.
                "In other words, our valuable hardwood forest is lost for
           the next 150 to 200 years," Maxey says.
                Coal companies also compact the soil. "Then you are
           trying to plant a tree in concrete. It doesn't work," Maxey says.
           If coal companies returned the  topsoil, including several feet of
           weathered sandstone that was not compacted or leveled, the
           land would immediately be ready for seedlings, Maxey says.
           "If we can't get it stopped, this is the next best thing,  a last
           resort We need to stop mountaintop.removal," Maxey says.	
                 MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL HURTS STATE'S PAST AND ITS
                 FUTURE MAN ON THE MOONSCAPE
                 THE CHARLESTON GAZETTE 01/28/2000
                 By WILLIAM MAXEY
                      As director of West Virginia's Division of Forestry, it was
                 1996 before I fully realized the magnitude and permanent
                 elimination of West Virginia's forestland in the southern and
                 central coalfields by mountaintop femoval of coal. A helicopter
                 tour of these areas and the results of an updated forest
                 inventory disclosed not only the size and rate of deforestation,
                . but the loss of West Virginia's mountain culture.
                 	Since the federal_Surface Mining Act of 1977 was enacted,
                 all of West Virginia's governors and legislators of both parties
                 have been very supportive of the illegal variances in this law
                 that allowed mountaintop removal of coal. I served at the
                 pleasure of governors of both parties from 1993 to 1998.
                      I wish to make it clear that while I was head of the Forestry
                 Division I attempted to work within the system to encourage
                 the West Virginia Mining and Reclamation Association and the
                 West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to
                 prevent further devastation. The only concession was to make
                 my professional proposals an option, as opposed to
                 mandatory.
                      Mountaintop removal has already caused long-term
                 problems and until Judge Charles Haden's II ruling, the rate
                 was increasing. I resigned as a matter of principle, for I did not
                 want to share in the  blame nor guilt for the loss of West
                 Virginia's heritage through the loss of our
                 forested mountains.
                      In West Virginia, from 1977 to 1997, 300,000 acres were
                 made into a moonscape by the decapitation of our mountains.
                 Vast areas of our Mountain State are made uninhabitable for
                 our citizens.
                      The rate of decapitation of our mountains had increased
                 to 30,000 acres annually. It will take 150 to 200 years before
                 trees would become re-established following such a drastic
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1063
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
             mining practice.
                  All native plant and animals are practically eliminated
             (not to mention the impact on
             threatened & endangered species).
                  The headwaters of hundreds of miles of our streams are
             filled with millions of tons of
             mountain tops (overburden.)
                  This irresponsible excavation of coal makes the landscape
             so unsightly that it ruins tourism. (I can't envision tourists
             coming to  see these barren wastelands!) Isn't tourism supposed
             to be our growth industry?
                  The timber and wood products industry, employs some.
             30,000 in West Virginia. Prior to mountaintop removal, all of
             West Virginia's 11 million acres of forests were producing
             substantial volumes of high-value timber. Trees are our only
             renewable natural resource.
                  There are about 17,000 jobs in coal mining. The mining
             industry projects the coal reserves to be depleted within 20
             years.
                  Mountaintop removal of coal employs just a few hundred
             of these workers. It is a sad irony that mountaintop removal
             actually destroys more coal mining jobs than it creates; union
             miners are expediently replaced by relatively few  heavy-
             equipment operators.
                  Maxey resigned as director of the Division of Forestry in
             November 1998.
                                       Bill Maxey on Mountain Top Removal
                                          source; Ths Charleston Gazette
      
                          Bill Maxey served as director of the Division of Forestry from 1993 until 1998
                    whan he resigned In protest against mountain top removal. Maxey was a tsnurad
                    associate professor of forest management at West Virginia University, where he taught
                    for 11  years. Maxey also has worked 15 years as a forester tor Westvaco Corp., and
                    seven years for Georgia Pacific.
      
                    The following quotes were taten from two articles in The Charleston Gazette
      
                    "I think mountaintop removal Is analogous to serious disease, lite AIDS..." Bill Maxey,
                    Former Director of the WV Forestry Division fn the Charleston Gazette
                    "...most mines strip topsoii and do not replace it."
      
                    "It will take-ISO to 200 years Before trees would become re-established following such
                    a drastic" mining practice."
      
                    "It Is a sad Irony that mountaintop removal actually destroys more coal mining jobs
                    than It creates; union miners are expediently replaced by relatively faw heavy-
                    equipment operators."
      
                    "This irresponsible excavation of coal makes the landscape so unsightly that it ruins
                    tourism. (I can't envision tourists coming to see these barren wastelands!)"
      
                    "All native plant and animals are practically eliminated."
      
                    "in West Virginia, from 1977 to 1997,300,000 acres were made into a moonscape by
                    the decapitation of our mountains. Vast areas of our Mountain State are made
                    uninhabitable for our citizens."
      
                    'Timber is the only revewable  natural resource and the industry employs more than
                    30,000 people..."
                                                                                                  "I resigned as a matter of printoiple, for I did not want to share in the blame nor guilt for
                                                                                                  the toss of West Virginia's heritage through the loss of our forested mountains."
      
                                                                                                       In an interview with Bill Maxey (Not in The Charleston Gazette):
                                                                                                       The over 300,000 acres already destroyed by mountain top removal would
                                                                                                  have grown 60,000,000 board feet of timber every year forever. 60,000,000 board feet
                                                                                                  of timber could have been cut every year forever, without reducing the timber mass, on
                                                                                                  what has already been destroyed.
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1064
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Julia Martin
                                                                                           Julian Martin
            — Forwarded by David Ridet/R3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:32 PM - —
                        o.com"           To:    R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                        •^paintedtoes       cc:
                                      Subject: Please Stop Destructive Mountaintop
            Removal Mining
                        01/06/200403:18
                        PM
      
            Dear Mr. John Fatten, Project Manager,
      
            Please amend the EPA's draft ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT so as
            to limit the effects of harmful mountaintop removal mining.
      
            Hie J3ush administration should consider alternatives that reduce the environmental
            impacts of moimtaintop removal and theti implement measures
            to protect natural resoxirces and communities in. Appalachia, such as restrictions on
            the sifce of valley fills to reduce the destruction of streams, forests, \\rildlife and
            communities. 1 urge you to immediately amend the draft E1S accordingly.
      
            Sincerely,
      
            Julia Martin
      
            |ulia Martin
            220 West 107th St. 2H
            New York, NY 10025
            ptsintedtoes@yahoo.com
      1-5
                      Julian  Martin
                      Date:  1/09/2004
                      City:   Charleston
                          State: WV   ,Zip:-.25314
      The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the alternatives, offered in the BIS, to regulate
      fnd.imtaintop: removal mining "cannot be interpreted as ensuring any improved
      environmental protection." One alternative should be the banning of the filling of any
      streams with mine waste and-please don't th
      -------
      Namon Martin
                                                                                                    Rev. Mary McAnally
         U.S, Environmental Protection Agency (3ES30)
         1650 Arch. Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
         Dear Mr, Forren:
          I live in eastern Kentucky, In this region we experience the negative impacts of mining every day. Many
          of us have water wells that have nm dry or turned orange or black, due to mining. More than 1,200 miles
          of our headwater streams have been buried or destroyed by valley fills. Almost 7 percent of our forests
          have been — or will soos be — leveled by moustaintop removal. Hooding is our communities is
          increasingly common and severe. We fear the day when the sludge ponds above our homes break - as
          they did in Martin County, KY ia 2000 ~ burying us at the bottom of hundreds of millions of gallons of
          toxic sludge. Our quality of life has been shattered by excessive blasting that shakes our homes, cracks
          our foundations, and wrecks our peace.
      
          Some call this area a national sacrifice zone. living here, it feels more like a war zone.
      
          It doesn't have to be this way. There are laws on the books K> protect clean water, public safety and the
          envtroaraetit It is perfectly clear that mduntaintop removal and valley fills are a violation of the federal
          Clean Water Act and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act These practices should be
          banned. The coal industry must not be allowed to destroy our homeland.
      
          The draft Environmental Impact Statement on mounteintop removal and valley fills is a dangerous gift
          from the Bush administration to the coal industry. Instead of recommending ways to stop the
          destruction, the EIS proposes ways to make it easier for coal companies to level our mountains, bury our
          streams, and wreck our homeland. This is shameful and wrong.
      
          I know first hand the terrible impacts of tnountaintop removal and valtey fills. I also believe we can
          build a better future for eastern Kentucky. We can have clean streams and a healthy forest and restore
          our quality of life. We can create good jobs for our people that don't wreck t&e environment. Aad we
          have to start down a different road now.
      
          Take a stand. Enforce the law. Ban mountaintop removal and valley fills. Stop the coal industry from
          destroying everything that we value most Start making choices that win benefit our children and yours.
      
          Sincerely,
      
          Name
      10-4-2
      1-9
                                                                    RECTO
                                                                                   1 0 8 214
      
                                                                                          Januarys, 2004
      Mr.JbhnForren
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      1650 Arch Street
      •Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
      Dear Mr. Foirem
      I'm writing you out of my concern about the Bush administration's apparent lack of
      commitment to our natural environment. His priority seems to be to sacrffiee natural
      resources fcr the sake of corporations and practices geared toward profit motive instead
      of human, animal, and land weliare.
      
      Specifically, I'm upset about PLANS TO CONTINUE TO LET COAL COMPANIES
      DESTROY APPALACBIA WITH MINING PRACTICES THAT LEVEL OUR
      MOXJNTAINTOPS, WIPE OUT FORESTS, BURY STREAMS, AND DESTROY
      COMMUNITIES. This is an abuse of oar lands, waterways, habitats, and humanity!
      
      This admtaktratios's draft E&vfroaaental Intact Statement (BS) oa isoustaintop removal
      coal mining, sates that the environmental effects of moumaintop removal are widespread,
      devastating, and permanent Yet the EIS draft proposes no restrictions on the size of
      valley fills that bury streams, no limfts OB the number of acres of forest that can be
      destroyed, no protections for imperiled wBdHfe, and  no safeguards for the communities
      of people that depend on the regkm'» natural resources for themselves and their fiiture.
      
      The Bush adraMstratfat's "preferred alternative" ftraddressbg the problems caused by
      njountasjtop removal coal mraing is to 'weaken existing environmental protections. This
      ignores the administration's own studies detailing the devastation caused by mountainlop
      removal coal tnfeing. These include:
            --over 1200 nates of streams have been damaged or destroyed by it
            — fcrest tosses in West Virginia have the potential of direo% unpaeting as many
                  as 244 vejtbrate wildlife species
            — witteut new Softs on ntouataiatop removal, an additional 350 sq. at of moun-
                  tains, streams, and forests wil be flattened and destroyed by it
      
      In H$it of these firets, I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER ALTEKNA1TVBS THAT
      REDUCE THE ENVTROmfflffAL IMPACTS OF MOUNTASNTOP EEMOVAL.  I
      am hopeful that the Environmental Protection Agency witt place the welftre of the land,
      water, and habits, as weU as the luimans depending on them, before the welfare of
      corporations that wffi destroy them needlessly and cntefly.
                                                                                                                      1-10
                                                                                                                                        Tuba, OK 74110-5214
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                A-1066
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Section A  -  Citizens
      

      -------
      James McCarthy
                                                                                                                                                            Dora McCarty
       First Name:
      James  Last Name:
      City:   Fartningdale
      McCarthy          Letter-Date:  1/2/2004
      State:  NY    Zip:          11735-B12
       It is unconscionable that the Bush administration plans to continue, to let coal companies
       destroy Appalacbia with mining practices that level motmtaiatops, wipe out forests and.
       bury streams in the valleys below. Monntaintop-removal mining and valley .fills should
       not be allowed and the laws and regulations that ptoteet clean water Must not be
       weakened. In particular, I oppose the proposal to change the stream buffer zone rule that
       prohibits mining activity within 100 feet of streams. This rule should be strictly enforced
       for valley fills and in all other cases. Mountain top mining for coal is a destructive
       method for coal extraction. This was made evident in an episode of Nova seen on PBS
       stations. The waste front .the .mountain top was dumped into a nearby valley. This in turn
       dammed the creek that tan.throngh.the. valley. The damming of the creek changed the
       nearby town forcing residents to move. Eventually enough people moved, from, the town
       to cause business that were there for generations to close due to lack of business.
      
       Eventually this town will become a bust leaving and .additional scar to a once beautiful
       ecosystem and community.• The mining company even had the audacity to say that they
       leave the mined mountain top better than when the found it. If they feel a flat mountain
       top is better then they have a perverse sense of beauty. What makes this request the most
       saddening is that I have write to you Mr. Forrfen, an administer within the EPA, about
       protecting the environment, I think yon and all of .the EPA political appointees  have
       forgotten what the purpose of the EPA is. On -your webpage the mission of the EPA is:
       clearly stated; EPA's mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural
       environment ? air, water, and land ? upon which life depends. For 30 years, EPA has
       been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people. Please
       remember this mission when you are making  your recommendations about how we as a
       country can not allow mountain top mitring. That instead of making it easier, we should
       be, patting further restrictions. Finally, lalso want to remind yew that you and everyone
       from Mr. Mike Leavitt on down works to protect the environment and not to facilitate
       President Bush wishes on nullifyin'g the great work that has been :done over the last thirty
       years at protecting our environment.
      
       Respectfully, James Me Carthy
                                                                          1-9
                                                                                                                                                 10-4-2
                                                                                                                                                                     11-3-2
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                                                                               A-1067
                                                                                                                                    Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
                                                                                                                              ErikaMcCarty
      
                                                               10-5-2
                                                               17-1-2
      
                                                               3-3
                     LSjjQ
                     \r\
                                                                                                                      T^EO'D MOV25.
                                                                                                                          N.
                                                                                                 yeAi-v(XVyMSfen!- . g,r)j&:&rr\&\ \
                                                                                                            \
                                                                                                             *
                                                                                                 . 3)ei\HgAtv,r-fiVy
                                                                                                    kVsf •
                                                                                          rv
      
                                                      \r\ o
                                                                                                                 ^m^\\\\^L
                                                                                                                                     16-1-2
                                                                                                                                    5-2-2
                                                                     17-2-2
      MTM/VF Draft PE1S Public Comment Compendium
      A-1068
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Kerry McClure
                                  January 5,2004
      
                                  Mr. John Forren EPA
                                  U.S. EPA (3BA30)
                                  1650 Arch St.
                                  Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
                                  Dear Mr. John Forrea EPA,
      
                                  It is unconscionable that the Bush administration plans to conthMie to let coal companies
                                  destroy Appalachia with mining practices that level mountaintops, wipe out forests and
                                  bitry streams in (he valleys below. Mountaintop removal mining and valley fills should
                                  not be allowed and the laws and regulations that protect clean water must not be
                                  weakened. In particular, I oppose the proposal to change the stream buffer zone rule that
                                  prohibits mining activity within 100 feet of streams. This rale should be strictly enforced
                                  for valley fills and in all other cases.
      
                                  Tm disappointed and angry that the federal government ignored its own studies when it
                                  proposed weakening, rattier than strengthening, protections for people and the
                                  environment.  1 do not support my of the three alternatives contained within the
                                  Environmental Impact Statement Report. All three options will make it easier for
                                  companies to destroy streams, endangering wildlife and nearby communities.
      
                                  May 1 make a fourth, better option which will solve the problem of acquiring needed
                                  mineral resources, reduce hannful mining effects, and create tens of thousands of new
                                  jobs instantly? It boggles my mind that so few in charge of government understand the
                                  simplicity of national mandatory recycling programs to recover the huge amounts of
                                  resources that so often go to waste to some landfill. All manufacturers must be required
                                  to "take back" their own products for reconditioning or dismantling. Since they made
                                  them, they know best what is in them, and how best to break it down into recyclable raw
                                  materials. Product design should facilitate easier steps to accommodate it's eventual
                                  demise.
      
                                  The EPA or any number of agencies could share responsibilities for enforcing this "post-
                                  use decommission and dismantle" program.  Sure, consumers and manufacturers will
                                  have to share shipping cost increases associated with returning all expired products back
                                  to their maker, but this cost would be  ofiset by the creation of jobs. The end result is
                                  more economic expansion and less ecological destruction, and wouldn't that make the
                                  EPA look good?
      
                                  We would be following in the footsteps of other "greener" nations who believe
                                  sustainable living requires less consumption and more recycling. The minor cost increase
                                  will be worth every penny, because the alternative (more permanent environmental
                                  destruction and habitat loss) is unthinkable. I challenge you to take these sustainable
                                  ideas and press them forward to your  superiors. Dont do it just for me, or for your own
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   1-10
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   1-5
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1069
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
                              career enhancement; do it for all the generations yet to come.
                              1501W Washington St
                              Rm203
                              Phoenix, AZ 85007-3222
                             — Forwarded by David Ridet/R3/USEI?A/US on 01/09/2004 02:51 PM —-
      
                                         kmcdure@courts.sp.
                                         smte.az.us         To;    R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                                                        cc:
                                         01/05/200404:11 PM    Subject: Don't fill our streams with waste materials
      
                             Dear Mr. John Forreri EPA,
                             It is unconscionable that the Bush administration plans to continue to
                             let coal companies destroy Appalachia with mining practices that level
                             mo-untaintops^ wipe out forests and bury streams m the valleys below.
                             Mauntamtop removal mining and valley fills should not be allowed and
                             the laws and regulations that protect clean water must not be weakened.
                             In particular, I oppose the proposal to change the stream buffer 'zone
                             rule that prohibits mining activity within 100 feet of streams. This
                             pile should be strictly enforced for valley fills and in all other
                             cases. I'm disappointed and angry that the federal government ignored its own
                             studies when it proposed weakening, rather than strengthening,
                             protections  for people and the environment.  I do not support arty of the
                             three alternatives contained within  the Environmental Impact Statement
                             Report. All three options will make it easier for companies to destroy
                             streams, endangering wildlife and nearby communities.
      
                             Don't fill our streams with waste materials  It is unconscionable that
                             the Bush administration pkns to continue to let coal companies destroy
                             Appakchia with mining practices that level mountain tops, wipe out
                             forests and bury streams in the valleys below, Motmtamtop removal
                             mining and valley fills should not be allowed and the laws and
                             regulations that protect clean water must not be weakened, In
                             particular, I oppose the proposal to change the stream buffer zone rule
                             that prohibits  mining activity within 100 feet of streams. This rule
                             should be strictly enforced for valley fills and in all other cases. I'm
                             disappointed and angry that the federal government ignored its own
                             studies when it proposed weakening, rather than strengthening,
                             protections  for people and the environment  I do not support any ot the
                             three alternatives contained within  the Environmental Impact Statement
                             Report. All three options will make tt easier For companies to destroy
                             streams, endangering wildlife and nearby communities.
      
                             May I make a fourth, better option which will solve the problem  of
                             acquiring needed mineral resources, reduce harmful mining effects, and
                             create tens of thousands of new jobs instantly?  It boggles my mind that
                             so few in charge of government understand the simplicity of national
                             mandatory recycling programs to recover the huge amounts of resources
                             that so often go  to waste in some kndfill.  All manufacturers must be
                   1-9
                                                                                                                                                                                                        1-10
                                                                                                                                                                                                        1-5
                                                                                                                                                                                                        1-10
                                                                                                                                                                                                        1-5
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1070
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
                                                                                                                                                                                  Chelena McCoy
                   how best to break it down into recyclable raw materials. Product design
                   should facilitate easier steps to accommodate it's eventual demise.  The
                   EPA or any number of agencies could share responsibilities for enforcing
                   this "post-use decommission and dismantle" program. Sure, consumers and
                   manufacturers will have to share shipping cost increases associated with
                   returning aE expired products back to their maker, but this cost would
                   be offset by the creation of jobs. The end result is more economic
                   expansion and less ecological destruction, and wouldn't that rnstke the
                   EPA look good?  We would be following in the footsteps of other
                   "greener" nations who believe sustainable hvtng requires less
                   consumption and more recycling. The minor cost increase will be worth
                   every penny, because the alternative (more permanent environmental
                   destruction and habitat loss) is unthinkable. I challenge you to lake
                   these sustainable ideas and press them forward to your superiors.
                   Don't do it just for me, or for your own career enhancement; do it for
                   all the generations yet to come.
      
                   Sincerely,
      
                   Kerry McClure
                   1501 W Washington St
                   Rm203
                   Phoenix, AZ 85007-3222
                      	Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USB?A/US on 01/12/2004 02:49 PM —
                                 mcjwva@aoi.com
                                              To:
                                 01/06/200411:02
                                     R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                                     cc:
                                                 Subject: Comments on draft programmatic EI.S on mountain!
                  AM
      removal coal mining
      
      Mr. John Forren
      U.S. EPA (3EA3Q)
      1650 Arch Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
      Dear Mr. Forren,
                      It is completely ridiculous for anyone to tMnfc that hundreds of
                      acres of mountaintops can be devastated with earth moving
                      machines, and the surrounding inhabitants, INCLUDING HUMANS, of
                      that area wont also be devastated as well!!!
      
                      We have had it with the polution in our water, air, and the
                      disastrous flooding!!!
      
                      Do something that you know is right!!! Sleep in peace tonight!!!
                      Don't let money rule over human and environmental rights!!!
      
                      PROTECT WEST VIRGINIA'S NATURAL BEAUTY, ITS VALUABLE AND LIFE
                      SUSTAINING RESOURCES, AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF IT'S
                      RESIDENTS
                                                                                                                                                                                             1-9
                                                                                                                 Sincerely,
      
                                                                                                                 Chelena  McCoy
                                                                                                                 218 Ely Pork Rd
                                                                                                                 Sumerco, West Virginia 25567
                                                                                                                  Senator John Rockefeller
                                                                                                                  Representative Nick Rahall
                                                                                                                  Senator Robert Byrd
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1071
                                                                   Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Harold McCurdy
                                                                                                              Howard McFann
                                                                                                             	Forwarded by D*vid Ridet/RS/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM -—
                                           796 W Outer Drive
                                            Oak Ridge, TN
                                           December 16,2003
      REC'D DIG 2 2;
                 John Forren
                 U.S. EPA (3ES30)
                 1650 Arch Street
                 Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
                 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on MountEiatop Removal Mining, May 20Q3
      
                 I am opposed to the proposed role changes that make it easier to get permits for
                 mountmiatop removal and to eliminate protection for streams. I am also opposed to
                 the three alternatives in the DEIS; none of these wiE protect our water or our
                 communities.
      
                 The communities and mountains of AppalacMa are too precious to subject to the
                 devastation of mountaintop removal.
      
                 The nation needs stronger protection from impacts of mining instead of expedited
                 permitting. The coal removed wfll be burned once (with further damage to the
                 environment), but damage from the mining will persist.
      
                 I urge EPA to redo this impact statement giving more weight to the long term
                 interests of the country.
      
                 Sincerely,
                          1-5
                          1-9
                 Harold MoCurdy
                 cc:   Pres. George W. Bush
                       Rep. Zach Wamp
                       Sen. Bill Frist
                       Sen. Lamar Alexander
                   "lesmcf@jtnio.com"
                   
      -------
      JohnMcFerrin
                                                                                                   Scott McGarrity
         — Forwarded by David Rider/R3/USEPA/US on 01 /OS/2004 01:43 PM	
      
                     Joh n n ic feran@.ao!,
                     com             To:    R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                                    cc:
                     01/06/2004 03:43      Subject;  Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                     PM
      
         Dear Sir or Madam:
      
            Please consider these as my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on
         Mountain top Removal/Valley Fills.
      
            While the technical portions ot the draft contain some useftii information, the recommendations
         and pcoposed alternatives are an embarassmenL The agencies involved gathered all this data on the
         harm ml environmental effects of mountaintop removal mining. They responded to these effects by
         proposing alternatives for reshuffling permitting responsibilities among agencies.
      
            What is the point of that?  Why go through the entire NEPA process if all you am come out
         with is a reshuffling of agency responsibilities. There are no alternatives suggesting how we could
         do mountaintop removal ui a more environmentally sound manner. There is no alternative that we
         not do it at all.  The only alternatives proposed are that we keep doing it in the same way we always
         have, causing the same damage the Draft documents.  The pseudo-alternatives offered are that we
         choose among different agencies to preside over the environmental devastation.
      
            If the agencies involved are not embarassed by this then I cart only conclude that they have
         reached the point where they are beyond ernbarassment
      
            The only way the agencies can fix this Draft is to shred it Havmg done that, they can try again,
         including proposing specific actions that would minimize the environmental effects of mountxintop
         removal mining. The alternatives should include not doing it at all.  By "actions" I do not mean
         more suggestions for paper shuffling or ponderings on which agency should preside over the
         present course of
         environmental devastation. 1 mean real, on the ground,, action  that change the way we mine,
         including whether we mine by this method at all.
      
            1 am familiar with the comments filed by the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.  I  agree with
         those comments and wish to adopt them as my own.
      
                                 Sincerely,
      
                                 lohn McFerrin
                                 114 Beckley Avenue
                                 Beck!ey,WV 25801
      1-5
      January 3,2004
      
      Mr. John Forren EPA
      U.S.EPA(3EA3Q)
      1650 Arch St
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
      Dear Mr. John Fatten. EPA,
      
      It is unconscionable Ait the Bush administration plans to continue to let cod companies
      destroy Appaiachia with mi&i&g practices that level mouutaiHtops, wipe out forests and
      bury streams m the valleys below. Motiataifttop mmrval mining and valley iftls should
      not be allowed and the laws ssd regulations that protect clean water most &ot be
      weakened la particular, J oppose the proposal to change tfae s&eam buSer ssose rule that
      prohibits nrintog activity wittta 100 feet of streams. This rale should be strictly enforced
      for valley fills and in an oflw e
                                                                                                       JAH
      -------
      Carol McGeehan
                                                                                 M. McGeorge
                                                                                    1-10
                                                                                                   "M, McGeorge"
                                                                                                                            cc:    IMAGINEMEW@aol.com
                                                                                                                            Subject: Mountain Top Removal
                                                                                                               08/16/03 11:45 PM
                                                                                                   Mr. John Fort-en, USEPA
      
                                                                                                   It is grossly unfair to the citizens of West Virginia to pollute and defonn our beautiful
                                                                                                   state by scraping off the tops of mountains and dumping the rubble in our mountain
                                                                                                   streams. In the process, owners of adjacent lands have their property values
                                                                                                   destroyed as well.
      
                                                                                                   The interests of the state and the majority of its people are being trampled in order to
                                                                                                   enhance the profits of the coal industry.
      
                                                                                                   West Virginia's fotufe is in marketing our beautiful mountain places for tourism and
                                                                                                   these very places are being destroyed as we discuss it.
      
                                                                                                   I believe that the majority of WV voters will remember this blatant
                                                                                                   hi justice the next time we go to the polls.
                                                                                         11-3-2
                                                                                         11-7-2
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1074
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Margaret McGirmis
                                                                                       Judith McHugh
                                                                                                                          Forwarded by David RiderfRS&JSEPAMS on 01D8/2004 03:55 PM —
      
                                                                                                                                    jfimwvB@aol. com
                                                                                                                                                 To:   R3 Mountairtop@EPA
                                                                                                                                    01/02/2004 06:51    co:
                                                                                                                                    PM           Subject; Comments on Draft programmatic Environmental Impact
                                                                                                                          Statement on mountalntop
                                                                                                                                                 removal coal mining
                                                                                  I-IO
                                                                                                                          Enviromental Protection Agency Environmental Impact Statement
                              Dear Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Impact Statement,
      
                              Everyone knows how destructive mountaintop removal mining is to
                              forests, streams and wildlife. I find it hard to believe that my
                              President is not trying to find some way to reduce its impact,
                              but instead is encouraging it to take place faster.
      
                              Please try to find some way to protect our natural resources and
                              communities In West Virginia instead of encouraging their
                              destruction.
      
                              Thank you sincerely,
      
                              Judith McHugh
                                                                                                                                                                                       I-9
                                                                                                                          Sincerely,
      
                                                                                                                          Judith McHugh
                                                                                                                          2008 Nortrvwood Road
                                                                                                                          Charleston, West Virginia 25314
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1075
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Meagan McKay
                                                                                 Catherine McKenzie
        	Forwarded by David Ridet/R3/USEPA/US on 01/30/2004 11:21 AM	
      
                   Meagan McKay
                               cc:
                                Subject:  Mountain Top Mining Draft EIS Comments
                   01/14/2004 08:26
                   AM
      
        Meagan McKay
        8B Hickok Place
        Burlington, VERMONT 05401
        January 14,2004
      
        ]ohn Forten
        US EPA (3EA30)
        1650 Arch Street
        Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
        Dear Forren:
      
        I oppose the Bush administration plans to continue to let coal companies destroy Appalachia
        with mining practices that level mountaintops, wipe out forests and bury streams in the
        valleys below. While I have no loyalties to any one particular party, I am a registered voter
        who takes environmental issues very seriously, as do many of my peers. Please take the time
        to objectively consider this issue, and ask yourselves if the benefits from environmental
        destruction can honestly outweigh a global cost that is immeasuteable.
      
        Sincerely,
      1-9
                           — Forwarded by David Ridet/R3/USEPA/'US on 01/08/200401:59 PM	
      
                                       "camckeozie@y~ahoo
                                       .com" 
      -------
      Bonnie McKeown
                                                                                    Cathe McLaughlin
                                 Bo n n i Me Keown
                                             Subject:  Mountaintop Mining
      
                                              08/20/03 08:25 PM
            Cur beautiful state has been devastated by raountaintop  removal Joining.
            Whatever the technicalities, cutting off mountains and  fllllna streams
            and
            valleys v«lth waste is environmentally harmful and a crime against
            nature.
            '1 he n*~w envi remittent, a 1  impact, .^at^m-enf. needs to ref 1 e?ct, the monimienta 1
            cumulative effects of this  type ot mining,
      
            E-onni KcKeown, i?,O, Box M,  Capon Springs WV 26823
      9-2-2
      
      Please stop mountaintop mining in West Virginia or anywhere else for
      that matter. It is iasaae to destroy perfectly natural environments For
      the sake of justifying jobs. The impact of these action are very
      destructive.  Including flooding potentials, contaminating waters,
      destroying streams, animal habitats, as well as human beings.
      
      Please stop!!'!
      
      Cathe McLaughlin
      100 Saddlerock Road
      Lynchburg, VA 24503
                                                                                                 1-9
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
              A-1077
                                                        Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Corinna McMackin
                   	Forwarded by David Rider/RMJSEPA/US on 01/12/2004 02:49 PM	
      
                               Corinna Therese
                               McMackin           To:    R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                                        Subject: Draft MTR/VF EIS comment
      
                               01/06/200411:41 AM
      
                   Corinna McMackin
                   lOSOLoraneHWY
                   Rugene, OR 97405
                   Mr. John Forren                        January 6,
                   2004
                   U.S. EPA (3EA30)
                   1650 Arch Street
                   Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
                   Dear Mr. Forren,
      
                   1 am writing today to share my comments on the draft Environmental
                   Impact Statement on mountaintop removal mining/valley fills released
                   May 29, 2003. The DEIS claims to work toward "[effecting] better
                   environmental protection for mountaintop mining and valley fill
                   operations." The draft's studies articulate the widespread,
                   irreversible ecological damage caused by MTR/VF practices.
                   Nevertheless, the alternatives proposed in the draft suggest a
                   weakening of current laws and regulations in favor of developing a
                   more efficient mining process.  This stated purpose of and the
                   recommendations made within the DEIS are in conflict with one another.
                                          Appalachia, a No MTR/VF Mining alternative should be a consideration
                                          in the DEIS.
      
                                          The MTR/V'F BIS is the product of community opposition to conditions
                                          created by MTR/VF operations. These same eomrminity groups call not
                                          for a stop to coal-mining in general, but rather for an end to the
                                          destructive nature of MTR/VF operations. I believe that if the EIS is
                                          going to fulfill either it$ commitment to the original plaintiffs in
                                          the Bragg V. Robertson case or its obligation to a full-range of
                                          alternative as provided by NEPA, then the EIS is required to analyze a
                                          No MTR/VF Mining alternative.
      
                                          The agency-sanctioned terms overburden and inlerburden reflect an
                                          official climate that has favored a vision of Appalachia as coal.
                                          These terms reduce the mixed mesophytic forest to a burden above or
                                          between seams of coal. This narrow vision of the use and value of
                                          Appalachia's coalfields is reproduced in the DEIS.  It is reflected
                                          in the federal and state agencies failure to consider alternatives to
                                          MTR/VF coal-mining. It is due to the agencies' inability to we or
                                          evaluate alternatives to MTR/VF coal-mining, as required by law under
                                          NEPA and requested by citizen-action groups, that I feel the current
                                          DEIS should be deemed insufficient.  I believe the study should be
                                          continued with additional attention paid to community-identified
                                          impacts as well as community-based alternatives to MTR/VF mining.
      
                                          Sincerely,
      
                                          Corinna McMackin
                l-j
                4-2
                   I oppose the alternatives outlined in the DEIS. I disagree with the  |  1 "5
                   suggestion to dismiss the application of the 100-ft stream buffer zone
                   identified in SMCRA to valley fill construction, and I challenge the
                   legitimacy of a DEIS that fails to examine a full-range of
                   alternatives as required by NEPA.  The May 2003 DEIS does not analyze
                   real alternatives to MTR/VF mining.  The 2003 DEIS dismisses
                   alternatives proposed in the preliminary draft (January 2001), which
                   analyzed placing real limits on the size of mountaintop removal valley
                   fills. Furthermore, the draft fails to include a No MTR/VF Mining
                   alternative. Considering the permanent ecological damage of MTR/VF,
                   the falling coal-related employment rates, and the disproportionately
                   high rates of poverty in top-coal producing counties across
      1-10
      4-2
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                    A-1078
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Elizabeth McMahon
                                                                          James & CarlaMcMillin
                                                    is        /
                                                               JAH2,
                                  fa
           ~tS
                             o&TL&ff
      -ZtLtg'-ot^SL (2^1 eU^^Lf_
            &<9~r*tf>
               ,/
      &0~r*tf>Msrt£j!i** ^,"^
                                                       H^s**?
                                                                                       1-10
                              - Forwarded by David Ridet/R3/USEPAAJS on 01/08/2004 11:39 AM	
      
                                      James McMiilin
                                               co:
                                                  Subject,: Mouutaintop removal
                                      12/30/2003 03:07
                                      PM
                            Mr. John Forren
                            Project Manager
                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (3EA30)
                            1650 Arch Street
                            Philadelphia, PA 19103
                            Email: mountaintop.r3@epa.gov
      
                            I, along with most other Kentuckians want you to stop destructive
                            mouiitaintop removal mining.
      
                            Mountaintop removal coal mining is a form of strip mining in which
                            coal
                            companies search for coal throughout Appalachia by literally blasting
                            hundreds
                            offset off the tops of mountains, pushing millions of tons of mining
                            waste
                            rubble into surrounding valleys and burying hundreds of miles of
                            streams. The
                            Bush administration has released a draft environmental impact
                            statement
                            assessing the effects of mountaintop removal mining that confirms that
                            the
                            resulting environmental and social harms are severe and mostly
                            irreversible.
      
                            More thaa 1200 miles of streams already have been buried, damaged or
                            destroyed;
                            hundreds of square miles of forested mountains flattened;  and
                            generations-old
                                                                                                                                                                                   1-9
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
      A-1079
                                                                                                                                         Section A - C/feens
      

      -------
                                                                                                                                                                                               Janet McReynolds
                      communities of coalfield residents have been forced from their homes
                      by this
                      extremely destructive mining practice. To avoid additional and
                      significant
                      devastation of the Appalachian region's natural resources — and of
                      the
                      communities that depend on those resources — mountaintop removal must
                      be much
                      more strictly limited. Indeed, without new limits on mountaintop
                      removal, an
                      additional 350 square miles of mountains, streams, and forests will
                      soon be
                      flattened and destroyed.
      
                      Although the administration's environmental impact statement is
                      supposed to
                      suggest, ways to limit the environmental harm caused by mountaintop
                      removal, the
                      Bush administration is proposing just the opposite: it wants to allow
                      mountaintop removal to continue and even make it 'easier* for coal
                      mining
                      companies to obtain permits for this form of mining.
                      This kind of typical double speak from this administration and
                      trashing of decades of beneficial environmental work has got to stop
                      from the inside out or we will be forced to change it from the outside
                      with our votes in the next election.
                      Sincerely,
                      James and Carla McMillin
                                                                                                                                                                                        ,'REC'D AU8 2 g
      1-10
      John Forren                                              August 18,2003
      US.EPA(3ES30)
      1650 Arch Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      
      Dear Mi. Forren:
      
      I find it completely astonishing that anyone could read the recent Environmental Impact Study
      regarding mountaintop removal and yet still believe that the solution is to further weaken the
      current lukewarm regulations that apply to all aspects of coal mining in the Appalachian region.
      
      The report clearly documents the extensive damage done to our land, forests, water and
      ecosystems by mountaintop removal and valley fills. Not only that, but the report provides strong
      evidence for banning mountaintop removal altogether. Yet the recommendations in the report
      itself totally ignore the findings of the study and instead propose actions ttet would mean more
      mounfaintop removal with even fewer protections for people and the environment.
      
      As I understand it, the original purpose of the report were to look for ways to IMPROVE agency
      programs under the Clean Water Act, Sur&ce Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)
      and Endangered Species Act (ESA) that will contribute to REDUCING the adverse
      environmental impacts of mountaintop removal operations and excess spoil valley fills in
      Appalaehia. Then, when the report was finished in 2000, the Bush Administration refused to
      release it because it didn't like the results!!! This is a travesty of uie democratic system. When an
      administration denies public access to information it is very clear that the administration is not
      interested in the public welfare but is in collusion with the big corporations mat own ttie coal
      companies and other entities in charge of the devastation of the environment
      
      This lack of concern for the people and the environment is made even clearer when one reads the
      "Alternatives" #1,1 or 3 contained within the EIS report, which are no alternatives at all, but
      simply more ideas to make it easier for the coal companies. None of these recommendations will
      protect our steam and forest ecosystems. They will not protect our cotmnunitjes. In fact, the
      recommendations have no relation to the problems caused by mountaintop removal mining and
      valley fills as documented in the studies.
      
      Instead, in its continuing quest to go down in history as the presidential administration with  the
      worst environmental record, the Bush administration has used the EIS process to propose rule
      changes to make it even easier for coal companies to get permits for mountaintop removal and to
      eliminate protections for streams. Doing away with the "buffer zone" rule that protects streams
      ftom the eflecte of coal mining is merely an early Christmas present to the coal companies that
      makes it even easier for them to get permits for mountaintop removal and valley fills, the most
      blatantly destructive mining method ever used. It ignores the science and evidence about what
      mountaintop removal mining is doing and ipores the public's demand for clean water, healthy
      environment and safe communities.
      
      The report itself is misleading for several retsooj.
      •  It calls for "harmonizing" federal regulations, which simply means reducing all regulations to
         the lowest common denominator and therefore the least effective and meaningful roles; and
         requires "science-based methods," which is a particularly devious way to ensure that
                                                                                                                        1-10
                                                                                                                                                                                                              1-5
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
                   A-1080
                                                                           Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
                                                                                                                                                                                           Shawn Meagher
            coalfield residents cannot strengthen regulations to prevent more damage by the coal industty
            without "conclusive" scientific proof.
      
         •  The report rejects withort any meaningful consideration alt proposals that would have
            restricted the use of valley fiils or enforced existing laws. There is plenty of scientific
            evidence - and a strong legal case - that documents the widespread and irreversible damage
            the coal industry is doing to our region. Leveling mountains and burying streams is wrong
            and must stop.
      
         «  The report recommends weakening existing laws and regulations that protect clean water,
            including doing away with the 25-year-old "stream buffer zone" rule because it calls into
            question the use of valley fills and creates "confusion," and re-defining some streams out of
            existence,
      
         If mountaintop removal is allowed to continue, there will be no streams - and hence no water
         sources - left in the Appalachian region. As it is, we have lost 724 miles of streams, and another
         1,200 miles have been adversely affected, due to both mountaintop removal and the concerted
         effort at lack of enforcement by all the agencies involved. Even without further relaxing the
         regulations, the Appalachians will lose 2,200 square miles of forest by 2012, as a direct result of
         coal-mining operations. In addition, 600 square miles of land and another 1,000 miles of streams
         will be destroyed This will make the land uninhabitable, rendering thousands more people
         homeless. Hundreds of people have already lost homes, water, and property due to
         uncompensated damage by coal companies.
      
         It is imperative that the government pay very close attention to its own report Not only can we
         not relax the current regulations, we also need additional restrictions and enforcement
         requirements. Mountaintop removal cannot be allowed to continue as a coal extraction method.
         Even beyond the environmental devastation, it is economically the least beneficial method to the
         communities in which it occurs.
      
         I moved from middle Tennessee to eastern Kentucky ten years ago and was impressed by the
         beauty of the mountains of Appalachia. Those mountains are disappearing, being plowed over
         into the green valleys to leave a brown treeless moonscape (reclamation laws are rarely, if ever,
         enforced). This is the legacy of mountaintop removal. The people causing this rampant ruin-
         including President Bush - do not live here, do not have to see it, and are at no risk of having
         their homes, property, and their very lives destroyed by it We must stop mouutaintop removal
         before there are no mountains left to remove.
      
                                                                   Thank you for your time,
      
                                                                        0
         cc: President George W. Bush
                                                                Janet Comperry McReynolds
                                                                             Krypton, KY
      1-7
      1-9
                                 Mount® in topi EPA
                                 Kou n t,a i n t op Mini ng
                                  December  05,  2003
      
                                  John E'orren,  Environmental Protection Agency
                                  U.S.  EPA  (3EA30)
                                  1650 Arch  Street
                                  Philadelphia,  PA 19103
      Dear  Hi. Forren,
      
      Will  you please  stop the  uiove to weaken regulations on  mountaintop
      mining in
      the Appalachian  Mountains?   I am a biologist who has recently
      vacationed
      in West
      Virginia.  I was struck by  the beauty of this  region.   Mcimtaincop
      mining destroys
      biodiversity and harms the  health of our people.
      1-10
      
      
      1-9
      
      
      
       1-5
                                 As a US citisen/ I ask you to please implement stronger NOT  weaker
                                 regulations
                                 for this practice, and I wholeheartedly  support  the recommeudaclons
                                 from
                                 the organization/
                                 American Rivers  (attached below).
      
                                 Thanks for  your tints«
      
                                 Shawn Meacfhei*
      
                                 AMERICAN RIVERS SAYS:
                                 I  am opposed to any  change® that  would weaken th
      -------
                                                                                                                                                                          Colby Mecham
                                                                    1-5
          xoux draft EIS contains  indisputable evidence of the devastating  and
          irreversible
          environraental harm caused by mountaintop mining.  Other agency studies
          also show
          that isoimtaintop mining  contributes to flooding disasters in mountain
          c oitasurn iti.es.
          Unfortunately, each of the alternatives in the draft E-IS ignores  the
          findings
          of the.?e studies and the very  purpose of the EIS- to find ways no
          m.utisfij.ze, Lo
          Ihtt maximum extent piacuical,  lhs$  environmental consequences of
          mountaintop mining.
          The draft EIS does not eKaiKine a single alternative that, would reduce
          those impacts.
          Worse, your "preferred alternative" would clearly increase the damage
          f r ore no u. n tain top
          raining by eliminating thr>  Surface Mining Control Rrid Reclamation  Act's
          buf ter
          zone rule that prohibits mining activities that disturb any area  within
          100 feet
          of larger streams,  eliminating the current limit on using nationwide
          permits to
          approve valley fills in West Virginia that are larger than 250 acre^f
          and giving
          the Office of Surface Mining a significant new role in Clean Water Act
          permitting
          for mountaintop mining (a  role it does not have under current law).
      
          Ou.c enviroamsntai laws require, and the citizens of the reqion deserve,
          a full
          evaluation of ways  to reduce the unacceptable- impacts of mountain tot)
          mining.
          I urge you to abandon yout "preferred alternative" and to rDevaluate a
          full range;
          of options that wil 1 rainincise th^ enormous eiivicotimental and economic
          damage caused
          by n,oi;ntaintop mining and  valley fills.
      
          Than k you for your  co n s i der a t i oil *
      4-2
                                                                                                                                  ft
                                (Lt-nMAT^,
                                                                                                                                                                                      1-13
                                                                                                        1-10
                                                                                                        1-13
                                                                                                                ^uuyiM
                                                                                                                0
      MTM/VF Draft PEIS Public Comment Compendium
               A-1082
      Section A - Citizens
      

      -------
      Elaine Melnick
                                                                          Barbara Mendelsohn
                                            REC'D JAN ? 8
                                                                                    1-9
                         	Forwarded by David Rider/E3/USEPA/US on 01/07/2004 03:42 PM -—
      
                                    "Baitoara@Storylin
                                    eArts.com"       To:    R3 Mountaintop@EPA
                                    
      -------
      

      -------