What happened to the coal mines of Pocahontas County WV

 

The coal mines of Pocahontas County, West Virginia, began to decline in the mid-20th century. There were a number of factors that contributed to this decline, including:

• Depletion of coal reserves: The Pocahontas Coalfield is a finite resource, and the most easily accessible coal reserves were depleted over time.
• Increased competition from other coalfields: Other coalfields, such as the Powder River Basin in Wyoming, began to produce coal at lower costs than the Pocahontas Coalfield.
• Environmental regulations: Environmental regulations made coal mining more expensive and difficult.
• Mechanization: Mechanization led to job losses in the coal mining industry.

As a result of these factors, the number of coal mines in Pocahontas County declined significantly. In 1950, there were over 100 coal mines in the county. By 1980, there were only about 20 coal mines remaining. Today, there are only a handful of coal mines still operating in Pocahontas County.

The decline of the coal mining industry has had a significant impact on the economy and culture of Pocahontas County. Many people who once worked in the coal mines have moved away in search of employment. The county has also lost much of its tax base, which has made it difficult to maintain public services.

Despite the decline of the coal mining industry, Pocahontas County remains a beautiful and vibrant community. The county is home to a number of natural attractions, including the Monongahela National Forest and the Greenbrier River. Pocahontas County is also home to a number of historical and cultural attractions, such as the Pocahontas Exhibition Mine and the Cass Scenic Railroad.

The provisions of Public Law 93-87 would not permit use of the highway by commercial vehicles including those serving the area's coal industry. For this reason and to avoid safety hazards, at-grade intersections between the scenic highway and coal haul roads would not be allowed.

 Easement acquisition programs for Alternatives 1 and 2 on Cheat Mountain include the least amount of land containing coal reserves, and avoid most coal reserves along Back Allegheny Mountain. Alternative 3 avoids a portion of Cheat Mountain from north of Snyder Knob to Beech Flat Alternative 4 avoids much of the coal deposits along Back Allegheny Mountain south and east of First Fork and in the headwaters area of Second Fork. Alternative 4 would have an additional effect on the recovery of coal reserves because of its proximity to the two main haul roads along the Shavers Fork. 

Although Alternatives 1 and 2 affect the least amount of land containing coal deposits, it does not necessarily follow that these alternatives affect the least amount of coal reserves. The actual quantity of coal in any particular area of the study area is not known. Given the restrictions that would be placed on coal mining activity with implementation of any of the build alternatives, it is highly probable that the mine operators and land owner would choose to strip mine economically recoverable coal reserves from the areas that would be affected by a particular build alternative, between the time the decision is made to build the extension and the time the extension is completed. 

An accelerated mining program would have to be undertaken to recover as much coal as could be extracted through short-term mining methods. Strict enforcement of Office of Surface Mining Regulations would be es sential to an environmentally sound mining operation of this magnitude. Coordination among the Forest Service, Office of Surface Mining, Department of Natural Resources, mine operators, and land owners is essential to the economically and environmentally sound removal of coal from the affected area. 

Accelerated removal of reserves outside the scenic corridor that must be hauled through the corridor should also be con- sidered since the construction of haul roads within scenic eas ement areas would be strictly regulated. In summary, the selection of a build alternative may induce property owners and miners to accelerate the recovery of coal within the chosen corridor, with the purpose of removing as much of the resource as possible before the extension of the highway is completed. In this case, coal production would greatly exceed the 500,000 ton annual pro- duction estimate forecast for the no-build alternative, at least through 1995.

 If this accelerated mining activity develops, the Forest Service may have to moderately increase its reclamation program over that described in Section IV. Mined lands would temporarily be placed in the mineral extraction category and later would become open space/recreational land uses as the scenic highway is implemented. Even if an accelerated recovery of affected reserves would occur with the selection of a build alternative, many of the area's reserves that cannot be economically removed with short-term extraction methods would remain underground.