The Raymond Proffitt Foundation hired an aquatic biologist to study streams that have been affected by longwall mining. In addition to surveying streams that have subsidence damage, he has been walking along a lot of dry stream beds in Greene and Washington Counties. Someone asked him recently, "What kind of biology do you study in a dry stream bed?" "Not much," was the reply.

Here are some of the streams that RPF has observed to have been dewatered:

This list is by no means comprehensive. These are five examples that we think should be investigated by DEP to determine if mining has dewatered them. We reported these streams to DEP and they have initiated investigations on all of the above streams; some investigations were started without prodding by RPF. 

We have also reported Beham Run and Laurel Run to the Federal OSM complaining that the dewatering of these streams represented significant environmental harm to the stream  OSM said that they can’t determine with certainty if mining caused the dewatering. But apparently, it doesn’t matter to OSM if mining caused it or not. OSM said that "stream dewatering is an anticipated and frequently temporary impact of planned subsidence that can be addressed under the approved state program"  We expect to continue this discussion with OSM in the future.

Predicting Impacts 101

It is difficult to tease out the dewatering effects of longwall mining subsidence from drought effects–particularly later in the summer and into the fall. If we were running the program, we would require a comparison in time (data from the stream before mining) and in space (a similar stream that won’t be undermined). For a comparison in time, you should have a couple years of data from piezometers (shallow wells that measure the level of the surficial aquifer in relation to streambed elevation) as well as biological data that can reveal stream conditions throughout the life cycle of the animals sampled (some aquatic bugs can be a couple years old and need flowing water their whole life). To examine the effects of mining on the aquatic resources, an agency could then monitor after mining has occurred and compare these results to data collected prior to mining.

For a comparison in space, sampling a reference watershed would work. A reference watershed should be similar in hydrology to the watersheds that will be undermined. By sampling the reference watershed before, during, and after mining, the agency charged to protect the resource will get an idea of what the watershed might have been like in the absence of mining. Also a reference watershed can help an agency account for the vagaries of climate.

These ideas are hardly new. Many presentations at a conference in Morgantown in July 2001 entitled: Methods for Measuring and Evaluating the Effects of Mining on Streams: Implications for Coal Development Assessment, stressed the same points. There were many DEP staff at the conference. Harold Miller, one of DEP’s big mining honchos, gave a presentation at the meeting. Assuming that DEP knows what information they need in order to do their job (protect the public’s resources), the $64,000 question is how much monitoring information and prediction does DEP require of permit applicants?

Time for a Pop Quiz

Groundwater hydrology is extremely complex and predicting what will happen when a stream valley is undermined is no small feat. However, that is exactly what permit applicants are supposed to do according to DEP’s regulations. 25 PA Code, Chapter 89, Subchapter B Operations:

89.35. Prediction of the hydrologic consequences. The operation plan shall include a prediction of the probable hydrologic consequences of the proposed underground mining activities upon the quantity and quality of groundwater and surface water within the proposed permit, adjacent and general areas under seasonal flow conditions. The prediction shall be prepared by a qualified hydrologist or engineer. The probable hydrologic consequences determination shall emphasize the anticipated responses of groundwater and surface water flow, its rate, direction and quality and quantity to the proposed underground mining activities. The prediction shall be based on baseline data collected at the proposed mine site or data statistically representative of the site or a combination of both.

Wading through a longwall mine permit is no small feat, either. But there is considerably more paper than substance. The part of the permit that concerns hydrology is Module 8. Under 8.1 (7) the applicant is asked to list the impact of past mining activities on the quality and quantity of local water resources. For example, in the Enlow Fork Mine SPCA Extension permit, Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company states that: "No major long-term impacts on the quality and quantity of local water resources have been noted as a result of past mining activities." Are we supposed to just trust Consol on this one? Apparently so, because we could not find any data to support this assertion in the file. And if there aren’t adequate pre-mining data collected and submitted to DEP, how can the DEP evaluate this assertion?

Streams within the permit area are listed in Form 8.4B. These streams are surveyed by the coal company. Stream segments are listed, their flow status is shown (as well as the basis used to determine this status), the uses are listed, as well as a calculation of average annual flow. This is extremely important, as it identifies a stream as perennial or intermittent, and Act 54 does not explicitly protect intermittent streams from flow loss (although water quality laws protect existing uses, and Act 54 says that water quality laws apply to mining [link to PU]). But if there are not sufficient data to substantiate an assertion that a stream is intermittent, it is impossible to refute after longwall mining has occurred. If the stream is dry in spots, it is merely pointed out that it was listed as intermittent in the permit application. If no data are collected prior to mining to adequately document the flow and the biology in the stream, how can DEP ensure that it is protected?

Perhaps they use information in their files. The citizen’s group, People United to Save Homes appealed the 84 Mining Company’s permit some time ago. Their appeal was denied by the Environmental Hearing Board, and in extolling DEP and the DEP staff that reviewed the permit, the EHB had this to say: "The Department records constitute a literal ‘treasure trove’ of important mining data which is extremely useful as a benchmark in evaluations of new applications" (EHB decision, July 2, 1999). In the cases of the above dewatered streams, was the "treasure trove" empty that day? Or maybe DEP issued the permits not caring if the streams would be dewatered? If that’s the case, then there would be little use in getting information that would allow DEP to predict (or assess the coal companies’ predictions) if dewatering might happen.

In permit speak, this PHC or "Prediction of Hydrologic Consequences/Protection of Hydrologic Balance" can be found in 8.6 of Module 8. Given the complexity of groundwater hydrology and the vastness of the longwall mining permit area, one might expect a hefty document indeed. Instead, if the Enlow Fork permit extension (December, 1999) is any indication, section 8.6, the prediction of the hydrologic consequences of longwall mining to streams of the permit area, is a whopping 5 pages in length (reminds one of DEP’s report on Act 54, which devoted an entire 2 pages to mining’s effects on streams [link to PU]).

Well, you say, a lot of good information might be contained in the 5 pages of Section 8.6. In fact, there are no actual data at all in this section regarding streams. In part C of section 8.6, the operator is asked to "Provide a narrative description addressing the following concerns and how each will be prevented or mitigated;" one of the "following concern" is: "Flow reduction in streams which overlie the underground permit area." In the Enlow Fork Mine extension application, CONSOL states that it will protect perennial streams (no mention here of intermittent streams; both perennial and intermittent are protected by the water quality laws. Act 54 explicitly says so.) and "maintain the value and existing uses of the stream as it existed prior to mining." If they do adversely affect a stream, "the operator will repair the stream to the extent technologically and economically feasible". Beyond the obvious question of what determines technological and economic feasibility, we are hard pressed to find any data to define the value and existing use of even the perennial streams–after all, they submitted no flow data nor biological data. Looks like permit applicants fail this pop quiz.

Unfortunately, so does Pennsylvania DEP. The OSM Harrisburg Field Office reviewed the procedures last year and written a report entitled "Permitting review of hydrologic determinations and assessments for underground mining operations" (October, 2000). Among other deficiencies, the OSM found that the PHC does not address seasonal variation. Also, the "cumulative hydrologic impact assessment" (a mandated part of the PHC) had not been finalized.

The PHC, which is the heart of Module 8, the most important part of a permit from the standpoint of stream protection, should be getting more and more complete with each permit and as the history of longwall’s effects become known.

Will the new permits for the Emerald Mine Extension and the Eighty Four Mine Extension protect aquatic resources? The permit for the Eighty Four Mine extension, still under review by DEP, has significantly more data contained in it than past permits. But is it good enough? Certainly, under section 8.1 (7) "A narrative description of the impact of past mining activities on the quality and quantity of local water resources" there should certainly be a good narrative regarding the dewatering of Laurel Run, SW15 and SW 20. That, and the "treasure trove" should supply enough information for the DEP to determine the existing uses of the streams and protect those uses. If not, then the permit applications are inadequate and DEP has a duty to tell the applicant to supply the needed information, so that the proper determinations can be made.

If the process is not sufficient, it must be stopped and reconsidered. Otherwise, DEP has insufficient information to assess the applicant’s predictions. This shoddy job by DEP has resulted in substantial damage to water resources and it high time to develop a PHC process that does what the law intends: predicts the probable hydrologic consequences of longwall mining. The DEP needs to develop guidance on how to define existing uses so that they can be protected. DEP must also develop a permitting process that gives them the tools they need to protect the aquatic resource.

In some areas of western Pennsylvania, you can find small villages that retain the names of the historic mines that were there. Sometimes those villages are known by the mine’s number, like "Bethlehem Mine 60." Will we start having to numbering our Dry Gulches because DEP has allowed the coal companies to create so many?

<<<<END>>>>

return