SALINE CO. – A large number of people from all across the county were on hand at a public hearing held by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources regarding potential closure of Rocky Branch Road by Peabody Energy for the Cottage Grove Mine on Wednesday, December 11, at Southeastern Illinois College outside of Harrisburg.
At the meeting, a wide variety of people stood up to speak their minds to the board of the IDNR, and issue their pleas to prevent the closure of Rocky Branch Road under proposal 428.
The large number present were addressed by Tim Devardo, who is a member of the IDNR panel and a mine engineer, and was acting as one of the voices of the panel. Devardo stated at the beginning of the meeting that the hearing was being held so the public’s voices would be heard on the matter of the road closure, and would be considered in the processing of the application that Peabody had submitted for the closure. The IDNR, according to Devardo, would be keeping a verbatim transcript of the meeting, and the record was to be held open for 10 days (December 23, 2013), during which time anyone with further comments or evidence could submit them and would be recorded in the transcript. After the land reclamation panel had reviewed all comments and evidence brought forward, the application for the road closure would be approved, denied, or sent a letter with further questions which would be required before the application would be processed. Peabody Energy would have one year to answer those questions, or the application would be denied.
The panel
Devardo then introduced the panel representing the IDNR as Scott Fowler, the division supervisor; Gary Downen, a land reclamation specialist; Jim Bowling, an environmental protection engineer; and Clay Kolar, a natural resource specialist.
Scott Fowler took the floor to make the opening remarks, stating that all of the questions that the speakers had would be written down and answered at the end of the meeting. This was to facilitate all of the speakers, and to allow time for everyone present to speak.
Fowler then explained where the application currently was in the administrative process. Fowler stated that the application was at that time considered to be “Administratively Complete.” This simply meant that all of the necessary paperwork had been filled out and submitted. The technical review was not complete, and the public’s comments during the meeting were to help the IDNR to make a sound choice on this application.
“We don’t live here,” Fowler said, “so we are asking you to give us your comments on the application itself.”
Fowler also advised that a complete review of the application had not been completed, so questions that pertained to the application would probably be difficult or impossible to answer fully at that time.
The floor was then opened to the public speakers. The first public speaker was John Keller, who represented Peabody, and who is an Operations Manager with Peabody energy. Keller stated that Cottage Grove mine had opened in 1999, and had operated since that date. The plan from Cottage Grove mine was to extend coal production and assure employment of the current mine workers. Keller listed that Cottage Grove mine had received multiple awards and honors for their excellent safety record and reclamation efforts. Keller asked the panel to quickly consider the application as it “Is of critical importance that a permit decision is reached promptly to prevent an interruption of coal production, and to provide continuous employment to (their) current workforce.”
Speaking against closure
After Keller had completed his speech, the list of speakers was read aloud to verify that all of those who wished to speak against the road closure were on the list to speak, and that no one was forgotten. The crowd verified that all of those who wished to speak were included on that list. At that time, the floor was opened to Chris Schimp.
Schimp, a citizen of Eldorado, is also a mining engineer. Schimp had numerous photos that he wished to submit as evidence for the record, which were entered into the transcript, and then shown during his speech. Schimp stated that he loved the coal industry, as it had provided for his family for the majority of his life. But, even his love for mining and the industry didn’t stop from needing to speak against this.
“I got ran over by Peabody,” Schimp stated, noting that Peabody had begun mining near his property, his parent’s property, and his daughter’s property. Before Peabody had moved into the area, all three homes had been free of any structural issues. After they moved in, however, all three homes simultaneously had begun having problems with cracking and other issues.
Schimp called Peabody about it; they sent an inspector to view the homes and the problems.
“That’s shoddy construction,” Schimp stated that the inspector said; “your kid slammed the door too hard,” and continued to blame other things for the cracking and settling. Then, as if that wasn’t enough, Schimp said, Peabody moved closer to the south, and the blasting started to cause further damage to their homes, and sending yellow dust into the air.
After Peabody continued to deny the damages, Schimp hired a lawyer and began a lawsuit, which has now gone on for four to five years.
“I cannot fight Peabody and its money,” Schimp said. “I’ve tried and tried for the last four years, but what do they do? They lawyer up.”
Schimp showed pictures with timestamps that showed the blasts that covered the horizon, which he explained were incomplete combustion that consisted of ammonium nitrate, diesel fuel, and coal. Schimp said this continued for several years, and was so severe that the “ammonium nitrate would run us out of the house. We would have to leave on Sundays because we couldn’t stand it; it would give us severe headaches.” In the end, “no one could help.”
Schimp put the panel on the spot, and told them they are the last resort for the people of the area, and they have to do something to stop this. His speech was met with applause from the crowd, for his passion and knowledge.
Judith Kellen was allowed to speak to representatives of the Department of Natural Resources reps at the mine expansion project hearing December 12.
Cottage Grove Township trustee speaks
Next was Judy Kellen, a trustee for Cottage Grove Township, who also spoke at the Saline County Board, begging for help in “putting a stop to this.”
Kellen came armed with many questions:
Has anyone done a study on the effects of the coal mining industry on our area; out of the 244,000 acres in Saline County, how many do the mining companies own, and how many of those acres are no longer productive after the mines have left; how many roads have been closed and never reopened; how many homes have been purchased by the mines, causing people to move out of the county; what has the mine already cost the county, and what will the deficit be after the mine leaves, and leaves the land destroyed; what will happen to the drainage of the land; what will this do to the flooding?
Kellen said these questions and others have been asked multiple times to multiple people, and never have they been answered.
“The mine already has closed all of the roads to the Cottage Township with the exclusion of Rocky Branch Road, which is the arterial road to the town,” Kellen said. “This is the only access for emergency responders, mail, farmers, and any other person coming in and out.”
The damage done by the loss of the road, Kellen said, would be insurmountable for the tiny township.
“But the worst problem is, the roughly 200 people of Cottage Township are not the only ones who will suffer the effects of the mine, but no one knows just how far the damages will reach,” she said.
“Peabody is a monster corporation, an outsider, pulling our puppet strings,” Kellen stated, “because, in the long run, only Peabody will be the ones who benefit from the aforementioned damages to the area.” Kellen also read a letter from a former neighbor, Francis Brown Taylor, who was displaced by the mining, which highlighted the emotional damages to those who Peabody has moved for their operations. Taylor described the feeling as “going to hell and back.”
Kellen left the panel with those words ringing in their ears.
Prairie Rivers Network; residents speak next
Carrie Otto with the Prairie Rivers Network took the floor, immediately addressing the facts of the detrimental effects of mining in the area.
The facts ranged from river damages, reclamation, watershed, drainage patterns, pollution, aquatic ecosystems, loss of topsoil and agricultural impacts, property values, and blasting impacts. Otto was armed with statements from experts in these fields, including a renowned geologist who issued a statement on the damages to the land, which was read in full to the panel, and a Doctor of Zoology who issued a statement on the damages to ecological systems if deficient reconstruction of waterways and natural habitats occurs. Prairie Rivers stood next to Cottage Township and Justice for Rocky Branch, and forcefully requested that the permit for the mining be denied.
Donald Karns, who lives on Rocky Branch Road, came right out and stated that he was there to protest on behalf of Rocky Branch Road. Karns spoke to the damages that will be done to the endangered species such as the Indiana bat, rattlesnakes and barn owls, among others, which will be displaced by the mining. Karns also spoke the damages of the farming industry, because of the extended mileage that would be expended just to haul the grains out of the area. He also spoke about drainage issues with the spring flooding, as the new road would only act as a dam and prevent the water flowing outward.
“They’ve done enough to us,” Karns said, adding, “You can’t farm (mined) ground” as the topsoil is completely destroyed. He described how, after the first year, rocks would be showing, which would normally never be found in topsoil. “I hope you don’t issue this permit,” Karns pled. “It won’t put Peabody out of business, and it ain’t gonna put no miners out of a job.”
A petition was passed around and signed by 54 people, according to Karns, to put a stop to all of this.
“It starts with our local officials,” Karns said. “All they’ve got to do is say ‘no’ once in a while, and protect us people that live here.” Karns also spoke about when the blasting occurs in the mines, saying that he often feels them on Sundays, and said, “That seems like when they put the biggest ones out, when there’s no inspectors around to check it.”
Karns thanked the panel, and asked them to deny the permit.
Sierra Club
Terri Treacy with the Sierra Club talked about the concerns of the club, especially with the damages to the federally protected Indiana bat, and woodland plants.
Treacy noted that the amount of habitat being taken from the Indiana bat could potentially support an entire colony of the bats, and that habitat may never be recreated sufficiently, and could forever be lost as a home for that species of bat. This would alter all of the behaviors and food sources, as well as other life-sustaining factors, for the species.
The Sierra Club also spoke about several rare species of plants that have been found in the area that is to be mined, and the Sierra Club believes that “the plant should be looked for” before the mine destroys that land.
Additionally, Peabody had guaranteed they would provide a “1-for-1” reclamation of the land and habitats within the area, but the Sierra Club along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred that “while the 1-to-1 replacement ratio exceeds the amount specified in the protection and enhancement plan guidelines, its insufficient to replace the habitat value of a forested habitat that will be lost.” Treacy spoke about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation that a 2-to-1 ratio be reclaimed, but even with that, the time that the habitat would be removed, combined with the time it would take for all of the plants and wildlife to re-adjust and flourish in the recreated habitat, as well as the cost of reclamation, it is simply not worth it. Therefore, the Sierra Club recommended that those habitats not be touched at all.
Treacy also talked about the endangered Marsh Rice Rat that makes its home in the Rocky Branch area. If mining were to take that land away, the rats would be driven from their habitat. Treacy ended her plea for the wildlife of the area, saying “We hope the board rejects the request, not only to save the habitat of these little Rocky Branch Rats, but also in doing so protecting human residents of this community.”
Saline Valley Conservancy District
Alison Powles with the Saline Valley Conservancy District (SVCD) took the floor next, to address issues that are in conflict with the proposed mining in the Rocky Branch Road area.
The SVCD owns the water lines that deliver water to over 25,000 people in Saline, Hamilton, Gallatin, Hardin, Williamson, and Johnson counties. The Rocky Branch Road portion of the mine was going to be constructing their new hauling road over the 14- and 16-inch water mains, which are owned by the SVCD, that run on the east of Highway 13. Those lines, according to Powles, “Are an integral part of the district regional water distribution system.” Furthermore, the strip mining will cut straight through the district rural water supply lines, and the easements in which they run, all of which are owned by the SVCD.
Powles stated that the mines do not have the right to mine in their easements.
“Consent has not be granted, and will not be granted until a comprehensive agreement has been reached,” she said. As if that were not enough, the 14- and 16-inch lines supply water to Harrisburg, Carrier Mills, Stonefort, and New Burnside. The proposed new haul road will support heavy equipment that can weigh up to 900,000 pounds, which could potentially cause a collapse of the water mains, and cause a disruption of service to the entirety of the SVCD area. The infringement of the rural water delivery systems could also leave countless numbers of residents without water.
Powles told the panel about failed negotiations between the SVCD and Peabody, who have failed to agree to pay for necessary water main modifications that would accommodate the mining, as well as Peabody covering any future repair costs that would be necessary to repair damages that would be a result of mining activities, saying that “As of yet, a satisfactory agreement has not been reached, and Peabody seems to have ignored most of the districts concerns.”
“The Saline Valley Conservancy District hereby demands that the IDNR not approve the permit until an agreement can made to protect the citizens from a loss of water, and that Peabody will cover all of the costs that are placed upon the district by the mine,” Powles concluded.
Worried about emergency response
Rita Karns talked of the difficulties that would be inflicted on Cottage Grove Township if Rocky Branch Road were shut down.
“If they close Rocky Branch Road, we cannot go east, we cannot go west, we cannot go south. We have no other outlet,” she said, nothing this extended well beyond just an inconvenience, as Karns shared the fear that “In an emergency situation, I do not know what would happen.”
This fear has been echoed by others, such as Judy Kellen, at the Saline County Board meeting a couple of months ago. Emergency responders must use Rocky Branch Road, which is the only arterial road to many homes in the area. Further, an extensive list of roads that have been closed already was given, which made an abundantly clear point that with this road closure, the remaining access to an entire community of people is being cut.
Like others have noted, Karns pointed out damage to the farming community, to farming land, and the added substantial hardship and cost to hauling grains and crops out of the area. The only remaining roads left to haul out grains from those farms, Karns pointed out “are not constructed strong enough to support all of the weight.” Additionally, the new hauling road likely would cause nothing more than a problem, as it would hold in the spring flood waters, which would by extension cause further damages to the farming community by preventing early, or could cause late, planting of crops.
Barney Bush gave information about the settlement in the Vinyard Indian Village area of the township, which, he said, will be more than adversely impacted by the planned mine expansion.
Vinyard Indian Settlement representative
Barney Bush, Chairman of the Vinyard Indian Settlement, a community that existed until about 1953 near Karber’s Ridge, was up next. The settlement is in the process of reorganization, and Bush is heading the efforts. Bush talked about being born and raised between Mitchellsville and Battle Ford in the southern part of Saline County.
“The images of my childhood are gone for eternity because of strip mining,” Bush said, talking about all the wildlife he had hunted and fished, and all of the natural beauty that has been taken, gone forever. Bush then explained that he has many degrees, and has seen many things, but he never understood sociopathic behavior, “not really.
“I recently have discovered the meaning as ‘someone who is born without a conscience. Someone who doesn’t feel what someone with a conscience feels,’” he said. “The things we have all seen done by mining to the land, to the animals, and to all other natural things, must be done by those without a conscience,” alluding to Peabody and the mining industry as sociopaths, having no conscience and feeling nothing for what they leave behind them.
The people of the Vinyard Indian Village have found that there are burial grounds in the land that is about to be mined by Peabody, and they have addressed the issue with the mining companies who wanted to know how the Indian Village knew that. Peabody was told that they knew because the villagers have a long history, and those places have been shown to them by their grandparents, as Bush explained. Bush also explained that the mining company also knew that, via the Archeological Society in Carbondale. Regardless, they moved the graves and the artifacts, and Bush said that because of that “We have lost touch with those ancestors whose bodies have been stolen.”
Next, Bush addressed the Bible’s views on the matter, first reading Job 12:7-10 “Ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you, or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of ever creature, the breath of all mankind,” and Revelation 11:18 “The nations were angry, and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and rewarding your servants, the prophets and your saints, and those who reverence your name, both small and brave, and for destroying those who destroy the earth.”
Porter: not a rebel
Allan Porter of Cottage Township started by saying this was the fourth or fifth time he had spoken against this proposal.
“I never dreamed that a man 75 years old would have to make a stand for what I’m here to stand for,” Porter said, clarifying that he was “not a rebel and not a renegade. I’ve been a taxpayer and a citizen of this area and Cottage Township for 60-some years.”
Adding that he bears no ill will to miners or the industry, Porter said he couldn’t stand for the destruction of a community when he could make a stand.
Porter turned to the subject of rape, saying that while everyone knows what the general meaning is, he clarified that the actual definition of rape is “to plunder by violence, or take by force, something that does not belong to you.”
Porter said he believes that God put coal in the ground for human use, but said that he “believe(s) there’s a proper way to remove it without totally destroying a community.” Porter looked at some of the miners in the room, and stated that he bears no ill will or feelings towards the mining community. That being said, he too turned to scripture, telling that the Bible says that there will be a day when right is considered to be wrong, and wrong will be considered right, saying “I hope we haven’t come to that.”
Porter talked about the damages done to so much personal property, asking, “where is their right?” comparing it to criminals who are convicted and sentenced every day for damaging or destroying personal property. “Why are Peabody Coal and the mining industry not being held accountable under the same laws?” he asked, stating that he has asked that question of many time, but no one can tell him why those regulations aren’t enforced.
“Is the yellow dust that is thrown into the air by the blasts toxic, or is it not?” No one could give him any answers.
One answer that Porter said he was able to find for himself was the answer of “what happens to the land that is left behind after mining?” The land is considered wasteland, and it is no longer, and will never again be, useful or productive land. In answer to Kellen’s questions on “what will become of the land that has been left behind by the mines?” That land, Porter said, will no longer be useful, productive, or profitable. This backs up the theory that when the coal is gone, and Peabody leaves, nothing but a deficit will be left, unless the unlikely event occurs that the land is reclaimed. Porter closed by saying that coal “has to be more than a quick fix” for Saline County, and asking officials to “get their act together” so that something will be left for the future generations.
DNR overlooks speakers
After Mr. Porter had left the floor, Mr. Devardo with the IDNR took the floor, saying that everyone had spoken who had indicated that they wished to speak. Immediate protests were issued from the crowd, from two women who had not been called.
“That’s not true! My name’s on that list and I was not called,” one shouted, followed by another woman: “Neither was I!”
Devardo tried to clarify that he had “Read through the list earlier…” indicating that he believed these women were lying so that they could speak. The women insisted that they had been on the list earlier, and they would be speaking. Disclosure reviewed audio records, and found that these women were speaking the truth. Devardo issued no apology, and simply opened the floor to them.
First came Rhonda Dillard, who has spoken before about the lay of the land, and wished to continue that conversation at the hearing.
“Tonight I’m gonna show you exactly what we are dealing with.” Dillard stated. Dillard flopped down packets of pictures in front of the panel, rather pointedly, in a manner that implied “here ya go, have a look.” These pictures had been previously submitted, but she had not explained their contents. She wished to explain the content and subject matter of the photos, so that no mistakes could be made.
She continued to walk the panel through the pictures, one at a time, explaining that they showed the flooding of the area, and gave a measure of distance. The pictures showed a 9/10ths of a mile stretch of water. In the pictures, bushes appeared jutting up from the water line. The pictures also showed where the new Rocky Branch Road would be, which would be under water. The bushes that were visible on the water were actually “a tree line, and those are treetops.”
The new road was to be raised above the water, but it actually would act as a dam. She explained that she had no problem with miners, and knew that they are fighting for their jobs just as she was fighting for her home, and that she was glad they had such an excellent safety record. However, she “sure wish those awards that were given for safety was more of an award for how they treat people.” She continued to say that her mother “taught (her) that the way that people treat you in the past is probably how they are going to treat you in the future.” Dillard begged the panel not to allow the mining, and not to allow them to destroy a community.
The last speaker on the floor was Linda Karns. Karns had only a few brief words, saying that “I feel like I’m stuck in the middle, because my mother-in-law is on one side, and my husband… is employed by Peabody.” She concluded by telling the room that she feels this has caused a division in her family.
No questions answered?
The meeting was called to a close…but without indication that questions from those who spoke would be answered.
Quickly, as the crowd stood to leave, Fowler stepped to the podium and stated that he had “only written one question down,” because he felt that the other questions were rhetorical: that of Allan Porter’s. In answering Porter’s question, the land on old mines did not have to be reclaimed because it is considered to be “pre-law,” or in other words, before it was their problem.
Kellen then put Fowler on the spot, telling him that her questions were serious, and she DID want answers.
At this point, Fowler started showing signs of displeasure over being asked these hard questions, and his behavior towards these people who have brought their plight to him, brought some of the residents to tears of frustration and disappointment.
After Fowler continued to fail to answer the questions Kellen had asked, Mr. Schimp asked Fowler “Do you have the authority or wherewithal to stop a coal mining company from throwing that amount of dust into a person’s home?”
Fowler answered that they do have that authority, but they have to see the blast occurring. Schimp pressed the matter, stating that the issue had continued for over a year and a half “and by the time the inspector got there, the dust was gone.”
“Time-stamped pictures aren’t adequate proof?” Treacy asked; and Schimp stated that “(he) had video” of it occurring and with a time stamp attached.
At this point, Fowler was growing visibly angry over the questioning.
He faunched and grasped for words, and barely stuttered out a sentence that amounted to anything that made sense.
“You what?” Schimp asked, to which Fowler replied he “had to see it” (in person) to take enforcement action.
Schimp continued to press.
“Why don’t you come out to see it then?” he asked, saying that the IDNR had told him “not to sit on my hands.” Fowler continued to try to deter the questions, but Schimp said “you need to get a camper out there and set up shop to stop it.”
What is substantial evidence?
After Fowler continued to bicker with Schimp rather than talk with him, Disclosure’s correspondent asked Fowler “Why is it that, in a courtroom, you can have pictures and video stand as evidence, but these folks that have that same evidence are told that those aren’t substantial enough for you and your department to take action to stop these blasts that are destroying their homes?”
Fowler refused to answer, and simply stared at the correspondent. Schimp added that every time he called them they would be two hours away, and wouldn’t make the point of being there in a timely manner to watch it happen.
The correspondent continued to press on, asking why would the IDNR not take their evidence? Throughout the meeting, times and day when the largest blasts occur had been given, and the correspondent challenged them to go and watch, wait, and see what happens.
Fowler continued to ignore what was being said to him, replying “We do talk to the company about it” to which the correspondent replied “You TALK to them, but you don’t come to see for yourselves?”
The further the questions probed, the less clearly Fowler spoke. He continued to say that he’d seen pictures of the damages, the blasts, and the yellow smoke, but it was never enough.
Growing irritation
Then Dillard went back to the questions Kellen asked, but Porter had to answer for Fowler. He informed the audience that this was all public record. They would have to dig if they wanted the answers, because IDNR wouldn’t give them the answers.
Kellen brought forward the notion that maybe the LAW ITSELF needs to be changed, so that this “horrible negligence couldn’t be displayed.”
“Maybe mines should be required to have an inspector on-site at all times to see the blasting was kept within regulation,” came the suggestion.
Disclosure’s reporting correspondent was seeing that the major issue was that no other enforcement protocol would be accepted other than an eyewitness account from an inspector, and so she asked what needed to be done to change those regulations to where other evidence would be acceptable.
Fowler simply said this kind of input would be taken back to the company and the department to consider a revision of protocol.
She then pressed, “Why can’t you ask the companies for their blasting schedule, so that you can come and see it?”
Fowler wouldn’t answer. Schimp, who was previously mentioned as being a mine engineer, clarified that they already have those schedules, but “they just won’t come to see it.”
Fowler did not deny that. He simply stood with his lips puckered, back arched, and arms crossed, appearing to grow madder by the moment. Fowler had at that point all but clammed up.
So Disclosure’s correspondent posed the question: “When was the last time you took any kind of enforcement action?”
Fowler began to stammer another un-explanation, and she pressed, “Do I have to submit a FOIA to you tomorrow morning to find that out, or would you tell me freely?!”
“Yes, I think that would be best,” Fowler snapped.
“I might be suing the wrong company. Maybe I should be suing these guys instead,” Schimp mused.
“We expect people like you to protect us, but that doesn’t seem to be happening at all,” Kellen said through tears.
County board representative Joe Jackson asked where the inspector’s reports are, since the IDNR is a government-funded entity.
“They are supposed to work to protect the people, not Peabody,” Jackson stated, asking after the reports, “Is that FOIA material as well?”, to which Fowler didn’t give a committed answer.
Dillard asked the final question of the evening: “Have you heard anything here tonight that will help to persuade your decision?”
Again, the answer was vague at best…leading those in the Cottage Township area to believe that it doesn’t appear that the IDNR will be offering the protection and service that their—and everyone else’s—taxes are paying for.