Return to Table of Contents

On February 4, 2004, Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton and Office of Surface Mining Director, Jeff Jarrett met with Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, U.S. Representatives John Peterson and Don Sherwood, and Director of the Central Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Tim Schaeffer.  At the press conference, Secretary Norton announced the Administration's proposal to accelerate the cleanup of dangerous abandoned coal mines.  Pennsylvania has more than $1 billion worth of high priority abandoned mine health and safety hazards that require reclamation.  Under the proposal Pennsylvania would receive an increase in its annual reclamation grant of nearly 50 percent, from $24.1 million to $35.5 million.

In the following photograph, Secretary Norton and Director Jarrett are at an abandoned mine site near Shenandoah, Pennsylvania which is about 1,000 feet from a residential area.  Mining stopped there in the late 1960s, and its deceptively enticing waters have lured at least two people to their deaths.  It is estimated that it will cost about $28 million to reclaim the Shen-Penn pit. While at that site, Paul Hummel, from PADEP described rescues that were needed at abandoned underground mines where people entered the dangerous workings and became trapped.

General Outreach

OSM continued interacting with citizens groups, industry and other State and Federal agencies on oversight and State program initiatives.  The PFD met with industry representatives such as the Pennsylvania Coal Association and attended the MRAB meetings to provide input on oversight initiatives and explain new OSM programs.

Appalachian Clean Streams Program

OSM continues to provide assistance to PADEP and numerous local groups and associations in promoting the cleanup of AMD impacted streams through the Appalachian Clean Streams Program (ACSP).  Since 1996, when the program was first funded, about $14.4 million in clean stream grants have been awarded in Pennsylvania.  PADEP has identified 27 projects across the coalfields of Pennsylvania to receive this funding.  So far, 18 projects have been completed, 5 are in construction, and 4 are in design. These projects are being accomplished in partnership with other agencies and watershed groups to maximize the effectiveness of the cleanup effort. 

Watershed Cooperative Assistance Program

The PFD Harrisburg Office staff attends workshops, and individual watershed meetings throughout the year in support of AMD clean-up efforts and PADEP programs.  Also, under the umbrella of ACSP, OSM has budget authority to enter into project agreements with local non-profit watershed groups to remediate AMD.  Under this program OSM has funded 51 Watershed Cooperative Assistance Program (WCAP) projects in Pennsylvania for a total amount of $4.8 million. The total contribution to these projects, from all partners, is $20.3 million.  During the evaluation period, 18 new cooperative agreement projects were funded in the total amount of $1.66 million. These projects involve multiple partners, providing financial and other assistance.  PADEP is providing financial and technical assistance on a significant number of these projects, and the PFD Harrisburg Office has noted an increasing number of applicant referrals from Growing Greener watershed coordinators due to budget constraints in that program.

The Harrisburg staff is also providing significant technical assistance to PADEP and watershed groups in characterizing the chemical properties of mine drainage, and providing possible treatment solutions.

Amendments to the Pennsylvania Approved Regulatory Program

The PFD Harrisburg Office made significant progress in reviewing several outstanding program amendments during this evaluation year.  OSM and PADEP agree that effective resolution of outstanding required amendments remains a high priority for both agencies, and continued a series of initiatives to resolve several outstanding issues.  The two agencies have been operating under a team approach to develop possible resolutions for each required amendment codified in 30 CFR 938.16.  These approaches seek to improve public commenting opportunities and to simplify and shorten the process for modifying the approved Pennsylvania program. This cooperative effort has proven to be a very effective approach to resolving complex and controversial issues. 

PADEP submitted a formal amendment request on August 27, 2003 (Administrative Record No. PA 841.65) to address OSM’s requirements set forth in 30 CFR 938.16(hhhh)–(bbbbbb) regarding mine subsidence control, subsidence damage repair or compensation, and water supply replacement or restoration due to the surface effects of underground mining.  On September 22, 2003, OSM published this submission for public comment and also issued a separate proposed rule to supersede six portions of the Pennsylvania’s Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act (BMSLCA) (68 FR 55106–55134).  OSM and PADEP held consecutive public hearings on October 15, 2003, in Indiana, Pennsylvania and October 16, 2003, in Washington, Pennsylvania.  As of this report date, OSM is in the review process, but expects that a final rule will be issued within the next evaluation year.

OSM is continuing to review another complex amendment submitted by PADEP in 1998 regarding changes to PASMCRA and to the regulations at 25 Pa. Code Chapters 86-90 by Acts 173 and 43.  Among many components, this amendment addresses water losses due to the effects of surface mining operations. Review will continue into the 2005 evaluation year, and rulemaking is also expected in 2005.

OSM published a final rule approving a submission by PADEP resolving the seven required amendments at 30 CFR 938.16(vv) – (bbbb).  This amendment provided for changes related to the Coal Refuse Disposal Control Act and the implementing regulations.  In the same Federal Register dated October 2, 2003 (68 FR 56765-56776), OSM approved and removed two required amendments at 30 CFR 938.16(k) which were corrections to cross references in the PASMCRA, and 30 CFR 938.16(hh) which required that PADEP amend its program to be no less effective than 30 CFR 784.14(h) (1).

OSM published a final rule to remove a required amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(ffff) regarding the review and approval of the configuration and species composition for reclaimed forest land.  This final rule was published on August 27, 2003 (68 FR 51447-51449).

In the last evaluative year, Pennsylvania submitted a proposed amendment to revise 25 Pa. Code Chapters 210 and 211 pertaining to the use and handling of explosives and the licensing of blasters.  As a result of OSM’s review, these changes were approved and included into the Pennsylvania program on August 15, 2003 (68 FR 48789–48798).

On June 5, 2003, PADEP provided information to OSM (Administrative Record Nos. PA 802.27 and PA 802.28) to remove a required amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(h).  This letter addressed the outstanding obligation established by OSM requiring that PADEP demonstrate that the revenues generated by its collection of the reclamation fee will assure that Pennsylvania’s Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Fund can be operated in a manner that will meet the Alternative Bonding System (ABS) requirements contained in the Federal regulations.  In addition, 30 CFR 938.16(h) required that Pennsylvania clarify the procedures to be used for bonding the surface impacts of underground mines and the procedures to reclaim underground mining permits where the operator has defaulted on the obligation to reclaim.  This required amendment was approved and removed in the final rule published on October 7, 2003 (68 FR 57805-57814).

 

IV.    Major Accomplishments and Innovations in the

          Pennsylvania Program

Accomplishments/Innovations

Coal Regulatory Program Activities - Bonding

During the 2002 evaluation year, OSM and PADEP cooperated to address the OSM October 1, 1991, notice to PADEP under 30 CFR 732.17, that the Pennsylvania ABS was not in conformance with SMCRA and Federal regulations.  Key components of the resolution were PADEP’s completion of the process to require full cost bonding on all active mine sites covered by the ABS, the provision of $5.5 million in general revenues by the Pennsylvania legislature to make up for a land reclamation funding shortfall under the prior ABS, and the development of a statewide plan to address pollutional discharges from sites forfeited under ABS.  During this evaluation year, PADEP operated a full cost bonding system for all active coal mining permits, initiated administrative changes to expedite bond forfeiture reclamation, and began the process to address discharges on bond forfeiture sites that operated under the prior ABS.  PADEP continued the process of requiring active mines to post full cost bonds or other financial assurance for pollutional discharges.

With regard to management of full cost bonding for all coal mining permits, PADEP conducted an internal review during this evaluation period to determine if new conventional bonding guidelines were being successfully implemented.  PADEP reported that a review of 44 randomly selected sites found that revised bonding guidelines were accurately applied by the Department and that field staff conducted the monitoring necessary to ensure that operations were contained within the limits of the permit.  As a result of the internal review, PADEP is also making some system improvements.  Specifically, PADEP plans to improve the process by providing some better definitions of terms, modifying internal inspection reports, and revising the calculations for multiple seam operations.  PADEP is working on revisions on the technical guidance for conventional bonding.

Bond rate guidelines were updated based on the most recent contracting data.  Outreach with the MRAB was completed to include them in the process.  In general, the bond rate for a given unit operation is the weighted average of the three lowest bids for that unit operation.  Some unit operations were combined to streamline the guidelines.  Guidelines were consolidated resulting in a simpler per-acre rate for revegetation.

PADEP initiated changes in the administration of the primacy bond forfeiture reclamation program during this period.  PADEP advised OSM that to increase efficiency it will prioritize sites based upon the seriousness of environmental problems and to rely more heavily on the original mine plan specifications.  Under the revised program, PADEP also plans to conduct pilot projects during the 2004 review period to address primacy bond forfeitures with AMD discharges.

As part of the resolution to OSM’s October 1, 1991, notice to PADEP under 30 CFR 732.17, PADEP agreed to prioritize efforts to address primacy forfeiture mine drainage impacts on a watershed basis through a suite of financial and reclamation mechanisms.  During this evaluation period, PADEP continued to develop the necessary Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) specifications for waters of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has a process that develops stream segment TMDLs in two-year time blocks.  In March 2005, PADEP expects to complete another development period and designate up to 53 new coal mine drainage related TMDLs.  As discussed above, PADEP is altering its primacy bond forfeiture reclamation program and plans to specifically address sites with AMD discharges.  PADEP is considering the effects of pollutional discharges on stream loading and water supplies in an effort to prioritize primacy forfeitures from the previous ABS.  During the review period, OSM and PADEP continued to cooperate in the maintenance of the inventory of forfeiture discharges.  OSM provided significant technical assistance in the form of primacy forfeiture discharge review.  OSM field reviews were conducted to refine discharge information and to provide PADEP with better estimates of abatement costs.

PADEP continued to make progress towards bonding of pollutional discharges on active mine sites.  Since OSM and PADEP determined the ABS bonding issue resolved in June 2003, PADEP has conducted outreach meetings with the industry and has sent letters to operators that have pollutional discharges on active primacy mine sites.  The purpose of the outreach is to notify operators of the requirement to submit a conventional bond covering treatment costs, to explain the bond calculation methodology, and to encourage operators to begin the bonding process.  PADEP also informed operators that if they are unable to post the required bond, the Department may use its enforcement authority to arrange alternative financial coverage in the form of treatment trusts.  PADEP is in the process of mailing a follow-up letter to all operators with primacy discharges in an effort to set up individual appointments to finalize the bond.  PADEP has advised that the follow-up letters are being sent on a prioritized basis.  If necessary, PADEP plans to send a final letter that will compel the remaining operators to post the required bond to cover potential treatment costs.

During this evaluation period, PADEP used their Consent Order and Agreement (CO&A) enforcement authority to complete three new treatment trust agreements with mine operators covering 48 discharges on 27 permits.  The 48 discharges include 32 treatment facilities (ponds and chemical systems).  The majority of the discharges covered by the agreements are associated with primacy program permits.  Pre-primacy discharges are included in trust agreements whenever possible.  Once fully funded, the trusts will represent approximately $27 million in financial guarantees toward the treatment of pollutional discharges.  The agreements ranged in size from $39,000 to $19.9 million.  As of the end of this evaluation period, PADEP was working on an additional 16 trust agreements covering multiple discharges.

Remining

Pennsylvania continues to be successful in developing remining initiatives aimed at reclaiming lands through additional mining activity.  PADEP has been pro-active in working with other agencies to identify options to existing regulatory requirements to facilitate remining operations.  As noted in previous years, a number of remining incentives were included in amendments to Pennsylvania SMCRA (Act 173 of February 1993).  PADEP’s remining efforts were an important part of the “Reclaim PA” initiative announced on October 23, 1998.  The success of this program has been significant in achieving reclamation of mined lands that otherwise would have remained in an unreclaimed and degraded state.  Reclaim PA is a statewide approach to maximizing reclamation of Pennsylvania’s abandoned mineral extraction legacy.  Reclaim PA contains a number of program initiatives that integrate existing and newly created resources.  With respect to the coal program, Reclaim PA provides incentives to operators that do remining; reduces the legal and environmental risks to the operator; and reduces the paperwork required for operators to remine AML.  In addition, part of the initiative includes incentives for mine operators to remine and reclaim abandoned mines at no cost to taxpayers.  This initiative by the state has resulted in almost one thousand acres of land being returned to productive, pre-mining uses, has reduced sedimentation of streams and has enhanced the potential for over-all improvements to stream water quality, quantity and habitats.  During this evaluation year, the Pennsylvania mining industry initiated 40 remining projects involving 540 acres for a total reclamation value of approximately $2,509,000.

Reclamation in-Lieu-of Cash Payment for Civil Penalties

PADEP also continued its “reclamation in-lieu-of civil penalty” projects.  PADEP maintains a list of abandoned or bond forfeited sites that need additional reclamation to stabilize environmental conditions.  Operators with assessed civil penalties can propose to expend at least an equivalent value in reclamation on one of these sites, or another of its choosing with PADEP approval, as long as the site is not owned or controlled by the operator, and the operator does not have a financial interest in the site.  The operator must submit a reclamation proposal meeting PADEP criteria.  The value of the reclamation is assessed by PADEP, and the proposed reclamation must correct the environmental problems in the project area. The terms and conditions of the reclamation in-lieu-of project are contained in a CO&A.  This program has been very successful over the years in allowing the reclamation of coal mining environmental problems at no cost to Pennsylvania. In past years, projects have included the construction of passive treatment systems for mine drainage.  This year PADEP negotiated “reclamation in-lieu-of civil penalty” agreements for two small problems with a reclamation value of $15,250.

Enhancements to Administration of Primacy Forfeiture Reclamation Program

During the review period, PADEP initiated changes in the administration of the primacy bond forfeiture reclamation program.  Under the new process, PADEP will have District Mining Operations staff develop and administer site reclamation contracts.  Previously, the Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) administered primacy forfeiture reclamation as well as the sites addressed under Title IV of SMCRA. PADEP anticipates a more effective and less costly bond forfeiture reclamation program by placing the reclamation activity in the same District Mining Offices (DMO) where the permit was issued and monitored.  Previously, the transfer of projects between bureaus after collection of the forfeited bond, often resulted in project implementation delays as project information was transferred and up-loaded into a different tracking system, staff were assigned responsibility and became familiar with the current status of the bond forfeited permit, and the permit reclamation plans were reviewed and revised prior to contracting.

PADEP advised OSM that the shift in administrative approach will include efforts to prioritize sites based upon the seriousness of environmental problems and rely more heavily on the original mine reclamation plan specifications to increase efficiency.  PADEP has selected three primacy bond forfeiture permits for reclamation to implement this new approach during evaluation year 2005.

Amendments to Pennsylvania’s Approved Coal Mining Regulatory Program

During this evaluation period, OSM and PADEP continued to engage in cooperative efforts to address the backlog of required amendments to the Pennsylvania program.  PADEP and PFD have worked closely over the evaluation period to resolve many of the amendments and have developed a review process to facilitate resolution of the remaining required amendments.  The status of this issue, including a detailed description of progress this year, is provided in the “Amendments to the Pennsylvania Approved Regulatory Program” section (page 8) of this report.

PADEP Proposed Rule Changes

During the evaluation year, PADEP initiated the following changes in its coal mining program regulations.  These changes will be submitted to OSM as formal amendments to its approved regulatory program.

The rulemaking titled “Chapter 86 - Coal Mining Amendments” was prepared by PADEP in final form and approved as final rulemaking at the June 15, 2004, EQB meeting.  The rulemaking was forwarded to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission and the Environmental Resources and Energy Committees of the Senate and House for their review and will be subsequently submitted to OSM as a program amendment.  A draft of the final rule was reviewed with the MRAB at their October 23, 2003, meeting.  Additional review and discussions of the draft final rule occurred at the January 8, 2004, and April 22, 2004, MRAB meetings.  The rulemaking relates to the extraction of coal incidental to GFCC and government financed reclamation projects.  The proposed rulemaking was published in the May 4, 2002, Pennsylvania Bulletin.

A rulemaking package titled “Coal Mine Reclamation Fees and Reclamation of Bond Forfeiture Sites” was drafted by PADEP.  The rulemaking amends existing provisions relating to reclamation fees for coal surface mines and to requirements for reclamation of coal mine sites with forfeited bonds.  The regulations relating to reclamation of bond forfeiture sites are intended to resolve program conditions set forth at 30 CFR 938.16(mm)-(qq).

PADEP’s program amendment submittal addressing Acts 173 and 43 amendments to the PASMCRA (Administrative Record PA 853.01) was the subject of several meetings between OSM and PADEP staff.  A letter dated December 23, 2003, (Administrative Record PA 853.23), revised the program amendment to address several outstanding issues.

PADEP’s proposed rulemaking titled “Bond Adjustment and Bituminous Mine Subsidence Control Standards” was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on September 13, 2003, and comments were received through November 12, 2003.  During the public hearings held on October 15 and 16, 2003, 20 persons representing citizens, environmental and mining industry interests submitted oral or written comments in response to the publication.  The Department has completed its review of the public comments and is developing a final rulemaking package.  This rulemaking is intended to resolve program requirements set forth at 30 CFR 938.16(hhhh) – (bbbbbb) relating to bond adjustment, subsidence control, repair of mine subsidence damage and replacement of water supplies affected by underground mining operations.

Abandoned Underground Mine Pools

In 2002, LTV’s and Beth Energy’s looming bankruptcies presented PADEP with the reality that about 15 significant underground mine drainage treatment plants may cease operations unless they were taken over by the Commonwealth.  Unprepared to handle a crisis of this magnitude, then PADEP Secretary David Hess wrote a letter to MRAB asking for their input and advice on how to deal with this underground mine pool issue.  Although the LTV and Beth Energy situations were successfully resolved, the question of how to handle the many discharging abandoned underground mines still remained.  The MRAB formed a task force in April 2003, and in July 2003, the task force presented the full MRAB with 19 resolutions which were unanimously adopted and presented to the Secretary of PADEP.  In summary the resolutions covered activities including evaluating technologies for in-situ and ex-situ treatment of the mine water; reduction of infiltration of surface water; economical metals recovery; using airborne geotechnology to map mine pools; developing and consolidating data bases of mine pools and discharges; developing trust funds to address the long-term treatment of discharges; and developing outreach to and partnerships with potentially interested parties.

Two projects involving the reuse of mine pools demonstrate the marketing approach for this concept.  First, the abandoned Shannopin deep mine in Greene County was filling with water and was anticipated to discharge about 2,000 gpm of highly acidic water into Dunkard Creek near the end of 2004 or early in 2005.  The flooding deep mine on the Pittsburgh coal seam was also flooding the overlying workings on the Sewickley coal seam owned by Dana Mining.  Grants and loans from PADEP, PennVEST, and Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) provided for the construction of a treatment plant where the mine pool in the Shannopin mine will be lowered allowing for the resumption of mining of the Sewickley reserves by Dana Mining and preservation of about 200 jobs.  The treatment plant went on-line in June 2004, pumping and treating at a rate of 3,300 gpm.  Construction and operation of the plant averted the potential discharge of pollutional water into the Dunkard Creek.  A power plant slated for construction in the Spring of 2004 just south of the Pennsylvania /West Virginia border plans to buy the water from the treatment plant for use as cooling water.

For the second project, Reading Anthracite Company increased pumping from the Wadesville Mine pool in Schuylkill County on July 11, 2003, as part of a demonstration project being conducted by Exelon Nuclear.  During the demonstration project, Reading Anthracite Company will pump the water from the Wadesville Mine pool into the East Norwegian Creek, which will then flow into and increase the flow of the Schuylkill River.  Exelon Nuclear will then draw water from the Schuylkill River for its Limerick Generating Station in Limerick, Montgomery County.  Currently, water is diverted from the Delaware River via the Point Pleasant Pumping Station into the East Branch of the Perkiomen Creek and then pumped via pipeline to the plant during this period.  If this project is successful, it will reduce the amount of water needed by Limerick Generating Station from the Delaware River.  Exelon Nuclear estimates they could pump at least 13 million gallons per day continuously from the mine pool.  Limerick Generating Station requires an average of 35 million gallons per day to replace the water that is evaporated from the plant's two cooling towers.  The company would only pump water from the pools for a maximum of six months each year, May through November, when river flows naturally tend to be low.

The most innovative resolutions involve the potential marketing of mine pools to industries and other public and private water users to promote economic development.  There are literally billions of gallons of unused, although contaminated, water stored in these vast underground mine pools.  With increasing user demands for water from aquifers and streams, underground mine pool water should be considered a valuable resource to be utilized.

In December 2003, an action plan was developed and implemented to address the 19 resolutions.

The action plan lays out the steps, responsible parties and timetable for fulfilling the resolutions.  Numerous presentations have been made in various forums to begin building interest in the beneficial use of mine pool water.

Coal Mining Reclamation Award

Good Neighbor Awards were created by OSM Director Jeff Jarrett to recognize coal operators for working cooperatively with their communities.  Bridgeview Coal Company, Farmington, Fayette County, Pennsylvania was awarded a Good Neighbor Award for donating a water truck to the local fire department and building a stock car racetrack that is the principle source of funding for the fire department.  The coal company also constructed a ball field for a local park and made their excavators and loader available for township use.  Additionally, a dangerously twisting township road was changed to a safe, reasonably straight road and a safe shooting range was built for a nearby hunting and shooting club.

 Shown here is Assistant Secretary of Interior Lynn Scarlett presenting the Good Neighbor Award to Scott Whyel of Bridgeview Coal.

Assistant Secretary Scarlett and Mr. Whyel are shown in front of the fire company’s race track.

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Activities - AMD Treatment and Remediation

PADEP’s mining bureaus, the Bureau of Mining and Reclamation (BMR), the Bureau of District Mining Operations and BAMR, provided significant support to AMD remediation efforts.  These Bureaus provide technical and financial assistance to local agencies, municipalities and watershed groups, develop watershed restoration plans, collect stream data, and implement AMD treatment plans.  A number of state and locally administered AML and AMD abatement projects were funded under Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener program.  Growing Greener funds are appropriated by the Pennsylvania Legislature and are not part of those awarded by OSM from the Title IV Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.  In several projects, Growing Greener funds were combined with ACSP funds to enhance the partnership approach to AMD cleanup.  ACSP Projects funded in financial partnership with Growing Greener funds, are Tremont North Indian Head, Tanoma South, Glenwhite Run, Keystone Phase I, Mill Creek Allen Point, Newkirk Mines, Melcroft Phase I, and Argentine Central.  The total cost of these projects is $3,072,637, with $990,202 from the ACSP and $2,082,435 from Growing Greener.  OSM has awarded PADEP $14.4 million in grants for ACSP projects, for the cleanup of streams contaminated by AMD.  Twenty-seven projects have been identified for funding.  Eighteen projects have been completed, five are in construction and four are in design.  These are partnership projects, with local watershed groups, private companies and other state and Federal agencies contributing time and financial resources.

AML Surface Reclamation Accomplishments

Pennsylvania's AML program continued to make progress in traditional areas of abandoned mine land reclamation such as dangerous highwall removal, subsidence control, and sealing shafts and portals.  Specific accomplishments include completion of 17 major projects and 94 smaller state work force projects for a total of 1,043 acres of land reclamation.  Reclamation included 16,800 linear ft. of highwall, 9.8 acres of dangerous slides, a large dangerous embankment, and hazardous equipment.  The AML program also completed a large project addressing polluted drinking water.  During the year, there were 40 projects under development; 92 in some stage of design, and 72 under construction.

Government Financed Construction Contracts

AML reclamation projects conducted under the umbrella of Title IV of SMCR have always had an exemption from the permitting requirements of SMCRA when coal was extracted incidental to the project and more than 50 percent of the cost of reclamation was provided by a governing agency’s budget.

The “AML Enhancement Rule”, regulations OSM adopted on February 12, 1999, amended the Federal Regulations at 30 CFR Parts 707.5 to allow less than 50 percent financing from a government agency when there is incidental extraction of coal and the project is undertaken as an approved reclamation project under Title IV of  SMCRA.

Under the AML Enhancement Rule, every GFCC project that is now less than 50 percent funded by a government entity is governed by all of the requirements of Title IV, its accompanying regulations (30 CFR Part 874), and OSM’s AML guidelines.  Accordingly, all potential GFCC projects must propose to reclaim valid, Title IV eligible AML features that are either listed in, or eligible for listing in, the AML Inventory maintained by OSM. 

The purpose of this regulatory change was to encourage reclamation of Title IV- AML eligible sites that are unlikely to be reclaimed under an AML grant-funded reclamation project, or be re-mined under a Title V surface mining permit.  Many low-rated Priority 2 or Priority 3 sites would probably go unreclaimed because scarce grant funds would be expended on higher-priority projects.  Also, some AML sites with limited remining potential would likely remain un-permitted because they are within protected buffer zones, or the potential risks posed by marginal coal reserves, potential long-term liabilities associated with AMD, or other environmental concerns would not warrant the expenditures required to obtain a mine permit.  Allowing a contractor to recover and sell coal incidental to an AML reclamation contract, without having to apply for and operate under a mining permit, encourages reclamation of additional AML at little cost to the public.

On March 26, 1999, OSM approved an amendment to the Pennsylvania AML program to adopt the flexibilities made available through the AML Enhancement Rule.  Since then, Pennsylvania has continued to excel in implementing this program.  According to information provided by BAMR, approximately 145 GFCC project applications have been submitted since the program’s inception.  BAMR records indicate that 99 project applications have been accepted, with the remaining applications either rejected for cause (e.g., site eligibility problems, incomplete documentation, potential water-related problems, etc.), withdrawn by the applicant, or simply not pursued to contract.  Those 99 projects include the reclamation of almost 1,000 acres of Title IV-eligible, AML in 15 counties. Based on the reclamation values assigned to these projects, Pennsylvania’s GFCC program has “saved” over $6 million in Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund expenditures that otherwise would have been required to reclaim these sites.  In this evaluation year, Pennsylvania awarded eight GFCC sites representing reclamation of approximately 175 acres for an estimated reclamation savings of $908,000.

Pennsylvania 10% AMD Set-Aside Program

During the review period, PADEP requested and received approval for three new Hydrologic Unit Plans (HUP) under the Pennsylvania 10% AMD set-aside program.  The new HUPs were to provide continued funding to three established AMD treatment facilities.  Pennsylvania now has 23 HUPs approved by OSM and has completed 21 projects.  The three treatment facilities now included under the program will provide years of long-term mine drainage abatement for high volume discharges.  Approximately $35,665,904.50 in grant deposits and interest have come into the 10% AMD set-aside fund since its inception.  As of the end of this review period, there was a balance of $19,475,036.79 in the 10% set-aside fund.  BAMR staff involved in the 10% AMD set-aside program have provided a valuable service to watershed groups by conducting stream sampling, attending meetings, giving advice and guidance on how to get started in cleaning-up streams, and helping develop partnerships for AMD abatement activities.

PADEP has advised that they have begun a major 10% AMD set-aside initiative in the West Branch Susquehanna watershed.  This initiative involves improving the opportunities for tourism and economic development in north central Pennsylvania by improving water quality in the West Branch.  The first two tributaries PADEP plans to address are Kettle Creek and Bennetts Branch, Sinnamahoning Creek.

Shannopin Mine Pool

One particularly notable 10% AMD set-aside program accomplishment this period is the initiation of treatment activities at the abandoned Shannopin mine.  PADEP and OSM staff had been closely monitoring the rise in elevation of the Shannopin mine pool since its abandonment in 1992.  The mine pool was projected to start discharging from the mine mouth in late 2004.  The effect on the lower 3.6 miles of Dunkard Creek to its confluence with the Monongahela River and downstream was expected to be severe. Within 15 miles of the confluence with the Monongahela River, there are four municipal water intakes serving 42,000 customers and two industrial users.  The additional costs of treating the water for use would be significant. The water quality of the anticipated discharge would be 3,000 to 4,000 mg/L of acidity; 500 to 1,500 mg/L of iron, and 100 to 200 mg/L of aluminum.  Flows were expected to range between 2,000 and 3,500 gpm.

Using $1.8 million from the 10% AMD Set Aside fund, $4.3 million from PennVest, and other funds from the DCED, Dana Mining/Genpower has constructed a chemical treatment plant adjacent to an abandoned shaft that descends to the flooded mine workings.  Sufficient water will be pumped from the mine pool to maintain a non-discharging elevation.  The treated water will be piped for two miles to a point on Dunkard Creek, 6.2 miles upstream from the Monongahela River.  This infusion of thousands of gallons per minute of pH neutral, clean water will have a positive impact on the quality of the most polluted section of Dunkard Creek for 6.2 miles to the Monongahela River and downstream.  The sludge will be piped into a lower elevation mine pool that cannot discharge to the surface.  Dana Mining Company has agreed to operate and maintain the treatment plant for the foreseeable future because the project will enable it to continue to mine a seam of coal which lies directly above the Shannopin Mine.  Continued operation of the mine would not be possible had the mine pool continued to rise.  PADEP hopes to secure a user of the treated water (such as a nearby power plant) that will assume long-term operation and maintenance of the treatment facility.

Reforestation Initiative

The reforestation initiative is a joint effort of OSM’s Appalachian Region and the States within the region.  The initiative also includes partnerships with States, coal industry, academia, landowners, environmental organizations and various governmental agencies.  The goals include planting more high value hardwood trees, increased tree survival and increased tree growth and productivity.  The initiative uses the Forestry Reclamation Approach.  This involves the planting of higher quality trees, minimum compaction of the reclaimed ground, using native as well as non-competitive ground covers and proper tree planting techniques.

A Federal OSM representative and a PADEP representative for the coal mining regulatory program were appointed to the team.  A PADEP AML representative has also been requested.  Future plans included the signing of a Statement of Mutual Intent by the shareholders,  Publication of a pamphlet outlining the Reforestation Initiative, developing of a Reforestation Training course and developing different partnerships to achieve our purpose.

Environmental Good Samaritan Act Approval

The 1999 Pennsylvania Environmental Good Samaritan Act grants landowners and watershed groups’ limited release of liability for their voluntary reclamation of land adversely affected by mining.  To obtain this release, participants must submit an application for “Approval of Coverage Under the Environmental Good Samaritan Act.”

AMD Inventory Maintenance

PADEP and OSM continued their cooperative approach to the development and maintenance of a statewide inventory of long-term pollutional discharges (AMD Inventory) from sites mined under the Pennsylvania primacy program (after July 30, 1982).  The purpose of the inventory is to help determine the magnitude of the potential harm from AMD, to assess the potential for use of passive treatment technologies to address problem sites, to identify the amount of bond available to treat the discharges and to estimate the cost to abate the pollution.  During the evaluation year OSM inspectors continued to collect water quality and quantity data on a sample (30) of discharges contained in the inventory.  The additional information helps to verify and improve the quality of the data.  OSM will continue to refine the database by collecting additional water quality and quantity data during the next evaluation year.

PADEP is promoting the enactment of “grayfields legislation” which would encourage the private sector and local government entities to reclaim and develop abandoned mine lands (grayfields) and mine waters as a stimulant for economic growth and the creation of new jobs.  To this end, PADEP has prepared a draft bill and will support its adoption by the General Assembly.  The draft bill provides incentives and liability relief for certain non-responsible parties who invest in the reclamation and development of grayfield properties and mine waters.  The draft bill contains many provisions similar to those currently in place for the clean-up and development of abandoned industrial (brownfield) properties.

 

V.      Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA

OSM’s national regulatory program oversight guidelines known as REG-8 requires an evaluation of off-site impacts, reclamation success, and a component of customer service in its annual oversight work plan with PADEP.  Summaries of those areas of evaluation are discussed below.

A.        Off-Site Impacts

During the evaluation year, PADEP inspectors conducted inspections on 1,948 permits.  Ninety-four percent of the permits were free of off-site impacts.  The percentage of permits inspected that were free of off-site impacts has consistently remained the same varying only one percent over the past few years.  This indicates that the permittees, under PADEP’s oversight, are continuing to minimize the occurrence of off-site impacts.

This year’s study employed a two-phase approach.  The first phase involved a review of all state enforcement actions taken during the first six months of the evaluation period to identify and characterize any off-site impacts coincident to the violations.  In the second phase, off-site impacts from OSM’s 455 inspections were compared to the findings from the phase one state file reviews.  First, PFD Harrisburg Office reviewed the civil penalty assessment files for all State enforcement actions issued during the first six months of the evaluation year.  The evaluation studied the degree of off-site impacts resulting from violations cited in 173 state enforcement actions.  Of these enforcement actions, 48 were written on 34 permits against C&K Coal Company, which is currently in bankruptcy.  All of these 48 actions were hydrology related impacts that occurred as a result of the operator discharging water that did not meet effluent standards.  Off-site impacts associated with the C&K bankruptcy have been separated for purposes of this analysis.

Of the remaining 118 enforcement actions reviewed, 54 were identified with off-site impacts. Those 54 off-site impacts were evaluated and analyzed in terms of the type of impact, the resources affected by the impact and the degree of impact.  The degree of impact was divided into three levels.  Those levels are: (1) minor impacts or impacts that do not affect the public, disturb a small area or have negligible effect on the receiving stream; (2) major impacts, or impacts that have significant impacts to the public, that affect large off-site areas and have major impacts to the receiving stream; and, (3) moderate impacts, or impacts that do not fit in either of the first two categories.

Hydrology related impacts represent 92 percent of the total off-site impacts observed during this evaluation year.  The impacts to water resources occurred because discharged water did not meet effluent limits.  These discharges resulted in impacts to nearby streams by acidity, iron, manganese or suspended solids, or a combination of these contaminants.  There were 36 minor, 12 moderate, and 6 major off-site impacts.  Of the 36 minor impacts, there were 24 discharges of water that failed to meet effluent standards but had a negligible impact on the receiving stream, and 9 instances where the erosion and sedimentation ponds were not properly constructed and 2 permittees were conducting mining activities in a barrier zone without first obtaining a variance.  One incident was reported whereby a permittee was conducting blasting without an approved blasting plan.

Of the twelve moderate impacts, nine were discharges of water that did not meet effluent standards, but did not have a major impact on the receiving stream, and two were a result of the permittee failing to design, maintain, and construct erosion and sedimentation ponds in accordance with the permit requirements, and in one of these incidences a filter fence failed, allowing excessive sedimentation to flow off-site and into a nearby pond.  One blasting off-site impact occurred as a result of flyrock that ejected debris into the air, causing damage to a nearby property.

There were six major off-site impacts that occurred during this evaluation year.  Four of the six impacts involved the release of water that did not meet effluent standards, but were being discharged to receiving streams, causing major impacts in water quality.  Two of these four discharges involved water flow of 1,000–2,000 gpm.  The other two major off-site impacts were a result of the operator’s failure to construct proper erosion and sedimentation control systems.  In one incident, four collection ditches failed, sending sediment to old spoil out-slopes and crop fields on a neighboring farmer’s property causing extensive damage to the property.  The other impact occurred when an inadequate erosion and sedimentation pond allowed sediment, rocks, and silt to be carried off the permit and onto the field and yard of a neighboring homeowner where substantial damage resulted.

Similar results were observed in the second phase of this review in which OSM inspectors recorded off-site impacts observed during random inspections.  Review of the data indicates that 95 percent of sites reviewed over the course of the evaluation period were free of off-site impacts.  Also, the data reflected that a large majority of violations observed were hydrology related.  Seventy-seven percent of the total impacts were hydrology related impacts that resulted in the discharge of improperly treated or untreated water that exceeded the numerical effluent limitations specified in the permit.

B.        Reclamation Success

To comply with the REG-8 requirement to evaluate reclamation success, PFD’s Harrisburg Office evaluated PADEP’s bond release and bond forfeiture reclamation programs. Study findings are discussed below.

Bond Release

A study of bond releases in Pennsylvania was conducted to evaluate and report on the effectiveness of the Pennsylvania approved program in ensuring successful reclamation on lands affected by surface coal mining operations for the various phases of reclamation.  A total of fifty Bituminous Bond Release inspections and seven Anthracite Bond Release inspections were conducted during the evaluative year.  The Pennsylvania bond release program is doing an effective job in achieving reclamation of lands affected by surface coal mining operations.  Of the 57 bond release inspections conducted, no violations were noted which required follow-up inspections.  Data from bond releases reviewed in this study indicate that the mine operators and PADEP are effective in assuring reclamation in a timely manner.  Operators are achieving contemporaneous reclamation and effectively minimizing the time that the permit is disturbed and not revegetated.  Review of 57 permits in Stage I, II or III bond release documented an average time of  6.1 months for Stage I (completion of backfilling); 29.4 months for Stage II bond release (establishment of vegetation); and 5.1 years for Stage III (successful completion of liability period).  These times are consistent with those found in the 2003 study, except the average Stage I release time was 12.1 months.

For the 57 permits reviewed in this study for Stage II and III bond releases, the operators achieved successful revegetation of 2,006.12 acres.  Post-mining land use was achieved on all permits reviewed in this study.  The post-mining use was changed in only two of the cases reviewed.

Bond Forfeiture

The PFD Harrisburg Office and personnel from the BMR planned and conducted this study in accordance with the 2004 Work Plan Agreement with PADEP.  The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether the reclamation on bond forfeited permits was contemporaneous at the time of forfeiture.  The evaluation for each forfeited permit included reviewing the number of acres bonded, the number of acres disturbed, the number of acres needing reclamation at the time of forfeiture, the amount of bond held on the permit at the time of forfeiture, what violation caused the forfeiture, and whether there were any long-term pollutional discharges.  Permits found to have long-term pollutional discharges were sampled and all data was entered into OSM’s Acid Mine Drainage Inventory Systems (AMDISys).

The study period was July 1, 2003, through February 9, 2004.  There were seventeen permits whose bonds were forfeited during that period.  Four of these permits were pre-primacy permits and thirteen were primacy permits.  The study consisted of a file review and inspection of all thirteen of the primacy bond forfeited permits.  Twelve of the permits were in the bituminous coal region and one was in the anthracite coal region.  Eleven permits were for surface mines and two were for underground mines.  Except for the two underground mines, all of the permits were originally bonded under the alternate bonding system and none of them were converted to conventional bonding.  All of these bond forfeiture actions were resolved without the need to transfer the projects to BAMR for reclamation contracting.

The thirteen study permits had 3,203 acres bonded with 2,989 acres being disturbed.  There were 25 different bonds on these permits.  The amount of these bonds totaled $7,261,514.  Of the 2,989 acres disturbed on the thirteen permits, only 92.4 acres needed additional surface reclamation work at the time of bond forfeiture.  Seventy of the acres were in roads on one permit.  The acreage of this permit was transferred to the Cambria County Parks and Recreation Authority through a CO&A for use as an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) recreation park. Twenty acres will be reclaimed under another CO&A, and the final two acres are associated with an anthracite underground coal mine which was forfeited in December 2003.  The final disposition of these two acres was not known at the time of the study.  The study concluded that land reclamation on the eleven surface mine permits was contemporaneous at the time of forfeiture, and met the reclamation standards of the permits.

The two underground mine permits were not considered to be in a contemporaneous reclamation condition since they both needed to be sealed, structures removed, backfilled and planted at the time of their forfeiture.  However, this is expected because reclamation cannot commence until mining is completed and the entries are sealed, inspected and approved by PADEP and the Mine Safety and Health Administration.  It was noted during the inspection of the Bituminous underground mine permit that the mine had been sealed and a contractor was in the process of reclaiming the permit.

All of the permits in the bituminous coal region were forfeited with unabated violations for failure to treat discharges to meet effluent standards.  These twelve permits had a total of 30 different discharges.  The underground mine permit in the anthracite coal region (Mine Hill Coal Company, Permit Number 54931302) was forfeited when the operator abandoned the permit and failed to backfill, close, and reclaim the operation.  This permit had no pollutional discharges.

PADEP has entered into CO&A’s for reclamation of all twelve of the bituminous coal region bond forfeiture permits.  One CO&A covers eleven permits and is among Al Hamilton and Manor Coal Companies, the sureties and PADEP.  This agreement forfeits $3,672,439 in bonds. However, collection will be waived provided the monies are utilized to establish a trust to ensure long-term treatment of the discharges.  The other CO&A is with K&J Coal Company and its surety and applies to the Westover Mine in Cambria County.  Bonds in the amount of $3,921,790 were forfeited.  However, collection has been waived pending transfer of the lands to the Cambria County Conservation Recreation Authority, construction of passive treatment systems for the identified discharges, and establishment of a $900,000 trust to finance long-term operation and maintenance of the treatment systems.

C.        Customer Service

REG 8 requires the annual oversight work plan to include a customer service component.  There are six topics of a state regulatory authority’s customer service program which need to be evaluated on a rotating basis.  This year the customer service component of the annual work plan was focused on PADEP’s Areas Unsuitable for Mining.  Because this area has not been recently evaluated by OSM, the Harrisburg Office designed an evaluation that looked at PADEP’s procedures and guidelines as well as the actions on all individual petitions received to date.

The PADEP has various regulatory responsibilities, and policy guidelines for determining areas unsuitable for mining.  The Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Chapter 86, Part 86.121 contains the requirements and implementation procedures for the areas unsuitable for mining program that are based on the premise that certain land areas should be designated unsuitable for mining to protect values which would be irretrievably lost or damaged by surface mining activities.

To date, PADEP has received 54 petition requests for areas unsuitable for mining with a total of 466,141.7 acres.  There are 17 designation areas that are unsuitable for mining with a total of 110,778.0 acres.  Two petitions were considered non-designation areas with a total of 55,181.0 acres.  Two petitions are on hold pending further investigation and information.  These two petitions have a total of 7,835.0 acres.  One petition is actively being addressed with a total of 5,127.0 acres.  Eleven petitions were withdrawn with a total of 191,253.5 acres and 21 petitions were deemed frivolous, a total of 95,957.2 acres.

The evaluation found that PADEP has developed a customer friendly approach to the process of submitting a petition for consideration in designating an area unsuitable for mining.  The petition form is designed to help petitioners through the process.  The database of current areas unsuitable for mining is accessible through the internet or by contacting PADEP.  Each of the petitions was handled in a timely manner and off the clock time was due to litigation or the need for additional required information.  A description of each of the areas designated as unsuitable for mining is published in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 86, Subchapter D, § 86.130.  The areas designated unsuitable for mining are also identified in eMap.

The review found that the last petition for designating areas unsuitable for mining was received in June 1998.  PADEP advised that the lack of petitions was in part due to a slow down in the number of surface mining permit applications received, and in part due to the on-going litigation of a takings case associated with an unsuitable for mining petition.  PADEP expects activity to increase now that the price for coal is going up and the takings case has been resolved. PADEP reports that two petitions are known to be in preparation
 

VI.    OSM Assistance

This evaluation period, OSM provided technical assistance to PADEP through participation on teams to develop program enhancements including the inventory of AMD discharge points and AMD treatment cost estimating.  PFD Harrisburg Office also provided financial and technical assistance through the ACSP.

AMD Treatment Cost Estimating and Training

During this evaluation year, PADEP initiated a comprehensive effort to work with coal operators to develop treatment trust funds.  A treatment trust fund is a financial mechanism that continues to pay for water treatment after a company enters forfeiture.  An essential step in developing treatment trust funds involves an estimation of annual and capital treatment costs.  PADEP is using OSM’s AMDTreat software to help calculate and evaluate capital and annual treatment costs for all post-primacy discharges.

AMDTreat uses a three-step approach to estimate treatment costs:  (1) Users enter water quality and quantity data, (2) Users “model” an active and/or passive treatment system by selecting the applicable treatment components from the software menu, and (3) Users customize each treatment system to site-specific conditions by controlling the size, quantity, and unit cost of treatment components.  Treatment types for which AMDTreat can estimate costs include vertical flow pond, anoxic limestone drain, manganese removal bed, anaerobic and aerobic wetlands, oxic limestone channel, hydrated lime, caustic soda, anhydrous ammonia, pebble quicklime, and soda ash.  The model combines costs from these treatment methods with costs of ancillary treatment components, such as settling ponds and ditching, to calculate a site-specific capital cost.  Similarly, AMDTreat calculates annual costs by taking into account user-provided information regarding sampling, labor, maintenance, pumping, chemical consumption, and sludge removal.  Capital and annual costs can be used in conjunction with AMDTreat’s financial forecasting utility to evaluate the economics of long-term treatment.

OSM provided technical assistance to PADEP by developing and teaching three multi-day classes that trained over 60 PADEP employees in using the AMDTreat software.  The training class focused on educating PADEP personnel on treatment systems and providing them with knowledge needed to project long-term treatment costs.  The popularity and success of the training classes resulted in PADEP requesting that OSM develop and teach a similar training class to industry.  Offering free training on AMDTreat allowed industry to better understand the assumptions and processes PADEP is using to develop treatment cost estimates used in trust fund calculations.  OSM provided technical assistance to PADEP by holding AMDTreat training classes in the Pottsville, Moshannon, and California district offices.  These training classes resulted in training over 50 individuals representing coal companies and coal-mining consultants.

The AMDTreat training classes spurred several other technical assistance projects to PADEP.  The Knox District Office requested OSM provide their staff with training on performing treatment titrations.  A treatment titration is a field titration that estimates the pH and chemical consumption at which a treatment system will discharge compliant water.  Data developed from a treatment titration is used as input into AMDTreat to calculated detailed cost estimates and perform long-term financial forecasting.  The treatment titration training was held at the Hanley hydrated lime treatment plant and was attended by 11 PADEP employees.  In addition to performing treatment titrations, the Knox employees were shown how to use titration information to calibrate a hydrated lime treatment plant and how to troubleshoot and correct short circuiting within a pond.

Chemical Analysis of AMD

Another large technical assistance project involved PFD Harrisburg Office staff performing treatment evaluations on five Al Hamilton discharges.  Treatment titrations and sludge titrations were completed on each of the discharges to estimate treatment pH, annual chemical costs, and sludge volumes.  OSM presented the information to PADEP, which allows PADEP to better manage the Al Hamilton treatment trust fund.

Maintenance of the Appalachian Region and Pennsylvania AMD Inventory

The Appalachian Region AMD Inventory was initially created by OSM in 1999 to better characterize the AMD problem from primacy sites in the Region. Annual oversight of that inventory is required by each OSM field office.  The inventory contains 1,470 discharges, 413 of which are located in Pennsylvania.  Of the 413 discharges in Pennsylvania, 106 of them are associated with bond forfeited permits.

The PFD Harrisburg Office’s major activities related to the Regional inventory of AMD points, termed AMD inventory, are two-fold.  The first major activity is an oversight function with the purpose of providing ongoing validation of and updated information into the inventory.  The oversight function is carried out on a randomly selected group of sites from the inventory and whenever an OSM inspector happens on a site with a long-term pollutional discharge.  This activity involves thorough investigation of the site, collection of water quality and quantity information and input of the resulting data into the office’s AMDISys computer database.

The second major activity is carried out as an assistance project for the state regulatory authority. This activity is a multi-year effort and involves a comprehensive review of all of the discharges in the inventory where the associated permits have received completed bond forfeiture action.  It involves an OSM hydrologist, expert in the field of AMD abatement, conducting a comprehensive analysis of the site and recommending the most cost effective abatement approach based on site-specific information.  The comprehensive analysis includes detailed evaluation of water quality and quantity using titration techniques to determine chemical or limestone consumption rates and probable sludge production, and evaluation of the collected data using the cost estimating model, AMDTreat. The results of these analyses are input into the office’s AMDISys computer system and provided to the state for their use in addressing the discharges.

AML/AMD Treatment Systems GIS and Information Data Base

The number of passive AMD treatment systems installed in Pennsylvania to remediate the effects of abandoned mine drainage in streams is rapidly growing. Treatment systems are being funded and/or installed by or under the supervision of PADEP’s BAMR, Regional Offices, DMO, County Conservation Districts, local governments and non-profit organizations.  In addition, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) constructs AMD treatment systems.  Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener Program provides significant funding to PADEP and numerous local municipalities and watershed groups for the construction of AMD treatment facilities.  OSM’s WCAP also provides direct assistance to watershed groups for AMD remediation.  There are numerous foundations, conservancies and other organizations providing funding for AMD treatment facilities.  Because of the large numbers of entities involved in the funding, construction and operation/maintenance of these systems, no one agency or organization maintains a complete list or basic GIS information on the projects.  In 2003, OSM and PADEP agreed to collaborate on developing a GIS data base of all AMD remediation projects for AML and bond forfeited projects statewide.  The data base would be provided to anyone having the computer capability to run the programs, and work products such as mapping, and reports could be provided as requested to individuals, watershed groups, consulting companies and agencies. Compiling, and mapping this information will be a valuable tool in evaluating the scope, cost and success of the treatment effort, technologies used and what organization is responsible for operation and maintenance.  PFD has been designing the GIS and collecting data on treatment projects. Over 100 projects sites have been entered in the data base, and it is estimated that there are at least 175 treatment sites, with many more being constructed every year.  PFD is working with state and Federal agencies, consultants, watershed groups and local agencies to identify treatment sites and gather the GIS information.  The GIS will have the capability to track the individual treatment sites, and all background information from state wide mapping, to the 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey Topographic map.  Development of the passive treatment GIS will continue through the 2005 evaluation year.  A standing team of PADEP, OSM, consultants and others will periodically meet to update the project information, and add new sites.

Appalachian Clean Streams Program

In 1994, OSM determined that additional effort was needed to help focus Federal attention on pollution of the nation’s rivers and streams by drainage from abandoned coal mines.  There are 7,500 miles of streams known to be impacted by abandoned coal mine drainage in Appalachia, with Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland and Virginia having the majority.  Pennsylvania alone has 3,500 miles of impacted streams from hundreds of abandoned surface and underground coal mine discharges.  As watershed assessments are completed, the number of stream miles impacted by abandoned mine drainage in Pennsylvania is expected to rise

To help address this significant problem, OSM created the ACSP and receives Congressional funding authority in appropriations from the AML Fund that are directed to participating states for mine drainage remediation projects.  Selected projects emphasize Federal/State/local partnerships to treat coal mine drainage in watersheds.  The allocation is budgeted against the Federal share of the AML Fund.  The thirteen States participating in the program receive a share of the yearly clean streams allocation, based on their adjusted historical coal mined percentage, with a minimum of $120,000.

Through the ACSP, OSM provided financial and program assistance to PADEP since 1997. Awards granted through fiscal year 2004 total $14.4 million.  Twenty-seven AMD remediation projects have been identified by PADEP for funding using these ACSP funds and eighteen projects have been completed.  PFD routinely consults with PADEP regarding the ACSP projects selected to help assure they meet the guidelines of the program, and to identify the contributions of other funding and non-funding partners.

One of the goals of the ACSP is to foster partnerships in watershed restoration.  This is in recognition of the enormity of the problem and the value of partnerships, and local “grass roots” support in implementing and maintaining successful treatment projects.  PADEP provides significant financial, program and technical support, as well as public recognition to watershed groups in building local interest in watershed restoration.  PADEP also works closely with other Federal and State agencies in partnerships to leverage funds to address mine drainage problems.

PADEP seeks involvement from local watershed groups in developing projects.  Watershed groups provide an invaluable service in generating local support, helping secure land owner cooperation, collecting water samples, and generally keeping an eye on the treatment systems to discourage vandalism, perform routine maintenance and notify PADEP of any problems.

Sugar Creek Appalachian Clean Streams Project

The Sugar Creek abandoned mine land reclamation project, is in the Allegheny River Watershed of Western Pennsylvania. The project included the restoration of a 15-acre hazardous coal refuse pile and the passive treatment of an abandoned mine discharge, both of which were severely impacting water quality in Sugar Creek.  The refuse