Comment Now on Permit to Undermine Laurel Run

Act 54, relating to underground coal mining in Pennsylvania, mandates that mining follow the water quality laws as well as the mining laws [http://www.rayproffitt.org/pu2000/12202000.htm]. Pennsylvania DEP has made RAG Emerald Resources obtain a "Chapter 105" permit, which is required if someone is going to change the course of a stream. This is a good start, but our review of the application reveals some serious problems. We presented comments at a January 29, 2002, public meeting in Greene County, but you can also submit comments by February 11, 2002 by emailing them to William Plassio, DEP’s District Mining Manager (wplassio@state.pa.us) , or mailing them to him at the address in the sample letter below.

Mr. William Plassio
District Mining Manager
Pennsylvania DEP
3913 Washington Road
McMurray, PA 15317

Dear Mr. Plassio:

This concerns the Chapter 105 permit application of RAG Emerald Resources to undermine and restore the upper reaches of Laurel Run in Greene County. While we are glad that DEP is applying the water quality laws to mining, we are concerned that the permit will not protect the watershed. Aside from the stream itself, there are wetlands, springs, and seeps that are important to the local residents and must be protected through the permit process.

1. RAG offers no measures to avoid or minimize adverse impacts of their mining activity, as required by Pennsylvania regulation. Besides a legal requirement to avoid and minimize impacts, RAG has pledged to protect the stream. Without some discussion on how adverse impacts might be avoided or minimized, this entire permit process simply appears to be a way to legalize the damage RAG plans to cause the upper reaches of Laurel Run.

2. RAG proposes to "restore" the upper reaches of Laurel Run when they have not repaired the lower reaches of Laurel Run, after two years of "restoration" efforts. RAG offers no scientific evidence that restoration is possible on the upper reaches. Their experiences on the lower reaches give us no comfort that it can be reasonably done. There is also no assessment of watershed conditions and health. An unimpaired upper Laurel Run might be necessary to restore the damaged lower reaches of Laurel Run.

3. RAG states that only 0.35 acres of wetlands will be affected by the stream restoration activities, but the Pennsylvania Game Commission determined there are over 4 acres of wetlands that will be undermined. There is no mention of how to restore or replace the functions of these wetlands, let alone avoiding or minimizing impacts to them.

4. RAG’s own consultant recommends additional aquatic biology sampling during different seasons, but RAG wants to mine immediately. The application says that the biological community and the water quality are "good to very good." RAG should be required to provide adequate biological information to determine if any future changes to Laurel Run’s biology are due to mining. This application does not provide enough information.

5. RAG’s application states that "remedial measures should be in place to prevent permanent flow interruptions." The application does not identify any such measures.

6. RAG proposes a "quick emergency response plan"to prevent temporary water loss, but some of those measures might cause more harm than good. RAG proposes to use municipal water to prevent temporary water loss, but the residual chlorine found in municipal water far exceeds the concentrations known to harm aquatic life. In addition, RAG says that some remedial measures, such as pressure grouting, may cause water quality impacts, but does not elaborate nor discuss ways to minimize these impacts.

7. RAG minimizes the possible impacts of water loss to property owners, both in the immediate area and farther downstream. RAG dismisses any possible affect to downstream property owners by saying that "undermining has already impacted adjacent, downstream properties" but it doesn’t think that undermining upstream will cause any additional impacts.

We don’t wish for miners’ safety to be jeopardized. However, it is doubtful that RAG must mine three additional panels to ensure the safety of the miners. Given the controversial nature of this permit, DEP should consider securing an independent analysis of the amount of mining that is needed to ensure the miners’ safety. And while we recognize the importance of jobs, Act 54 did not exempt mining from our water quality laws, it specifically mandated that mining follow those laws. The General Assembly did not intend for mining to occur at any cost to our natural resources.

RAG Emerald needs to supply more information before DEP can act on this permit application. If DEP must make a decision on the information before them, the permit application should be denied. Thank you.

Sincerely,

<<<<END>>>>

return