Secretary David E. Hess
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
PO Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

 23 May 2002

 Dear Secretary Hess:

In an “Opinion” column last summer in the DEP Update (31 August 2001), you announced the “Environmental Futures Planning Process” that will further the goals of watershed restoration and protection: 

 Environmental Futures represents a fundamental change in our environmental protection efforts…  With Environmental Futures, we are finally moving away from reacting to one environmental disaster after another – killer smog, scum covered lakes, burning dumps and drinking water that makes people sick – to actively restoring our watersheds, preventing pollution and using our God-given natural resources in a way that sustains them for future generations…

The program certainly sounds ambitious, and if implemented properly it will result in better environmental protection.  I hope that it succeeds.  It is easier to prevent an “environmental disaster” than it is to repair it. 

 We could argue whether the damage recently caused by underground coal mining qualifies as an “environmental disaster.”  But you saw for yourself the damage to Laurel Run, Greene County, and the Department’s own reports on Act 54 identify twenty-four streams where underground coal mining reportedly caused diminution or pooling.  The new “Technical Guidance” that is open for public comment is supposed to address these problems.  After reviewing it (copy of comments enclosed), however, it is clear that the Department’s Mining Program is not on board with your “Environmental Futures” program and is instead facilitating yet another “environmental disaster” associated with coal mining. 

 The document outlines a procedure that has many flaws but is especially egregious in that it 1) continues to rely on a mining program that does not extend basic water quality protection to all protected waters and 2) intends on allowing past practices to continue unabated by ‘grandfathering” in existing mining permits.  

 The Clean Streams Law considers “springs” to be “waters of the Commonwealth” and therefore worthy of protection.  Yet in the draft Guidance, the Mining Program extends the basic protection that the Clean Streams Law provides to only some springs-- only those springs considered “important” for downstream streams and wetlands are going to be considered for protection.  If a homeowner plans to install a single-residence sewage treatment plant that discharges to a drainage ditch or swale, the Department’s Regional Office sends out an aquatic biologist to determine the “point of first use,” and that is where water quality protection begins.  When announcing the draft guidance, you stated that the Department will be “treating longwall mining operations like any other activity” (9 April 2002 press release).  That will not be realized unless water quality standards are applied to coal mining activities in the same manner as they are to other activities. 

You also stated that “we look at the impacts longwall mining could have on each and every stream…”  But the draft Technical Guidance proposes to “phase in” the additional protection by allowing mining under existing permits to occur without implementing the new protection measures.  These permits cover mining that could occur up to five years from now, and will affect many more streams.  If the already-permitted mining causes “alleged incidents of surface water or wetland impacts,” then the Department will “investigate.”  This reactive approach is certainly contrary to the “Environmental Futures” philosophy and probably the law.

 The people in Greene and Washington counties that I have spoken with in the last few months are ready to do their part.  Many of them are helping to clean up Pennsylvania, “watershed by watershed.”  They remain impressed with your visit last fall and hoped that it would result in greater protection.

 But what they do not understand is that your Mining Program continues to misinterpret laws and policies to ease mining at the cost of the surface resources.  The document exemplifies the Mining Program’s misunderstanding of, or unwillingness to use, the basic water quality laws – the same laws that apply to other Pennsylvanians.  I strongly suggest that you transfer the protection of surface waters from underground coal mining from the Mining Program to the appropriate Regional Water Management Program.  Perhaps the coal companies will be inconvenienced, but the citizens and the resources – your true customers – will be better served. 

 Near the end of your Opinion article, you write that the Environmental Futures program will help move us to using “our God-given natural resources in a way that sustains them for future generations…”  The springs and streams of Pennsylvania might be God-given, but the Department’s Mining Program, as the responsible steward, is letting the coal companies take them away. 

 Sincerely,

 C.M. Hersh

Executive Director 

Enclosure

<<<<END>>>>

return