Friday, April 19, 2013

Scientists Discover That Mountaintop Removal Is Harmful to Appalachia


A new research paper takes a large and encompassing view of mountaintop removal and its effects on the land, ecosystems, and the rest of the world.
The authors of the paper, scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, Rider University, and West Virginia University, say that some past and current efforts, by focusing on water quality, both from a regulatory and legal framework, have lead to less research on mountaintop removal’s effects on forests and ecosystems. Titled The Overlooked Terrestrial Impacts of Mountaintop Mining, the paper has just been published in the journal BioScience.
Anyone who has spent much time in Appalachian knows that the mountains have always played a part in affecting the weather. Pocahontas County in West Virginia will get a lot more rain than areas east in Virginia, where the mountains aren’t as high. This new paper says that moving the mountains is affecting these weather patterns. “Topographic changes and land-cover changes associated with mountaintop mining have the potential to produce changes in climate at local to regional scales,” the paper says. “Modeling is needed to determine if the now extensive development of mountaintop mining is leading to such changes.” On a much larger scale, mature forests, which sequester carbon dioxide, are destroyed when mountains are flattened for coal. The reclaimed lands do not have the same capacity for sequestration. With more than 500 mountains succumbing to mountaintop removal, this disruption to the natural CO2 sequestration process of the Appalachian forests has implications for global warming.
            The authors also say that mountaintop removal causes damaging biographic fragmentation, affecting populations of raptors and songbirds. Back in 2006 scientists found that mountaintop mining was adversely affecting the cerulean warbler,[i] a wonderful songbird native to the Mid-Atlantic states that is “sharply declining in the heart of its range,” according to National Geographic’s Field Guide to the Birds of North America. A more recent scientific paper noted that mountaintop removal jeopardizes the survivability of Appalachian species as they shift their bioregions due to global warming.[ii] And another recent study found that the changes to habitat structure, water quality, stream chemistry, and the populations of macroinvertebrates in streams below the valleys filled with the overburden from mountaintop mines affected the abundance of salamanders in those streams.[iii]
            More and more the science shows that we are endangering and loosing great treasures, all so we can get cheap coal. Could we at least slow down long enough to ask if it is all worth it?




[i] Wood, Petra Bohall, Scott B. Bosworth, and Randy Dettmers. "Cerulean Warbler Abundance And Occurrence Relative To Large-Scale Edge And Habitat Characteristics." Condor 108.1 (2006): 154-165. Environment Complete. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.
[ii] Beggs, Paul. "Horizontal Cliffs: Mountaintop Mining And Climate Change." Biodiversity & Conservation 21.14 (2012): 3731-3734. Environment Complete. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.
[iii] Wood, Petra Bohall and Williams, Jennifer M. “Impact of Valley Fills on Streamside Salamanders in Southern West Virginia” Journal of Herpetology 47.1 March 2013 119-125

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Poll Finds Young Clergy Bucking Trend, Don't Believe in Global Warming as Their Peers Do


The results of a poll conducted by LifeWay Christian Resources, a Southern Baptist organization that specializes in Bibles, church literature, books, and music, finds that most pastors don’t believe in global warming.
            “I believe global warming is real and man-made,” was affirmed by 43 percent of pastors, a figure up from 36 percent in 2010 but lower than the 47 percent of respondents in 2008. The majority of pastors, 54 percent, disagreed with the statement. The number of those disagreeing with the statement was higher than in 2008 (48 percent). That figure was 60 percent in 2010.
            The demographics of the poll are unsurprising. GOP pastors denied global warming at a far greater rate than those identifying as Democrats (49 percent to five percent). Northeast pastors believe in global warming at a greater rate than their southern counterparts. Pastors in larger cities acknowledge global warming at a greater rate than pastors form small towns. Lutheran, Methodist, and other mainline Protestant ministers believe in global warming at a greater rate than Evangelical preachers.
            The survey results I found to be a bit surprising is that older pastors believe in global warming at a greater rate than younger pastors. The survey found that 32 percent of pastors 65 years and older believed in man-made global warming, while 20 percent of pastors 45-54 and 19 percent of the pastors between the ages of 18 and 44 believe in global warming.
            What is going on here? A Gallup poll on global warming from a year ago found that younger people are more worried about global warming than older folks. A PewResearch poll in 2009 found similar results. It seems that young pastors are bucking a generational trend.
            We can take part in a lot of armchair speculation here. The young persons going into the clergy, do they have a more conservative mindset than their peers? Is the training now being offered in seminaries and bible colleges shaping the worldview of their students as they train them in the spiritual guidance of their congregations? We can’t tell from the statistics of the poll, but this is a curious finding.


Monday, April 15, 2013

Update on Eradicating Algerian Sea Lavender at the San Diego River Estuary


Yesterday was one month since we had started our trials of differing eradication methods for the Algerian sea lavender that is plaguing the estuary at the mouth of the San Diego River.

An Algerian sea lavender infested plot one month ago before treatment


The solarization has yet to show any effects upon the Limonium ramosissimum underneath the black plastic cover. This is unsurprising, given that most solarization projects leave the solarization material in place for at least two months.

Limonium treated with solarization one month after being covered with plastic

One month later there is an apparent difference between the area in which the sea lavender was scraped away and the area where we pulled the weed out by hand. The regrowth of the sea lavender is slightly greater in the area that was scraped. Neither the hand pulled plot nor the scraped plot, however, have a great deal of regrowth, with less than five percent of the plot area taken up by the sea lavender. The regrowth of the native flora is about twice as great in the area that was hand pulled. So far it looks like hand pulling is more successful in getting rid of the sea lavender and promoting growth by natives. Stay tuned for more updates on the Algerian sea lavender.


A plot that was scraped of limonium one month after treatment

A plot in which the limonium was hand pulled one month after treatment



Friday, April 12, 2013

A Visit to Our Border Wall


I’m with my friend Jill. We’ve just spent the last 45 minutes driving on route 94, a winding two lane that climbs the mountains east of San Diego, and are now a few miles east of the small town of Campo. Besides a convenience store with a sign that says that it does NOT have a public restroom, there is not much to Campo. The big attraction here is a railway museum with an old depot and acres of old rail cars and engines. On weekends you can ride for several miles on some of their bygone trains. Next to the train museum is a Border Patrol station. The station has a big parking lot filled with white vans and trucks, all with the green stripe and lettering that says BORDER PATROL.
  Turning off the highway, we head south on a road called the Shockey Truck Trail. If Edward Hopper had painted southwest landscapes, they would have looked like this. Long driveways lead to modest two and three bedroom homes adrift on huge lots, their midwestern architecture contrasting with the austere landscape. About a mile in, the pavement gives way to a dirt road and the houses disappear. The reason we’ve chosen this route is that, according to the map that Jill has, Shocky Truck Trail heads south and comes within a hair of the US-Mexico border. We’ve come to see the border wall. Until the nineties there was no structure of any sort through this expanse of landscape and no way of telling if you may have wandered from the US to Mexico or vice versa.
          Coming up over a crest, a vista opens. The fitful breeze retains a midmorning chill and the smell of sage gives a sense that the landscape has just been scrubbed clean. We’re at about 3000 feet above sea level in the Peninsular Range, a swath of granite mountains that runs north northwest along the California coast. The range contains Mount Palomar, where the famous telescope is, as well as a few peaks that exceed 10,000 feet. In this region of the range the rough terrain comes to an end and stretches out in a relatively flat expanse with a few rolling hills, the sort of vista that might be featured in the opening scenes of many a 1950s western movie. Looming over us and trailing off to the east are high power lines, and we can hear a low constant electrical hum from the wires. We spy the border wall about a few hundred yards across the chaparral. A fence with private property and NO TRESPASSING signs keeps us from approaching the structure. Pulling out the binoculars, we get a glimpse of a white cross. Jill tells me that it’s a memorial to a Border Patrol agent who was killed out here a couple years ago.
          Within a few minutes of our arrival, a Border Patrol agent drives up in an enormous truck. Jill and I have walked the border down by Tijuana before, and from that experience we both know that if you’re anywhere near the border wall, Border Patrol agents will come up and talk to you. It’s their job to check out the few individuals they see out here. Also, their days must be plagued by long stretches of boredom. They probably just want to talk when they see someone. It breaks up their day. Like every other agent, this guy is one of the most pleasant persons you might ever meet. He lets us know that if we double back and take another dirt road off to our left we can get right up to the border and also get to the memorial.
          I’ve been expecting this feeling as we get close to the wall, but I’m still surprised by the degree of disquietude that comes over me. The Border Patrol, and for that matter, the rest of the government, calls this a fence, but it most certainly is a wall. It’s a deep rust brown and stands at about ten feet. The wall is made of army surplus plates of steel - 12 feet long, 20 inches wide, and 1/4 inch thick - that had been used to make landing strips in Vietnam during the war. Each mile of the wall uses over 3,000 of these panels. Every six feet, steel pipes that are buried eight feet into the ground hold the fence up. As though the wall has been visited by an obsessive compulsive tagger, all of the eight foot sections are numbered with spray paint, giving it an odd sort of slapdash inner city quality. About 62 miles of the border have this type of wall. The wall stretches off to the horizon. Its plumb line straightness is dizzying.

The border wall

Adjacent to the wall is a dirt road. Visually its’ impossible to separate the wall from the road. Following the two off in the distance, the image of the road dominates. For a dirt road it is wide and amazingly smooth. I assume that the Border Patrol wants the road smooth so they can hurry from point to point along its extent if they need to. Off to the side the eroded gullies lead into the landscape. Construction of this wall started in the early nineties as part of of Operation Gatekeeper, a Clinton era initiative that was spearheaded by Janet Reno. Depending on the source, Operation Gatekeeper was Clinton’s response to diffuse pressure from the right, while other sources say that it was Janet Reno, appalled by the conditions she found at the border, who initiated the program.
          This scene goes on all along the border with Mexico. Nearly 650 miles of additional fencing is up, and the numbers of Border Patrol agents exceed 17,600. At last count, four unmanned drones patrol from California to the Gulf of Mexico. there are probably more now. We tend to think of this as a Border Patrol operation, but besides the Border Patrol agents, 1200 National Guard soldiers are also stationed along the border. More than 450 camera systems monitor the area between the U.S. and Mexico.
  The landscape through which the wall passes here is chaparral. Most folks, even those who live in the chaparral, are confused as to what chaparral is. If you ever watched the 1960s television show High Chaparral, the landscape you saw was not chaparral. The series was shot outside Tucson in the Sonoran Desert, not a chaparral environment. If, on the other hand, you watched any of the Dukes of Hazzard, the 1970s TV show that took place in Kentucky, you’ve seen plenty of chaparral, as the action scenes were shot in the chaparral covered canyons around Los Angeles.
  Chaparral is not a plant, but a plant community, a designation like northeastern hardwood forrest or northwestern rainforest. Covering foothills and mountain slopes from the northern section of the Baja Peninsula all the way to the Rouge River Valley in Southern Oregon, chaparral is the most extensive plant community in California and its most characteristic wilderness.
          Through this area the most common plant you see is chamise, an evergreen that grows about six to seven feet high. Large fragrant sugarbush and ceanothus, now in bloom with blue flowers, dot the landscape. Nearly 900 species of plants occur in chaparral, among the plant communities with the highest in native plant diversity and has a greater number of rare and endangered species.
  It can also be fragile. Chaparral does not have great resiliency to bounce back from human interference. Nonnative species have a pretty easy time pushing out the native chaparral plants, too. The border wall and Mexican immigration through this section have implications for the chaparral. In one study of the five-year period after the start of Operation Gatekeeper in late 1994 “there were 772 meters of new trail created per 1,000 unauthorized immigrants, accompanied by 656 square meters of area disturbed per 1,000 immigrants, fifty kilograms of litter left behind per 1,000 immigrants, eleven illegal campfires per 1,000 immigrants, and 1.7 hectares burned by wildfires attributed to illegal immigrants.”
  We walk east a bit to find the memorial. Just like when we were kids playing on the farms, we limbo through the old barbed wire fence that parallels the wall about thirty yards north. For decades the demarkation between the two countries might only be an out or repair fence like this, or no barrier whatsoever. In the border area known as the “Soccer Field,” where there was no wall or fence, migrants would gather during the day by the hundreds. After dusk they would dash north in the darkness and hope for a more prosperous life. Like damming a river with a paper cup, the few Border Patrol agents assigned to this area at the time could do little to keep the migrants from passing into the United States.
  I’m surprised by the size of the cross, about 12 feet high, it occupies the center of a clearing the size of my front lawn. Flowers and photographs encircle the structure. Judging from the pictures, this was a young man who was killed, a guy in his twenties. A teenager from Mexico was convicted and sentenced to 40 years for his part in the crime. The remoteness just seems to make the memorial all the sadder.
  Under this cross, with only Jill and me here, it’s hard to believe that this huge wall is needed to control immigration. We certainly cannot go back to the days of the Soccer Field, and I do believe in some form of border security. But the costs—the billions of dollars, the scarring of the environment, and the lives lost—are too high.

Jill taking a photo of the memorial to the slain border patrol agent


Tuesday, April 9, 2013

SB 243: Keeping Fracking Under Wraps in West Virginia


It looks like West Virginia is following in the footsteps of other states like Pennsylvania with a new law that would place gag orders on doctors, nurses, and any other health professional who might be treating a person who has been sickened by the chemicals used in fracking. As with the Pennsylvania law, West Virginia’s Senate Bill 243 requires that a fracking operation disclose the constituents of their fracking mixture to a health care professional when such an individual requests that information. But the heath care professional cannot further disclose that information, event to the person who has been made ill by the fracking chemicals.
            SB 243 has passed the West Virginia Senate and is now before the West Virginia House Judiciary Committee. Like “Ag Gag” laws, this is just more help from governors and state houses to make dubious industry operations and practices opaque to the American public.


Monday, April 8, 2013

New Research Shows Irreversible Ecological Damage From Mountaintop Removal


“In many ways, this has been a disappointing effort.” With those words President Jimmy Carter summed up his feelings when he signed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) in 1977. Congress had passed two previous bills with better protections for the environment, but both had been vetoed by Gerald Ford while he occupied the White House. Carter felt that, owing to the influence of the coal companies that the law was designed to regulate, the legislation he signed that day had weaker provisions than the bills that received Ford’s veto. Carter’s greatest objection to the new law was that it allowed mining companies to blow up and remove entire mountains. We now call this mining process mountaintop removal.[i]
            In the 35 years since the passing of SMCRA, we have seen that Carter was correct to have his misgivings. This past week a group of scientists at a conference of the Ecological Society of American provided some of the first ecological scientific findings on mountaintop removal. The research sadly shows that the harm done to the ecosystems of Appalachia is irreversible. The damage that these scientists have found goes beyond the blown up mountains, from altered stream flows and flooding to reductions in bird populations.
            With mines so large that you can see them from space, it makes sense that there would be extensive ecological damage. Some of the scientists at the conference called for a moratorium on mountaintop mining to stem the damage. So far, the Obama administration has shown some inclination to give greater regulatory review of this destructive mining practice, but a moratorium seems quite unlikely.



[i] “Carter Signs Strip-Mining Bill,” New York Times, 4 August 1977

Sunday, April 7, 2013

The Coal Industry Initiates the Appalachian Research Initiative for Environmental Science. Should We Be Wary?


The coal industry has instituted the Appalachian Research Initiative for Environmental Science (ARIES), an organization involving multiple universities and whose stated goal is to “address the environmental impacts of the discovery, development, production and use of energy resources in Appalachia.” If the tobacco industry, cell phone manufacturers, the makers of lead paint, and the industries that find global warming to be an inconvenient truth for their bottom line provide us with any past experience to draw on, science and getting to the truth about environmental impacts may not be a top priority with this new endeavor.
            ARIES is headquartered at Virginia Tech, where Michael Karmis directs the Center for Coal and Energy.  When ARIES was launched a year ago Kamis said that, “the coal industry, at least in the USA, is under major attack” by the government, the press, and NGOs. Supporting his assertion, he cited “unreasonable regulations” based on “questionable science,” “false assertions,” and self-serving interests.”  He called EPA water quality standards for surface mining “arbitrary” and not enforced “in an equitable manner.”
            Does this guy sound impartial when it comes to environmental research?
            On the ARIES website, their Research Bulletin No 1 disputes the use of conductivity, the ability of water to carry an electric charge, as an indicator of water quality in some Appalachian streams. High conductivity usually indicates that the water has high concentrations of nitrates, sulfates, magnesium, or other substances considered to impair the ability of a stream to support life or to be suitable for drinking. While testing for conductivity will not specify which of the inorganic solids are in the water, measuring conductivity is easily done and inexpensive. It is thus used a lot for water quality monitoring. Their second research bulletin is one designed to cast doubt on the recent scientific studies that found higher incidences of mortality for those who live in proximity to mountaintop mining.
            To keep selling cigarettes, the tobacco companies knew that they didn’t have to show that cigarettes were good for you. All they need do is to cast doubt on what independent research found, that cigarettes can give you high blood pressure, heart disease, and cancer. The research bulletins of ARIES don’t show the mountaintop mines improving the environment or the lives of Appalachians. They do, however, work to cast doubt on the prevailing science. That shadow of a doubt may not last forever, but it can give talking points to coal company executives and politicians friendly to King Coal. Attempts to rein in mountaintop mining can be staved off for years and years. And a lot of mountains can be flattened in that amount of time.