Sample Letter on the proposed new application form
for bituminous mining permits.

Comments are to be directed to Thomas Callaghan, and
will be accepted by regular mail (address below), fax
(717-783-4675), and email
(callaghan.thomas@a1.dep.state.pa.us), and are
requested by Friday, 30 April 1999.

**************************************

15 April 1999

Thomas Callaghan
PADEP - Bureau of Mining and Reclamation
Rachel Carson State Office Building
P.O. Box 8461
Harrisburg, PA  17105-8461

In re: Comments on Proposed Consolidated Application
       Form for Bituminous Mining Operations

Dear Mr. Callaghan:

This letter is to provide comments on the Draft of a new
application form that would consolidate information
required for underground mining operations, coal
preparation plants, and coal surface disposal
activities.  These comments are provided as a public
service and not on behalf of any client.  They are based
on my experience during more than 20 years as a private-
sector environmental consultant during which time I have
worked closely with various PADEP regulatory programs
and processes.

As a general comment, I believe it is beneficial to
update and consolidate in one application the
information required for each of these various mining
activities.  If diligently and consistently applied, the
requested information would help to ident ify important
environmental resources at risk from mining activities
and potential impacts associated with specific mine
operations.  However, few of the application items are
new, and the proposed application largely reflects a
simple reformatting.  Inasmuch as little substantive
information regarding environmental resources and
potential impacts currently is elicited during the
application/review process, despite regulatory
requirements that would suggest otherwise, I am
skeptical that a new " form" will engender any real
change.  The appearance of a strong regulatory structure
designed to protect environmental resources will not be
effective if DEP continues to ignore the spirit and
intent of its regulations when reviewing mine applicatio
ns and granting permits.

Note: Most typographical errors and punctuation mistakes
are not addressed in these comments.

Instructions for Completing Application

       (A) Section C. Site Information.  So as to
           maintain consistency in the terminology, in
           the several places where the phrase "mine
           site" is used, it should be changed to "mine
           operation".

It is not clear, between the instructions and the form
itself, whether the municipal information is required
for the entire mine site [operation], the center of the
mine site [operation], or the main portal (of
underground mines).  Municipal informat ion should be
required for all sections of a mine operation, including
the entire permit area of an underground mine.

Likewise, the USGS map names should be required for all
sections of a mine operation, including the entire
permit area of an underground mine.

It may be of interest to the DEP to know the latitude
and longitude at the center of the mine site [operation]
and at the main portal (of underground mines).  The
latitude and longitude at the center of the entire
permit area of an underground mine a lso should be
required.

In naming the streams receiving drainage from a proposed
mine site [operation], it is not clear whether the DEP
wants only streams receiving proposed discharges or all
streams toward which the land surface within the mine
permit area drains.  I sugge st that the latter should
be required because all of the streams are at risk of
impact.

       (B) Section D. Permit Coordination.  To ensure
           that the necessary coordination is
           accomplished, the applicant should be
           required to furnish a copy of any contact
           with, and response from, the noted Air
           Quality and Water Quality Protection
           offices.

       (C) Section E. Application Fee.  Reference is
           made to the Chapter 105 general permits that
           may be applicable but which require no
           additional fee.  To assist the applicant, a
           copy of the referenced Notification Form and
           related information shou ld be appended to
           this application.

       (D) Section G. Additional Related Information.
           The phrase "Public Office" should be changed
           to "Public Review Office" in the four places
           used here so as to be consistent with the
           phrase used in the title of Appendix B.
           Similarly, the final phrase "public copy"
           should be changed to "public review copy".

There is a statement that "applications containing
revised or new underground acreage or revised subsidence
control plan acreage shall be made available at the
county recorder or deeds office".  Does this mean that
these applications only need to be available at the
county recorder of deeds office, or in addition to being
available at the county public review office?

There is a statement that "Underground mine applications
which do not propose new or revised underground acreage
or revised subsidence control plan acreage..." - can
there really be such a thing?  If so, it goes on to say
that such applications "shal l be made available for
public review at the McMurray district mining office."
Does this mean that these applications only need to be
available at McMurray, or in addition to being available
at the county public review office?

Even with the graph in Appendix E it is confusing where
a review copy of an application is supposed to be
located, and why.  For simplicity, one public review
copy should always be required to be on file at the
county conservation district office, at minimum.  If
desirable, a public review copy of certain underground
applications also could be made available at the
McMurray office and/or at the county recorder of deeds.

The applicant is asked to indicate (yes or no) whether
reclamation fees have been paid.  Proof of payment
should be required if the answer is "yes".

The instructions request "the date the application was
completed and forwarded to DEP", but there is no box
designated in Section G for this date.  Such a box
should be provided.

Appendix E makes a confusing reference to the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), but that federal agency
currently is known as the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS).  The reference may actually intend to
refer to the County Conservation Dis trict (see Appendix
B).  As noted above, for simplicity, at least one public
review copy should always be required to be on file at
the County Conservation District.

Application Modules

       (E) APPLICATION MODULE 1.  The box for Types of
           Mining Activity includes a fourth type,
           "Refuse Reprocessing".  This activity should
           be included in the title of the application
           along with the other three activities.

In Section C, municipal information and USGS map names
should be required for any section of an underground
mine within the permit area, not merely the main portal
location.   Likewise, the latitude/longitude coordinates
should be provided for the ce nter of the underground
permit area, not only for the main portal location.

In Section E, the phrase "(make check payable to
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania)" would be more
appropriately moved to the end next to "Total
Application Fee".

The fee for an underground mine activity should be
separated from that for a coal preparation plant.
Furthermore, the fee for an underground mine activity
should not be $250, but should be the same as for a
Refuse Disposal activity ($500 + $10 for e very acre
within the permit area over 50).  This will allow the
review of underground applications to be more
appropriately funded.

In Section G, the term "Public Office" should be changed
to "Public Review Office".  If the answer is "yes" to
the question about payment of reclamation fees, proof of
payment should be required.

       (E) APPLICATION MODULE 2.  The revision dates
           should be changed from "11/98" to "3/99", or
           whatever future date this form is adopted.

       (F) APPLICATION MODULE 4., Section 4.5 Streams
           In "a)", in addition to asking whether the
           proposed permit area is within a "high
           quality" watershed, the application should
           ask whether it is within an "exceptional
           value" watershed.

Line "b)" should be revised to read as follows: Will
surface or underground activities be conducted within
100 feet (measured horizontally) from the bank of any
intermittent or perennial stream?

Wetland encroachments are restricted activities in
accordance with Chapter 105 regulations.  (An
"encroachment" is defined as any activity which changes,
expands, or diminishes the course, current or cross
section of a waterway or wetland.)  Thus, it would be
appropriate to include a new subsection as follows: 4.7
Wetlands.  Will any proposed surface or underground
activities create a wetland encroachment (yes or no).
If yes, complete Module 15.

       (G) APPLICATION MODULE 6.  In Section 6.1.g, the
           item should be revised as follows: State and
           public parks in order to be consistent with
           Sections 6.2.e.19 and 6.3.e.17.

In Section 6.2.a, the last word in the first line
("area") should be plural ("areas").

In Section 6.2.e.4., wetlands are to be identified on
the map.  A note should be added as follows: Wetlands
are to be identified and delineated in accordance with
the Department's Wetland Delineation Policy referenced
in 25 PA Code Section 105.451.  Furthermore, it would be
appropriate to require that any wetland delineation be
formally confirmed by either the DEP or the Army Corps
of Engineers.

If Section 6.2.e.7. includes railroad spurs or sidings
that may be needed to bring coal in or out, that should
be clearly stated.  If it does not include them, a
separate item (#29) should be added for railroad spurs
and sidings.

In Section 6.3.e.5., wetlands are to be identified on
the map.  A note should be added as follows: Wetlands
are to be identified and delineated in accordance with
the Department's Wetland Delineation Policy referenced
in 25 PA Code Section 105.451.  Furthermore, it would be
appropriate to require that any wetland delineation be
formally confirmed by either the DEP or the Army Corps
of Engineers.

       (H) APPLICATION MODULE 7.  In Section 7.8.a.5.,
           it is unclear what is meant by "equivalent
           information".  This should be clarified.

       (I) APPLICATION MODULE 8.  The introductory
           paragraph in Section 8.1. is very clear in
           stating that separate descriptions should be
           provided for the underground mine permit area
           and any surface activity sites, and that the
           information presente d must be specific to
           the permit area.  Both are quite appropriate
           requirements.

In Section 8.3.b.1., information on "general quality
characteristics" of the streams is requested, but it is
unclear what these characteristics are or upon what they
are to based.  A statement similar to that found at
Section 15.2.c. should be added to require applicants to
characterize the resident aquatic community, including
macroinvertebrates.

In Section 8.3.b.2.ii., the second bulleted item should
be changed to "a calculation of the respective drainage
areas..."  Just above that the word "or" should be
changed to "and", and before that the word "either"
should be changed to "both", so tha t both a map and a
calculation of drainage areas is required to be
provided.

Section 8.3.e. should be revised to require that
wetlands also be indicated where they are on, or within
1,000 feet of, an underground mine permit area.  Surface
activities are not the only ones that can have adverse
impacts to wetlands.  Indeed, the surface water quality
effects of longwall mining can be as bad as, or worse
than, surface mining.  In accordance with PA Code
Chapter 105, an "encroachment" includes any activity
which changes, expands, or diminishes the course,
current or cross sec tion of a waterway or wetland.

In Section 8.4.a., the word "should" in the first line
should be changed to either "shall" or "must" in order
to indicate that the seven listed sampling points are
not discretionary.

In Section 8.4.a.2., it should be made clear how to
determine how many samples in springs, seeps, and
wetlands are necessary to be "representative" of the
surface and groundwater systems in the area.  Some
minimum number, perhaps 50%, should be sampl ed.

In Section 8.4.a.3., it is not stated that only a
"representative" number of springs, seeps, and wetlands
are to be sampled in the areas within 1,000 feet, so
presumably all of them must be sampled.  For clarity,
the word "All" should be added in fro nt of the word
"streams".

In Section 8.4.d.1., the phrase "...the operator may be
required to take..." should be changed to "...the
operator shall be required to take ...", so as not to
make it discretionary.  Further, the last sentence
(beginning "The need for this...") shou ld be deleted.

       (J) APPLICATION MODULE 9.  In Section
           9.1.e.19.ii., it is unclear whether "surface
           areas affected by subsidence" refers to those
           already so affected or those potentially
           affected.  This should be clarified.

In Section 9.1.e.19.iii., the repeated word "coal"
before "refuse disposal" should be deleted.

       (K) APPLICATION MODULE 10.  In Section
           10.1.a.3.i., "monitoring" should be added to
           the list of operational activities, as
           follows:  "... the systems that will be used
           to monitor, collect, manage...".

In Section 10.1.a.3.ii., the word "outline" should be
replaced by "describe in detail".  THIS IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT.  According to the regulations (Section 90.3.)
the very first general permit requirement is stated as
follows:

The person who conducts coal refuse disposal activities
shall maximize, to the extent technologically and
economically feasible and consistent with applicable
deep mine safety requirements, the underground disposal
of refuse in abandoned, inactive or active deep mines,
or in abandoned, or unreclaimed surface mines.

Unless backstowing is accorded the serious consideration
it was meant to be given, the significant adverse
environmental impacts associated with subsidence and
surface spoil disposal will not truly be minimized.

In Section 10.4., the concept "substantial earth moving"
is not defined.  A suggested threshold would be:
whenever a soil erosion and sediment control plan is
necessary in accordance with Soil Conservation District
guidelines.

In Section 10.4., the last part of the sentence should
be revised as follows: "... materials will be monitored
and handled".

       (L) APPLICATION MODULE 11.  Section 11.3 should
           apply to railroad sidings and railroad spurs
           that are needed to bring coal to or from the
           site.  The simplest way would be to change
           the subtitle as follows: Haul Roads
           (including railroad siding s and railroad
           spurs).

In Section 11.3.a.5., "or wetland" should be added after
the words "perennial stream".  Wetland road crossings
are restricted in accordance with Chapter 105
regulations.

       (M) APPLICATION MODULE 13.  In Section 13.4.b.,
           who is to determine "Where impounded water
           has the potential to cause groundwater
           contamination or to aggravate an existing
           groundwater problem"?  This should not be
           left up to the applicant.  In stead, it
           should be made into a yes/no question: "Does
           any impounded water have the potential...?"
           and the applicant should be required to
           describe the basis for the determination, and
           provide the data and justification upon which
           the determination w as made.

In Section 13.5 a new subsection should be added: e)
Monitoring Plan.  This will help to support the
determination made in 13.4.

It is not appropriate that the form on page 13-3
(entitled "To Be Completed After Construction") be
completed by the permittee.  Rather, it should be
completed by the DEP following field inspection.

       (N) APPLICATION MODULE 14.  Long-term monitoring
           should be required to ensure that the liners
           are functioning effectively.  Thus, in
           Section 14.4., a new subsection should be
           added: f) Monitoring Plan.

       (O) APPLICATION MODULE 15. Streams/Wetlands  This
           module is extremely important for
           environmental protection purposes.  POSSIBLY
           THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY OF THE
           PROPOSED APPLICATION FORM IS THAT MODULE 15
           DOES NOT ADDRESS UNDERGROUND MI NING
           ACTIVITIES, BUT ONLY SURFACE ACTIVITIES.
           THIS IS A MAJOR CHANGE FROM THE EXISTING
           FORM, AND IT IS UNACCEPTABLE.  Wherever the
           phrases "surface activities" or "surface
           mining activities" are used in this module
           (particularly in the first sentenc e of
           Sections 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3) they should be
           changed to "surface or underground
           activities" or "surface or underground mining
           activities", respectively.

Section 15.1. should reinstate subsection "g)" which is
a part of the existing Module 14: Streams/Wetlands for
Bituminous Underground Mine Applications, and which
states: A characterization of the existing water quality
and quantity of the stream, in cluding downstream water
uses, and 25 PA Code Chapter 93 Protected Water Use
Classification.

Similarly, Section 15.2. should reinstate as subsection
"h)" the subsection (c) which is a part of the existing
Module 14: Streams/Wetlands for Bituminous Underground
Mine Applications, and which states: A characterization
of the existing water quali ty and quantity of the
stream, including downstream water uses, and 25 PA Code
Chapter 93 Protected Water Use Classification.

In Section 15.3., as in the existing Module 14:
Streams/Wetlands for Bituminous Underground Mine
Applications, it should be explicitly stated that
wetlands within the proposed permit area "...should be
identified and delineated in accordance with the
Department's Wetland Delineation Policy referenced in 25
PA Code Section 105.451)...".  Furthermore, it would be
appropriate to require that any wetland delineation be
formally confirmed by either the DEP or the Army Corps
of Engineers.  In addition , the total wetland acreage
within the proposed permit area should be provided by
the applicant in this section of the form as is
currently required.

In Section 15.3.a., as in existing Module 14, the
applicant should be required to provide a discussion for
any "no" response to questions 1 or 2, identifying how
the determination was made and indicating any contacts
with state and federal agency per sonnel.

Section 15.3.a.6. should be split into two parts, as
follows, because there are two important considerations
raised here that should be addressed separately:
       6a) Is the wetland part of, or located along, an
existing public or private drinking water supply?
       6b) If 6a is "yes", does the wetland maintain the
quality or quantity of the drinking water supply?
       (If the answer to 6a is "yes" and the answer to
6b is "no", provide documentation to support the
determination.)

In Section 15.3.a. Wetland Functions, as in the existing
Module 14, the following note should be included: "A
response to questions 10 through 17 is necessary for
each wetland identified and delineated."  Furthermore,
it would be useful to require th e applicant to explain
what functions each wetland provides, particularly if a
"no" response is given for all of the listed functions
(it is unlikely that the wetlands in proposed mine sites
provide none of the functions that wetlands everywhere
else typically provide).

Sections 15.4.c. and 15.4.d. should be reworded slightly
to say: "Will any wetlands be directly (or indirectly)
affected?  If so, provide the following information.  If
not, provide the basis for your conclusion.   This will
help elicit a more meanin gful response.

Section 15.4.d. is particularly relevant to underground
mining activities, because the mining itself, and the
resulting subsidence, often contribute to an alteration
of surface water systems, including wetland hydrology.

It is unclear in Section 15.4.e. what is meant by "... a
major impairment of the wetland resource..."  However,
the request for an explanation should provide an insight
into the applicant's conclusion.

Section 15.5.a.1. is not as clear as it could be.  I
suggest the following minor rewording: "Identify the
existing wetlands to be disturbed, replacement wetlands
that will be constructed, and existing wetlands in the
vicinity of the proposed replacem ent wetlands.  Provide
the area (in acres) for each."

In the final sentence in Section 15.5., I suggest
changing "... located within the same general area as
the ..." to "... located in the same general watershed
as the ...".  "Area" could be too broadly interpreted;
"watershed" is not only more specifi c but is more
appropriate in terms of replacing wetland functions and
values.

In Form 15A, a NOTE should be added that says:
"Explanations for the responses to questions 1, 2, 6,
and 10 through 17 should be provided as appropriate." so
as to provide insight into the applicant's rationale.

       (P) APPLICATION MODULE 17.  The several
           references to the Soil Conservation Service
           should be corrected because that federal
           agency currently is known as the Natural
           Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

In Section 17.4.b., the "?" should be changed to ".".

       (Q) APPLICATION MODULE 18.  In Section 18.5.d.3.,
           an additional phrase should be added to the
           end of the sentence to make the response more
           meaningful, as follows: "... grouping and
           distribution of the plants, and the type of
           wildlife habitat to be created."

In Section 18.6.b., habitats of unusually high value
"adjacent to" the surface activity site are to be
identified, but the "adjacent" distance to be
investigated is unclear.  A specific distance should be
provided.

       (R) APPLICATION MODULE 22.  THIS MODULE, WHICH IS
           EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
           PROTECTION PURPOSES, CONTAINS MAJOR
           DEFICIENCIES.  Impacts to streams, wetlands,
           and other surface water and groundwater
           resources cannot be properly asses sed or
           anticipated unless there is baseline
           information about conditions prior to mining
           and additional information about conditions
           during and after mining.  In most places no
           information is available, and thus monitoring
           is necessary to produce the information.
           Unfortunately, this important factor appears
           to have been overlooked in the drafting of
           this module.  One relatively simple way to
           correct this deficiency would to make
           reference to the monitoring required in
           Module 8.

In Section 22.1.g.4., the term "significant sources of
public water supply" should be defined.  Also, as
defined in PA Code Chapter 105, a "body of water"
includes natural or artificial lakes, ponds, reservoirs,
swamps, marshes, or wetlands.  Does th e same definition
apply here?  If not, Wetlands should be added as a new
subsection "5)".  Additionally, it would be appropriate
to add two other subsections as follows: "6) Streams"
and "7) Fish and wildlife habitats".

Section 22.1.j.1. should be revised as follows: "If the
mine is existing, indicate whether any monitoring data
exist to determine whether it has caused stream flow
reductions....  If the monitoring data indicate it has,
describe .... Also, indicate i f the stream has
recovered or was successfully repaired, and provide
documentation."

Section 22.1.j.2. should be revised as follows: "If no
monitoring data of adverse impacts on streams exists,
indicate whether... ".

Section 22.1.j.3. makes reference to Form 22.17, but no
such form is included in the draft application.  Should
this be a reference to Form 22.1?

Section 22.1.j.5. directs the applicant to "provide
information on a comparison site..." to demonstrate a
potential lack of adverse impacts.  First, on what basis
is the "comparison site" to be chosen?  How can the
applicant and DEP ensure that condi tions truly are
comparable on both?  Second, rather than mere guesswork,
which is essentially what the "comparison site" analysis
will provide, applicants and the DEP should be
developing actual background data to support these "no
impact" determinat ions.  Accordingly, a final sentence
should be added to Section 22.1.j.5.: "To demonstrate a
lack of actual impacts, provide a plan for monitoring
conditions during and after the completion of mining.

A new subsection "6)" should be added to Section
22.1.j.: Describe measures which will be taken to
mitigate damages to streams, including adverse effects
on fish and wildlife habitat.

Section 22.1.r. is the first mention of monitoring in
this Module, but it is stated in such a way as to make
it appear to be discretionary.  Monitoring should be
required, and at minimum it should be done in several
wetlands, several perennial stream s, several
intermittent streams, several forested areas, and
several ponds, lakes, or other impoundments.  To the
list of stated purposes of monitoring "to prevent,
reduce, or correct subsidence related damage" should be
added "to identify", because unless you are aware of the
damage in the first place, you cannot or will not take
steps to prevent, reduce, or correct it.

On Form 22.1, the statement is made that the "zone of
potential influence" is "pertinent to" whether
demonstrations or monitoring are necessary.  This
statement perpetrates an unsubstantiated presumption
begun in Section 22.1.j. that no adverse strea m impacts
will occur from mining that is conducted outside this
so-called "zone of potential influence".  DEP should
collect additional documentation in support of this
presumption before it uses it as a basis for absolving
mine applicants from provi ding information crucial to a
rational environmental assessment.

In Section 22.4.d., two important resources have been
omitted; they should be added as new subsections: 25)
Wetlands. and 26) Recorded habitat of threatened or
endangered species.

       (S) APPLICATION MODULE 24. To be consistent with
           the checklist on Module 2, and also because
           it would be a more appropriate term, the word
           "Statement" in the title of this section
           should be changed to "Justification".

This module addresses impacts on "high quality" waters.
Should not "exceptional value" waters receive similar,
if not more protective, treatment?

It would be appropriate to add a new subsection to
Section 24.1.a. as follows:  "9) A map showing the mine
permit area, subsidence control area, surface activity
areas, the high quality (and exceptional value?)
watershed, and existing land use.

Subsections a, b, and c in Section 24.1 address three of
the four types of mining activities listed on page 1-1
of the application form.  Should there not be a
subsection that similarly addresses the fourth, Refuse
Reprocessing?

Section 24.1.c.4., should be revised as follows:
"...measures which will be taken to monitor and prevent
long term...".  As mentioned above, unless you are aware
of the problem in the first place, you cannot or will
not take steps to prevent it.

Section 24.3.a. should be supplemented with the
following parenthetical note: (Show all land uses,
including recreational uses, on the map prepared for
Section 24.1.a.9.).

Section 24.3.c. should be supplemented as follows: "...
describe the potential effects, including dewatering or
contamination of any streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, or
other impoundments."

Section 24.3.e.3. should be supplemented as follows:
"... discharges in this watershed?  Provide
documentation."

In Section 24.4.b.1., change the "?" to a ".".

In Section 24.5., delete the words "in your opinion".
The response will be the same and it primarily will be
opinion anyway.

       (T) APPLICATION MODULE 26. Subsections c) and d)
           in Section 26.1. refer to abandoned
           underground mines to be reaffected, so it
           would be reasonable to assume that the first
           sentence in this Module should be corrected
           as follows: "...will involv e the remining of
           abandoned surface or underground mine land."

For the same reason as stated immediately above, the
first sentence in Section 26.4 should be corrected as
follows: "...plan that includes the surface activity
site or underground permit area ..."

In Section 26.4.o., "haul roads" should be defined to
include railroad spurs or railroad sidings that will be
needed to bring coal to or from the site.

In Section 26.5.b., the statement is made that a
"sufficient number" of samples should be collected.  DEP
should provide a suggested minimum number or frequency,
if possible.

In Section 26.6.c., the applicant is asked about the
"anticipated" pollution reduction benefit" and the
"predicted" impact on water quality.  While these
guesstimates may be of some interest, it would be far
better to collect actual monitoring data s o as to
identify the actual benefits and impacts realized.  This
will provide a useful database of information to support
future remining efforts.  Thus, there should be a new
subsection as follows:
       d) Provide a monitoring plan that will be
designed and implemented to identify actual benefits and
impacts in light of those anticipated.  Monitoring
should begin prior to the remining operation and should
continue a minimum of 10 years after the operation has
ended.

Footnote #3 in Exhibit 26.5(A) should be corrected as
follows: "... flow to surface water (SW), flow to ground
water (GW), or flow to mine pool (MP).

In conclusion, many of the proposed changes provide
useful reformatting, but a few significant items have
been omitted or deleted.  In particular, the numerous
environmental resources at risk from underground mining
operations are afforded little scr utiny, the need to
consider procedures such as backstowing as alternatives
to surface spoil disposal is downplayed, and the need to
provide baseline and ongoing monitoring of site
conditions and impacts is minimized.  Simple changes in
the applicatio n form will not result in any greater
level of environmental protection unless the DEP
enforces the informational requirements in a thorough
and consistent manner.  The regulatory structure already
is fairly strong in terms of environmental protectio n;
it is the implementation and enforcement of those
regulations that historically has been lacking.

The DEP has been highlighting the partnerships it is
fostering and developing with local communities and
organizations in an attempt to protect and enhance the
resources of the Commonwealth.  Yet some of the best
environmental protection comes in the form of pollution
prevention, as the opportunity to prevent pollution and
other serious impacts associated with mining activities
is greatest when applications for permits are under
review.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
If a comment/response document is compiled, kindly send
me a copy.

                                Yours truly,

                                Stephen P. Kunz
                                Certified Senior
                                Ecologist (ESA)
                                1201 Ceadar Grove Road
                                Media, Pa.  19063-1044
                                Ph. 610-356-1416
                                Fx. 610-356-3629

<<<<END>>>>

return