Social and Environmental Impacts

Of Longwall Coal Mining

In Southwestern Pennsylvania

Final Report To The Heinz Endowments

 Grant Reference Numbers A6490, B0496, and B1608

The Raymond Proffitt Foundation

May 2004

                                                             About The Raymond Proffitt Foundation

The Raymond Proffitt Foundation is a public interest non-profit organization concerned with the enforcement of environmental protection laws. It helps individuals and grassroots organizations understand and change government inaction to protect the environment, frequently solving problems through discussion with agency officials. When discussion fails, however, the Foundation will file citizen lawsuits against government, companies or individuals violating the law.

In the past, the Foundation has sued on various environmental issues, including water quality, wetlands, solid waste and mining. In 1996, RPF won a major four-year lawsuit resulting in the establishment of Federal antidegradation standards for water quality in Pennsylvania. Similar standards were adopted soon afterward by the Commonwealth. Since that time, RPF and others have used the principles won in that lawsuit to advance protection of surface waters across Pennsylvania.

Raymond Proffitt Foundation

P.O. Box 723

Langhorne, PA 19047-0723

215-945-1329

www.rayproffitt.org

Executive Summary

The Raymond Proffitt Foundation was funded by the Heinz Endowments to investigate the social and environmental impacts of longwall coal mining in southwestern Pennsylvania. The first grant was received in September 2000. Volunteers from the Foundation began the effort. The work included gathering general and specific information regarding longwall mining, investigating various aspects of the permitting process, and meeting with citizens and other groups working on the problem. Initial work indicated that two areas needed to be particularly addressed. The first, the lack of documentation on the effect of mine subsidence on surface waters, was addressed by retaining an aquatic biologist to conduct investigations of undermined streams. The second was the need for better outreach tools. That was addressed by commissioning a filmmaker to produce a short documentary on the topic.

A Project Director began part-time work in January 2002, thanks to another grant from the Heinz Endowments, and continued the work of the volunteers and coordinated with the filmmaker. The Project Director also commented to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and other agencies on permits and permitting procedures. A third grant in 2002 was focused towards activities related to the documentary film.

Water resources are damaged through mining. Loss of flow is common and may be permanent in some cases. The lack of adequate pre-mining data on springs and small streams, and the lack of long-term monitoring in areas where mining has occurred is a problem. Larger streams are damaged through pooling due to the varied subsidence. While restoration of these streams is at least physically possible, efforts are evident on only a few.

When it comes to protection of these waters through the permitting process, the DEP’s mining program has historically disregarded the water quality laws and regulations in favor of the mining law and regulations, despite clear language that subordinates the mining law to the water quality law. Unfortunately, the mining law and regulations treats springs and small streams as expendable. Recent indications that the mining program will in fact enforce the water quality laws have not yet been tested.

RPF’s efforts have resulted in 1) a large number of reports collected and made available to citizens, 2) assistance rendered to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their biological investigations, 3) better organized citizens and watershed groups, 4) greater attention paid by regulatory agencies on the impacts to surface waters from mine subsidence, and 5) a fifteen minute documentary film now being used to educate decision-makers and the public within and outside of the coal fields.

Introduction

In 1994, amendments to Pennsylvania’s mining law (“Act 54") allowed coal companies to employ the longwall method on a larger geographic scale, by removing restrictions on undermining homes built before 1966. During the past ten years, the accelerating pace of longwall mining has severely disrupted roads, utilities, farms and homes. Chronic stress has profoundly harmed the emotional health of undermined families and has disturbed communities living above the coal fields.

The 1994 changes to the mining law did not create a new program to protect surface waters. Instead, the mining law was amended to explicitly defer to existing water quality laws that protected surface waters. Despite the protection that Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law affords to surface waters, reports from citizens of severe and widespread damage to springs and streams indicated that violations of law might be occurring.

In 1999 and 2000, affected persons and other citizens of Greene and Washington counties contacted RPF, asking for assistance. In September 2000, the Heinz Endowments awarded RPF a grant of $100,000 to support RPF’s investigation of the social and environmental impacts of longwall mining. Volunteers began the effort. The Heinz Endowments awarded RPF an additional $50,000 in March, 2002, to support a Project Director, and an additional $17,000 in September 2002 for film and outreach-related expenses.

Volunteers began the effort in 2000, although experts were retained where necessary. A part-time Project Director was hired in early 2001, and continued working on a part-time basis until funding was exhausted in the summer of 2003.

Activities and Accomplishments – 2000

Social Impacts

In November, 2000, documentation of longwall’s effects on two homes listed on the National Historic Register began. At each location, professional video crews and the families themselves were involved in recording each step of the undermining. Digital cameras, audio recorders, and testing and measuring devices were utilized to collect a detailed and accurate record.

The original purpose of this documentation project was to support the families in their efforts to minimize damage to their homes and adequately repair them in the manner described by law. But as the months passed, and additional information came to light, the scope of the project expanded to include related issues, such as subsidence effects on the wider community and the dewatering of streams and wells. Our work thus far revealed that describing the problems associated with longwall mining was difficult. A short documentary film appeared to be the ideal way in which to communicate the problems of longwall mining to decision-makers and the public. The filming of damage to the two historic homes would serve as the base, while documentation of the other aspects would occur in 2001.

Environmental Impacts

Reports from resource agencies indicated that subsidence was disrupting the interactions between surface waters and groundwater. Springs and smaller streams could suffer diminution of flow or dry up entirely. Larger streams could be pooled as various areas subsided (over the longwall “panels”) and other areas remained at their original elevation (over the unsubsided “gate” areas) and acted as dams. In streams such as Enlow Fork, Roberts Run, and Rocky Run, productive riffles and runs were converted to deep, sediment filled pools.

It did not appear that state and Federal agencies were applying the water quality laws to underground coal mining in the same manner that the laws were applied to activities on the surface. We were concerned to learn this because a clear reading of the mining law indicated that the water quality laws applied to mining.

RPF was using other resources to conduct additional activities on the environmental impacts of longwall mining that complemented the efforts funded by the Heinz Endowments. In December 2000, RPF filed a 60-day Notice To Sue under the Federal Clean Water Act, alleging illegal damage to Enlow Fork, a stream in Greene County that had been pooled by subsidence. The Notice was based on studies done by various government agencies showing that longwall mining was impairing and eliminating aquatic life in Enlow Fork and other streams. In addition, RPF released a report prepared by Schmid and Co., Consulting Ecologists, that documented the failure of the regulatory agencies, especially DEP, to protect wetlands and streams from the adverse impacts of longwall mining.

Activities and Accomplishments --2001

Citizens of the area continued to ask RPF for advice and assistance, as news traveled of RPF’s activities of 2000. Throughout 2001, RPF volunteers continued to answer questions and provide information to citizens via email and telephone. Video documentation continued in the two historic homes, as well as filming other problems associated with longwall coal mining. RPF organized a town meeting in the village of Lone Pine, Washington County, in July 2001, to educate citizens on what to expect from the undermining of their community.

Our efforts to date revealed that longwall mining and the associated problems were little known outside of southwestern Pennsylvania. To that end, RPF facilitated some national press coverage of the problems caused by longwall mining. Articles appeared in The New York Times newspaper and Fly, Rod, and Reel magazine outlining the damage to homes and streams, respectively. Local press coverage of the issue made mention of RPF, and at least one coal company representative stated that there was no perception of problems with longwall mining until RPF got involved.

RPF volunteers continued to collect and compile government and other reports on longwall mining. Documentation of the effects of subsidence on the historic homes, and other aspects of longwall mining continued.  

Environmental Impacts

RPF retained an aquatic biologist to investigate citizen complaints and conduct biological investigations. The biologist also made inquiries of agencies on topics related to subsidence damage to surface waters on behalf of RPF, and lodged a number of complaints with the Office of Surface Mining regarding observed damage to streams. The US Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the agency was going to conduct a study in 2001 of the effects of subsidence damage on surface waters and aquatic communities. They extended an open invitation to other government agencies, the mining companies, and groups interested in longwall mining to share data and assist in the effort. RPF’s biologist spent considerable time accompanying the Fish and Wildlife Service on their field surveys (in which other agencies and coal companies also participated).

RPF’s 60-day Notice, along with the efforts of other groups and citizens, caused the DEP and Federal regulators to pay closer attention to the damage to surface waters caused by longwall mining. In the fall of 2001, the DEP cited a coal company for violating the Clean Streams Law when Laurel Run dried up after undermining.

Activities and Accomplishments -- 2002-2003

In late January 2002, a part-time Project Director began work, becoming the RPF point of contact for longwall mining. Although an aquatic biologist, the Project Director also worked on the social impacts aspect of longwall mining. In addition to responding to citizens via telephone and email, the Project Director

worked with a number of local and statewide groups on general issues related to longwall mining, but especially outreach and education,

worked with local watershed groups, such as Wheeling Creek Watershed Conservancy, Ten Mile Protection Network, and the Greene County Watershed Alliance on various projects, and helped with organizational efforts,

spoke to various groups and at various events,

met with various families/landowners that have already been undermined or where mining was anticipated, and

worked with local groups on a “Spring and Stream Survey” designed to gather information on water resources, as well as give landowners a greater sense of control of their own fate.

The fifteen-minute film, “Subsided Ground... Fallen Futures: The Legacy Of Longwall Mining In Southwestern Pennsylvania,” became a powerful outreach tool. Immediately after it was completed, the film became the focus of RPF’s outreach efforts on longwall mining. Presentations were made to statewide conservation groups. Word quickly spread throughout the conservation community that a film had been completed on the effects of longwall mining.

While RPF asked for a nominal donation for a VHS copy, most were distributed gratis. In 2003, about 400 copies of the tape were distributed to

state and Federal resource and regulatory agencies

            conservation and public interest groups

farming and community groups

            universities and schools

            print and broadcast media outlets

as well as citizens directly affected by longwall mining. Groups such as Tri-State Citizens Mining Network and Citizens For Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture) used the film in their own educational efforts. Local groups, such as the Ten Mile Protection Network, presented the film at meetings designed to organize and educate the local population.

The finished film is fifteen minutes long (a copy is included with this final report), but hundreds of hours of footage were shot. Copies of footage of the two historic homes (much of which was shot by the families themselves), were provided to the families. A copy of the raw footage has been placed with the University of Pittsburgh Library System Archives where it is available to the public.

Environmental Impacts

commented to DEP on mining permit renewal applications and the draft “Technical Guidance Document” on protection of surface waters from underground mining,

presented testimony at public hearings on mining permits,

requested information from resource and regulatory agencies on examples of successful mitigation of surface waters damaged by mining,

requested information from the US Army Corps of Engineers on the need for Clean Water Act Section 404 permits for mining restoration activities,

followed up on RPF’s 2001 complaints with the Office of Surface Mining,

conducted surveys of damaged streams as a result of citizen complaints, and

worked with PennFuture and local watershed groups on finding citizens with “standing” for an intervention on two mining permit revision appeals, and other legal issues.

RPF’s efforts resulted in the DEP paying closer attention to the need to protect surface waters from mining. The files generated by this work, along with the reports and other information gathered on longwall mining, have been donated to Tri-State Citizens Mining Network so that they are readily available to citizens and other activists.

Conclusions

RPF did not directly advocate with the DEP on behalf of landowners. We offered general advice and assistance (e.g., photo documentation before mining) to those who contacted us, and almost all who did were unhappy with the mining company and the DEP. Citizens complained of slow response, shoddy repairs, and lack of communication. Because the nature of our response was complaint-oriented, we cannot make any generalizations on the frequency of dissatisfaction. It seems ridiculous, however, to assume that any undermined person could have an overall positive or even neutral experience. Based on our conversations with affected people, longwall mining causes severe stress to many families when their home is undermined and damaged. Most homeowners find it very difficult to deal with the DEP and the mining companies, and feel that those entities are aligned against them.

The higher the standards of the owners regarding the quality of repairs, (evidenced by hiring their own contractor or attorney) the longer the repairs take. It is not as if the damage happens one week and the repairs are completed within a few weeks or months. The nature of longwall mining might mean that a farmer or landowner would have their property undermined by more than one longwall “panel,” and their involvement with the coal company would stretch on for years. To repair the damage from just one panel takes a long time. And if the homeowner and the coal company disagree on the nature or extent of repairs, they can take years.

Unforseen problems often arise. One family, whose home was undermined, has been unable to obtain insurance on their home after their previous company stopped conducting business in Pennsylvania. Neither the DEP nor any elected official was able to help, and arguments to insurance companies that the coal company was responsible for restoring the home to its pre-mining condition fell on deaf ears. Problems such as these add to the literally hundreds of hours of inconvenience and work that homeowners face.

The acute stress of undermining comes on top of a chronic stress brought on by the anticipation of mining. The mining companies are required to notify landowners at least six months in advance. Mine plans go well beyond that time frame, however, and many people know they are going to be undermined years before the actual mining. They observe what their neighbors have gone through and the worrying begins.

There are many active farms in this area, and many other people that live in these rural areas do so because they enjoy country living or keep “hobby farms.” They see mining damage as a threat not only to their home (house), but also to their way of life and the landscape that they love. Most rural residents pride themselves on self-reliance, but mining damage brings with it a dependence on the DEP, coal companies and their contractors, and water hauling companies, for whom “caring” is required by their job, by law, or a business arrangement.

There were no readily-available data on the effects of undermining on the health of the citizens of Greene and Washington counties. Our observations were that families that were undermined were put under stress similar to families where a member suffers from severe illness or injury. There are some anecdotal reports of people becoming reclusive or unstable as a result of the stress.

Similarly, there are no hard data on the number of abandoned properties, or the fragmenting of communities. Anecdotal information is that in some areas, large numbers of people have moved away. The DEP released a report in December 2002 claiming that longwall mining has not adversely affected the tax base in Greene or Washington counties. A cursory review of the report done for RPF reveals some possible problems with the assumptions and methodology in that report, although an in-depth review was not done due to lack of resources.

RPF worked with groups advocating for a change in the state’s mining law, but did not take a central role, because lobbying was outside the scope of the grants and in any event, RPF (a 501(c)(3) organization) is limited in the amount of time spent on lobbying. Instead, we helped with general outreach activities (e.g., the documentary film, organizing citizens). Suggested changes to the law focus on ways to minimize the considerable burden that landowners are forced to bear when full extraction mining takes place under their properties. Businesses, whose losses are not adequately covered in the present law, would be better compensated under recently proposed legislation. Our experience supports such changes.

Areas that have a greater population (e.g., some areas of Washington County), can more easily organize to help each other in anticipation of mining. These groups suffer all the common problems of volunteer organizations formed in response to a threat, most notably keeping a critical mass of citizens interested and working, as a kind of “fatigue” sets in.

Public officials vary in their response to the damage. While most have publicly expressed sympathy for the plight of the landowners, few have made real efforts to support any changes to the law. Some were hostile to RPF’s efforts. And while all express caution about any changes that might possibly affect miners’ jobs, few talk about the long-term future for the undermined areas that will have certainly have no recoverable coal and a lower tax base, and most likely, damaged communities and damaged natural water resources.

Environmental Impacts

Therefore, outreach and other efforts on the longwall issue were not compartmentalized. Even before “Subsided Ground” was finished, RPF’s outreach and education efforts equally emphasized the social and environmental problems caused by longwall mining. One difference was that RPF did have direct dealings with the DEP on water resource issues (as opposed to damage to homes).

While damage can occur to surface waters of all sizes, small streams and springs are the most sensitive. Without greater pre-mining information on the flow characteristics of springs, there is no way to predict how mining may affect their flow. Anecdotal reports are that some springs, especially those at higher elevations, are severely affected, and that recovery is questionable. Historically, few pre-mining data were gathered on the flow of small streams and springs, because the mining law and regulations protected only perennial streams. Springs were considered a “water supply” that merely had to be replaced, not protected. It was to the advantage of the coal company to underestimate the amount of water flowing from a spring, because the coal company had to replace the lost water.

In addition, efforts to restore larger streams are moving slowly, if at all. There has been little progress in restoring the streams the DEP itself identified as damaged in its 1999 report on mining damage. That may be because one high-profile restoration (Enlow Fork) was only recently evaluated. There is a difference, however, between restoring the pooling effects, seen mostly on larger streams, and restoring the diminution effects, most noticeable on springs and smaller streams. The difference is that remediation of pooling can most likely be technically corrected, provided enough resources. Restoration of diminished flow, however, is less certain, and requests made of the DEP mining program for successful case studies of the remediation of dewatered springs and small streams went unanswered.

The DEP then spent some time revising its “Technical Guidance Document” to protect surface waters from mining impacts. Conversations with DEP staff in 2003 revealed that the Technical Guidance Document would deal with the issue of spring protection by relying on the fact that the mining law anticipated adverse affects to individual springs. Therefore, such affects are allowable provided that the permit “minimizes the disturbances of the prevailing hydrologic balance.”

No public officials have called for more stringent enforcement of environmental laws to protect water resources, or for the repairing of damaged streams.

Summary and Recommendations

Longwall coal mining is having a disruptive effect on many of the citizens of Greene and Washington counties. There is great stress put upon families when their home is undermined, and the stress begins before mining does and continues long afterwards. The water resources of the area are damaged in the short-term and long-term effects are unknown.

Any calls for changes to the status quo are countered by calls for protecting employment. Because the coal is a non-renewable resource, the situation will not go on indefinitely. The condition of the citizens, towns and natural resources after the coal–and the employment--ends appears to be absent from the agenda of most public officials.

The Raymond Proffitt Foundation recommends the following actions in order to make longwall mining more fair to surface owners and to ensure that the Clean Streams Law is applied to underground coal mining as it is to surface owners:

•          The DEP should establish an Ombudsman or Office of Surface Owner Rights that is not responsible to the District Mining Office, but instead reports directly to the Secretary of Environmental Protection. This office would be a resource for landowners dealing with mining issues, and advocate on behalf of surface owners when they reach an impasse with the mining companies. As other types of mining (e.g., surface mining) also affect surface owners, the new Office need not limit itself to underground mining.

•          The General Assembly should amend the Subsidence Act in order to 1) afford additional protection to historic properties, roads, and utilities, 2) offer compensation for business owners whose business is disrupted, 3) require better analyses of the potential damage to private property before mining occurs, and 4) ensure that surface owners are more timely compensated and their permanent water supply is replaced more quickly.

•          The DEP should use the Clean Streams Law to protect all waters of the Commonwealth, including small springs and streams. Correct decisions on permits cannot be made if the

necessary information is lacking. There needs to be long-term monitoring of areas already undermined, and especially better pre-mining data on areas about to be mined.

•          The DEP should use all of its resources, including those found in other programs to ensure that surface waters are protected and restored. The Water Management program should be involved in the permitting process, both before mining occurs and when restoration is proposed.

If these changes are made, surface owners will receive protection commensurate with their property rights and surface waters will be properly protected from subsidence effects.

<<<<end>>>>