The permit application review process is the heart of any environmental regulatory program for new construction activities, including coal mining. Regulations represent the practical implementation, the means of putting into practice, laws that aim to protect environmental resources. Any permit application, in turn, should reflect and incorporate the essence of the pertinent regulations.

In theory, the application form should mirror the regulatory requirements, making the review process easier (1) for the applicant who must understand and comply with the requirements, (2) for agency review staff who must evaluate proposals efficiently, and (3) for the affected public. Permit applicants and their professional consultants generally seek to provide regulators with the minimum information required to secure timely approval, so having accurate application forms is important to efficient permit review.

The basic application form for a proposed new underground mine, or for a "modification" to an existing mine, is the "Bituminous Underground Mine Application" (Form ER-MR-317). This complex document consists of 24 modules and encompasses 63 pages plus a 2-page Appendix A.

Except for Module 14, all of the modules in the current application were last revised during January 1991. Module 14 was revised during September 1993 as Form ER-MR-311. Thus, many of the existing mine operations in southwestern Pennsylvania, such as the Bailey Mine and the Enlow Fork Mine which began operations in the 1980s, used a different application format in securing their initial permit and early revisions. The ensuing sections discuss, module by module, the current underground mine application form.
 

In addition to filling in the blanks in the mine application modules, applicants are supposed to prepare and attach supplementary reports, analyses, maps, and other detailed information to support statements made on the application forms. Through their consultants, mine operators provide BMR with whatever information is necessary to obtain permit approvals, and they provide that information in the format specified by BMR. The BMR format for the display of environmental information is complex, and it serves to render environmental review a difficult exercise for major longwall mines, especially for the affected public.

The "Bituminous Underground Mine Application" (Form ER-MR-317) is a complex document consisting of 24 modules and encompassing 63 pages Completed applications are large and include folded drawings.

Longwall coal mines are massive operations with an inherent propensity for environmental damage. PADEP's mining regulations and BMR's application forms also are massive. There is overlap between the subject matter of the various modules in the current application form and duplication between the corresponding modules of the different applications that pertain to a single mine. A specific mine application or amendment typically is a sizable document, and its drawings may go through several revisions before final approval. A revised application form proposed by BMR during March 1999 is discussed in a subsequent section of this report.

As discussed above in Section III, the 1981 agreement between BDWM and BMR obligates BMR to administer and enforce the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act, Clean Streams Law, and related rules and regulations for mining activities. As detailed above in Section V, there also are numerous, clearly articulated statements in the Commonwealth statutes and in the PADEP mining regulations that mine activities are to be conducted so as to protect wetlands and comply with Chapter 93 and 105 requirements.

Several of the modules in the underground mine application ask whether "surface activities" will be conducted within or near certain areas or resources. Some modules, or parts thereof, must be completed only for "surface activities". The term "surface activities", however, is not defined in any of the modules or in the mining regulations. The McMurray District Mining Office interprets "surface activities" to mean "surface mining activities".

As discussed previously, the term "surface mining activities" has two definitions in the Chapter 86 mining regulations (86.1 and 86.101). The latter clearly includes subsidence as a surface effect of underground mining activities, but the former does not. On 17 December 1999, the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) ruled that subsidence due to underground mining is not a surface coal mining activity, and the PADEP-BMR concurs. The regulatory definition at 86.101, however, has not been revised.

Whether or not subsidence is subject to regulation pursuant to SMCRA or to related Commonwealth mining laws and regulations, its effects on surface water resources are significant and subject to other regulations not unique to coal mining. Because subsidence due to longwall mining activities disrupts surface and groundwater movement and patterns, it clearly constitutes one type of "encroachment" which is subject to the Chapter 105 regulatory requirements, just like tunnels of any kind beneath wetlands throughout the Commonwealth.

The following discussion evaluates how well, and to what extent, the current Bituminous Underground Mine Application incorporates wetland protection requirements. Both positive aspects of and deficiencies in the application modules are noted, as well as suggestions for improvements. Actual examples of information provided for specific modules from recent mine applications are discussed to illustrate current applicant and agency practice.

Considerable information about wetlands--- their extent, location, functions, values, and the potential direct and indirect impacts of mining activities on them---ostensibly is solicited in the Bituminous Underground Mine Application. The principal section of the application devoted to wetland issues is Module 14 (Streams/Wetlands). Other sections where the applicant currently is directed to provide wetland-specific information include Module 8, Section 8.6 (Prediction of Hydrological Consequences/Protection of Hydrologic Balance); Module 10, Exhibit 10.1 (Site Plan Map) and Exhibit 10.3 (Land Use/Vegetation Maps); and Module 19, Exhibit 19.2 (Environmental Resources Map).

Overall, the modules are not carefully or consistently drafted to elicit the information necessary to assure wetland protection, as required by PADEP for all non-mining categories of wetland encroachments statewide. Given the length of the application and the cross-referencing (or lack thereof) of information among modules, finding specific information on a particular subject such as wetlands can be a formidable undertaking for anyone trying to review and understand a longwall mine permit file.

Each of the modules is discussed at least briefly below to illustrate the complex structure of the application and to indicate where wetland-related information would be expected to be found. As will soon become clear to readers of the ensuing discussion, Module 14 provides only part of the information relevant to wetlands that is to be developed in a mine application.

Positive Aspect:

The applicant is alerted from the outset to the fact that Chapter 105 requirements are to be addressed during permit review. To complete this module accurately, and to calculate the appropriate filing fee, every single wetland to be encroached upon by planned subsidence or other surface activities in the proposed application must be identified through field delineation. In this respect, mining activities (on paper) are treated the same as any other proposed development or construction activity in the Commonwealth. Reviewers should be able to tell directly from the Module 1 fees paid how many wetlands are going to be affected by any proposed mining activity.

Deficiencies:

1) The application form fails to make crystal-clear to applicants and reviewers that each wetland affected by encroachments and/or obstructions such as fill or planned subsidence requires identification and entails a filing fee.

2) The fees assessed for all Chapter 105- regulated mining activities are too low because they have not been updated in many years. They do not begin to reflect the taxpayers' cost for even superficial PADEP review of such applications. They are lower than current fees for any non-mining Chapter 105 activities.

Suggestions for Improvement:

1) Applicants should be reminded that a fee is due for each wetland where an obstruction or encroachment is proposed, including wetlands affected by either surface activities (shaft construction, regrading, roads, refuse disposal, ditching/draining, etc.) or underground activities (e.g., planned subsidence), or both. In a non-mining context, all activities that affect the hydrology of wetlands (e.g., drilling or tunneling beneath a wetland) are subject to regulation under Chapter 105 throughout the Commonwealth.

2) The fees for Chapter 105 activities should be increased to at least equal those currently required in non-mining Chapter 105 applications. (The March 1999 application form proposed by BMR would equalize fees.)

Actual Examples:

Enlow Fork Mine, Permit #30841317, Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company: During January 1999, Consol applied for the 40^th permit revision for its Enlow Fork Mine in East Finley Township, Washington County. This permit revision, to install the 3 North #2 Air Shaft and related facilities for the underground longwall operation, was approved by BMR on 1 October 1999. An access road, fill for a construction pad, a sewage treatment plant, and a sedimentation pond discharge channel all were proposed within 100 feet of Rocky Run, a warm-water fishes (WWF) stream reported by the applicant to be intermittent. The proposed work also was described as affecting six wetlands totaling 0.344 acre. Despite the fact that these wetland encroachments were acknowledged in Module 14 of the application, no fee for such encroachments was included in the total application fee. The wetland disclosure provision of Module 1 was circumvented entirely, and no encroachment fee was collected.

Emerald Mine, Permit #30841307, Cyprus Emerald Resource Corp. Permit Revision 31 in 1998 required the fill of 0.17 acre of wetlands in conjunction with the addition of the No. 8 Shaft and the No. 4 Bleeder Shaft in Franklin Township, Greene County. Despite the fact that these wetland encroachments were acknowledged in other modules of the application, no fee for the encroachments was reported in Module 1. Here again, the wetland disclosure provision of Module 1 was circumvented entirely, and no encroachment fee was collected.

This module provides a checklist classifying all the modules as included or not included with the application. It requires a signature by the applicant or responsible official. It also requires signature by the person(s) authorized by the applicant to prepare the application, and spaces are provided for a registered professional engineer, a professional geologist, and a registered land surveyor.

Positive Aspect:

The checklist is a helpful index of the modules that the applicant deems relevant to the application for a specific proposed activity.

Deficiencies:

1) There is a note here which states that certain items in Modules 13, 14, 16, and 17 can be certified only by a qualified, registered professional engineer. Modules 13 and 16 repeat this directive, but no such directive is found in either Module 14 or 17. Module 15 also contains this directive, although it is not so noted on the Module 2 checklist.

2) The signature of the appropriate professional certifies that the plans, reports, and specifications of the application have been prepared "in conformance with 25 PA Code Chapters 86, 87, and 89". Curiously absent is any direct reference to Chapter 93 or 105, which suggests a lack of emphasis on water obstructions and encroachments in streams and wetlands. As pointed out above, however, there are numerous references to the Chapter 93 and 105 requirements within Chapters 86, 87, and 89. Thus, any application prepared in accordance with Chapters 86, 87, and 89 is required to meet the provisions of Chapters 93 and 105 as well. The responsible professional(s) should be directed to certify directly that all Chapter 93 and 105 requirements have been met.

3) Although Module 14 (Streams/ Wetlands) was revised and renamed during September 1993, its old title (Stream Variances/Relocations) still is used in the checklist, which could mislead applicants as to which version of the form is to be used and what information is to be provided, particularly with respect to wetlands.

Suggestions for Improvement:

1) The note should be revised to state accurately which other modules require professional certification.

2) Each of the certification paragraphs should be revised to include "and in conformance with 25 Pa. Code Chapters 93 and 105...".

3) The checklist should be revised to reflect the current name of Module 14: "Streams/Wetlands".
 

This module generally is not applicable to wetlands, with one possible exception: the application should request that any past violations by the applicant of the Federal Clean Water Act, the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, and/or the Pennsylvania Dam Safety and Encroachments Act be reported, along with the status of resolution of the violation.

The purpose of Module 4 is to determine whether any mining is proposed in areas where it is prohibited or restricted. No definitions of "prohibited", "restricted", or "limited" are given in the Chapter 86 regulations or in Module 4. For the most part the "prohibited/restricted" areas for which information is sought in Module 4 correspond to the areas listed in Subchapter D of Chapter 86 (Areas Unsuitable for [Surface] Mining [Activities]), specifically §86.102 (Areas where [surface] mining is prohibited or limited).

Positive Aspect:

At least one additional "area" not included in included in Subchapter D of Chapter 86 is listed in Module 4, viz., watersheds designated as "high quality waters" pursuant to 25 PA Code Chapter 93.

Deficiencies:

1) In Section 4.5.a of Module 4, the applicant is asked whether the proposed permit area is within a watershed designated as "High Quality Waters" (HQ). However, no similar question is asked concerning watersheds designated as "Exceptional Value Waters" (EV). Waters designated as either HQ or EV are considered to be "special protection" waters in Pennsylvania, and of the two, EV Waters are supposed to receive the greater level of protection (Figure 15). Yet EV waters are completely ignored here.
 
 

HQ and EV waters are designated only after a lengthy PADEP review process including public notice. EV waters exist in the coal-mining counties, and in the future additional ones may be designated. The application form should anticipate this situation.

A shortcoming of Module 4 is that the applicant nowhere is asked if wetlands are proposed to be affected by mining, other surface activities, or subsidence.

2) As discussed above in Section III, any activity that changes the course, current, or cross-section of any wetland is regulated by 25 Pa. Code Chapter 105, and the existing uses of any wetland must be maintained and protected in accordance with 25 Pa. Code 93.4a(b). Such activities, therefore, clearly are "restricted" in accordance with Chapter 93 and 105 requirements and should appropriately be included in this module, yet they are not. Nowhere in Module 4 is the applicant asked whether mining, other surface activities, or subsidence are proposed to affect wetlands. In addition to any on-surface mining activities that will fill or regrade wetlands, the planned surface subsidence that results from longwall mining alters the topography and hydrology that determine the very existence of wetlands.

Suggestions for Improvement:

1) Line "a" in Section 4.5 should be split into two questions, asking whether the permit area is within a High Quality watershed and whether it is within an Exceptional Value watershed.

2a) The scope of Section 4.5 should be expanded from "Streams" to "Streams/ Wetlands" and a line "c" should be added to ask whether any wetlands exist within the proposed permit area (including all areas to be affected by underground and surface mining). A cross-reference here to Module 14 (Streams/ Wetlands), where the identification and assessment of all wetlands within the permit area are to be provided, would be appropriate to help maintain consistency between the two modules.

2b) Inasmuch as "... activities involved in or related to underground coal mining which ... produce changes in the land surface, or disturb the surface, air or water resources of the area" are included in the definition of "surface mining activities" at §86.101, this module should direct that all regulated waters and wetlands subject to potential subsidence should be inventoried fully and delineated accurately prior to permit review.

Actual Example:

Emerald Mine, Permit #30841307, Cyprus Emerald Resources Corp. A typical revision to add 1,954 acres to the permit boundary and extend the subsidence plan boundary in 1997 answers most of the questions in Module 4 as "Not applicable. No surface activity sites are [currently] proposed in this permit application." BMR did not require inventory of lands at risk of "mere" subsidence in Module 4, despite the fact that nine NWI wetlands were indicated within the expansion area as shown in Module 19 of this particular application (see discussion below of Module 19).

This module requires information about each legal or equitable owner, leaseholder, or purchaser of record for each parcel of surface land that will be affected by mining activities, for each subsurface coal tract within the underground mine permit area, and for all properties within 1,000 feet of those areas. This information could be useful to applicants seeking landowner permission to inventory wetlands at risk in Module 14 (Streams/ Wetlands), although its use or utility for that purpose is not mentioned here in Module 5 (Figure 20). Whether any surface owner has given consent for wetlands to be disturbed is not asked in this module.

Mining applications require a considerable number of notifications to reach affected surface owners. For example, Maple Creek Mining Inc./UMCO Energy Inc., New Century Mine #63921301, filed permit information with BMR in April and May 2000. This mine is to affect only 2,060 acres near Charleroi in Washington County. Yet it was necessary to notify the owners of 944 surface parcels.

This module requires the applicant to list many types of information about the proposed operations and facilities, including a summary of operations, a location map, a general description of mining activities, proposed surface activities/sites, existing structures, proposed tanks and chemical storage areas, and measures to be taken to protect fish, wildlife, and related environmental values.

Positive Aspect:

In Section 6.2, the applicant is required to provide a USGS Location Map (Exhibit 6.2) on which are to be shown numerous specific features and environmental resources. Exhibit 6.2 is a major document on which environmental information within the permit area is to be displayed.

Deficiencies:

1) It is not made clear in Module 6 that wetlands are to be included on Exhibit 6.2; they are not specifically listed here as one of the resources to be shown. Module 14 (Section 14.3.b), however, specifically directs that wetlands are to be included on Exhibit 6.2.

2) Section 6.4 (Surface Activities/Sites Covered by Application) lists five types of surface sites/activities and directs the applicant to identify those which apply to the subject application, implying that these may be the only categories of sites/activities that would be relevant. Surface areas subject to planned subsidence are not among the five listed categories.

3) Section 6.7 (Fish and Wildlife Protection) directs the applicant to "Describe the measures which will be taken to prevent or mitigate adverse effects on fish, wildlife, and related environmental values." No definition of "related environmental values" is provided in the application or the regulations. Wetlands certainly qualify as "related environmental values", but are not specifically identified as such. Furthermore, there is no cross- reference here to Module 14.

Suggestions for Improvement:

1) Wetlands should be listed specifically as a resource to be identified on the Location Map (Exhibit 6.2) for consistency with Module 14. It generally is difficult to show the limits of delineated wetlands accurately on maps of such small scale as the 1:24,000 (1 inch = 2,000 feet) used by USGS, but as a general index to wetland location within a vast mine complex Exhibit 6.2 mapping would be very useful.

2) Inasmuch as "... activities involved in or related to underground coal mining which ... produce changes in the land surface, or disturb the surface, air or water resources of the area" are included in the definition of "surface mining activities" at §86.101, surface areas subject to planned subsidence should be identified along with the other listed categories of surface activities/sites in Section 6.4.

3a) A definition for "other related environmental values" should be provided on the application form. Applicants cannot be expected to address impacted resources unless those resources are defined by BMR, at least by citing illustrative examples. References to sources such as the natural heritage inventory of Washington County (Wagner 1994) would be appropriate here.

3b) Wetlands should be added specifically to the list in Section 6.7, which should be revised to read: "Describe the measures which will be taken to prevent or mitigate adverse effects on fish, wildlife, wetlands, and other related environmental values." These wetland protection measures should be cross-referenced to, and used in conjunction with, the wetland analyses and evaluations required in Module 14 (Streams/ Wetlands).

The applicant is required to provide specific information regarding the local and regional geology and the nature of the coal seam and overburden. In Section 7.2, the applicant is required to

Provide drill hole data sufficient to describe the geology and hydrology of the underground permit and adjacent areas. Information must be adequate to assess the probable hydrological consequences and subsidence effects of the proposed mining operation.

Module 8 is potentially one of the more important parts of the coal mine application in terms of developing the information necessary to identify wetlands and potential impacts to wetlands from mining activities. Unfortunately, that potential at present is not fully realized. Wetland hydrology, which is inextricably related to surface water and/or groundwater, is nowhere mentioned here. Hence it is generally ignored by mining hydrologists employed by applicants and by BMR permit reviewers.

Positive Aspects:
 

1) Module 8 requires considerable information about the existing groundwater and surface water resources in the mine permit area and the potential for proposed mining activities to impact them. Wetlands depend for their existence on continued hydrologic inputs of surface waters and/or groundwater. Throughout Module 8, applicants are instructed to describe or provide specific information about "surface water resources", or "local water resources", which resources include wetlands according to the 25 Pa. Code Chapter 105.1 definitions for "regulated waters of this Commonwealth" and "body of water".

In Module 8, applicants are "required" to assess the potential draining of wetlands which overlie the underground permit area. But they are nowhere directed to inventory wetlands at risk of draining, so no meaningful assessment is ever provided.

2) In Section 8.6 (Prediction of Hydrologic Consequences/ Protection of Hydrologic Balance), the applicant is directed to provide a narrative description addressing ten specific concerns and how each will be prevented or mitigated. One of the listed concerns is stated as follows: "The potential draining of dams, ponds, impoundments, and wetlands which overlie the underground permit area." (emphasis added) The inclusion of "wetlands" here is significant and clearly indicates that BMR requires wetland impacts to be addressed in Section 8.6, despite the imprecise drafting of Module 8 in general.

Deficiencies:

1) In Sections 8.1 through 8.4, applicants are directed to provide considerable information about the surface and groundwater hydrology of the proposed permit area, but no specific mention of "wetlands" is made. In Section 8.5, background sampling and measurements of the quantity and quality of surface waters and groundwater are to be provided, but again no specific mention is made of "wetlands". The predictable absence of data on wetlands that results from these incomplete Module 8 inventory requirements necessarily frustrates an adequate assessment of hydrologic impacts in Section 8.6. Public water supplies rightly are addressed in Module 8; the water supply of wetlands should receive like attention.

Likewise, in Section 8.7, a hydrologic monitoring plan is to be developed to detect and mitigate adverse hydrologic consequences of the proposed mining activity, but no specific mention of "wetlands" is included among potentially affected targets of hydrologic change.

2) To assess the potential draining of wetlands which overlie the underground permit area in Section 8.6, and how it will be prevented or mitigated, one first must know the location and extent of wetlands and the source(s) of their water supply. Unfortunately, by not specifically asking the applicant to inventory all wetlands within the underground permit area or to provide background sampling or measurements of wetlands, Module 8 all but ensures that the assessment of the potential for draining wetlands required in Section 8.6 will not be adequate for even a bare minimum of wetland protection.

Suggestions for Improvement:

To correct Deficiencies 1) and 2): "Wetlands" should be specifically identified as a surface water resource to be identified, inventoried, delineated, sampled, and monitored in Sections 8.1 through 8.5, and 8.7, along with other surface water resources such as streams, ponds, and lakes. Indeed, Module 14 requires the applicant to show existing wetlands on three separate exhibits; one of them, or a fourth, ought to be Exhibit 8.3 - Hydrologic Data Map.

Actual Example:

Emerald Mine, Permit #30841307, Cyprus Emerald Resources Corp. In the application for the 32nd revision, which added 1,954 acres to the permit boundary in 1997, the applicant stated:

In general the water table conforms to a somewhat subdued version of the local topography, moving radially from areas of high elevation to discharge locations in the valleys (e.g., springs and streams). Impermeable zones act as barriers to vertical movement, tending to perch the water and direct it laterally to springs on the hillsides. These perched groundwater zones result in many contact springs where fractured, permeable strata outcrop above unfractured, relatively impermeable strata. [8.1(1)]

          The depth of cover is greater than 400 feet at private ponds, impoundments, and wetlands
          within the proposed subsidence control plan area which should preclude any adverse effects
          that mining activities may have on these facilities.

The very same Revision 32 at 8.2(k)(1) forecasts a maximum surface vertical displacement of 3.7 feet as a result of the proposed removal of the 4- to 7-foot thick Pittsburgh seam! Such planned surface displacement, which varies from place to place in the field, would be expected to have major impact on any wetlands subject to subsidence. When wetland resources are not inventoried, of course, adverse effects cannot be identified, assessed, compensated, or included in any statistics.

This module requires the applicant to map and to provide specific information about each active, completed, or abandoned surface mine, underground mine, coal refuse disposal site, and other disposal site (hazardous, municipal, or residual waste) located in or within 1,000 feet of the mine permit area. Other information to be provided for areas within and adjacent to the proposed mine area relates to public water supplies and suppliers, sewage authorities, and local governmental jurisdictions.

Positive Aspect:

Section 9.4 requires the applicant to identify all public water supplies with groundwater or surface water sources within 1 mile of the underground mine. This information is helpful in part in determining whether any Exceptional Value wetlands (i.e., "wetlands located along an existing public or private drinking water supply, including both surface and groundwater sources, that maintain the quality or quantity of the drinking water supply") exist within the permit area.

Deficiency:

The relevance of wetlands to the information required in Section 9.4 regarding public water supplies at present is not explicit.

Suggestion for Improvement::

Section 9.4 should mention that wetlands located along an existing public or private drinking water supply, including both surface and groundwater sources, that maintain the quality or quantity of the drinking water supply are considered Exceptional Value wetlands and that they should be specifically identified as such in Module 14 (Streams/Wetlands).

 

This module requires applicants to provide two sets of large-scale maps (1" = 50' or 1" = 100') of many important surface features and resources at each surface activity site associated with a proposed underground mine. One set, the Site Plan Maps (Exhibit 10.1), is to show the site as it will appear during the development and operation of the mine. The other set, the Land Use/Vegetation Maps (Exhibit 10.3), is to show the site as it exists prior to mining and as it will exist after reclamation. In addition, a Soils Map (Exhibit 10.2), excerpted from the county soil survey, is to locate any prime farmland soils within the permit area of each surface activity site. Cross-section drawings also are to be provided to show the extent of proposed site grading.

Applicants are "required" to identify wetlands on Exhibits 10.1 and 10.3, but this directive often is ignored.

Positive Aspect:

Among the resources to be identified on both Exhibit 10.1 and Exhibit 10.3 are "... all surface water bodies such as streams, lakes, ponds, springs, and wetlands..." (emphasis added). The directive to applicants to include "wetlands" among other "surface water bodies" on these large-scale maps is significant, is consistent with Chapters 93 and 105, and clearly indicates the BMR's responsibility to protect them.

Deficiencies:

1) The specific requirement here to identify wetlands on Exhibits 10.1 and 10.3 is not cross-referenced to the section of the permit application form that most closely relates to wetland identification and assessment, viz., Module 14 (Streams/ Wetlands).

2) Although wetlands are required to be shown on Exhibits 10.1 and 10.3, there is no guidance provided as to how wetlands are to be identified.

3) Because "surface activity sites" are not defined in this module, it is not clear that all areas on the surface which will be affected by planned subsidence are to be included in Exhibits 10.1 and 10.3.

Suggestions for Improvement:

1) The requirements for wetland resource information in Exhibits 10.1 and 10.3 and in Module 14 (Streams/ Wetlands) should be cross-referenced to each other.

2) As in Module 14, it should be clearly stated here that wetlands are to be identified, delineated, and classified in accordance with normal Chapter 105 policies and procedures.

3) "Surface activity sites" should be defined in this Module specifically to include all areas on the surface that will be affected by planned subsidence as well as those that may be at risk from surface grading. A cross- reference should be provided to Modules 18 and 19. The intentional subsidence of the land surface represents the most widespread threat to wetlands associated with longwall mining.

Actual Examples:

Enlow Fork Mine, Permit #30841317, Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company: During January 1999, Consol applied for the 40^th permit revision for its Enlow Fork Mine in East Finley Township, Washington County, to install the 3 North #2 Air Shaft and related facilities. Exhibits 10.1 and 10.3 were combined on a single drawing, rather than presented as separate drawings as required. No wetlands were identified on Exhibit 10.1/10.3, despite the fact that six wetlands totaling 0.344 acre were proposed to be filled or otherwise disturbed (per Module 14) in conjunction with the proposed air shaft. No wetlands within 1,000 feet of the site were shown on the Exhibit, despite the fact that the NWI overlay for the Claysville quadrangle shows a 4-acre emergent wetland (PEM1A) less than 600 feet to the northwest of the surface activity site. BMR approved the permit revision without requesting any changes or corrections to Exhibits 10.1/10.3.

Bailey Mine, Permit #30841316, Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company: On 24 February 2000, BMR approved Consol's 71^st permit revision for its Bailey Mine in Richhill Township, Greene County. This permit revision added 11,120 acres to the underground mine permit area and 4,126 acres to the subsidence control plan area. Despite the fact that numerous wetlands of various types (including marsh, forested, riverine, and palustrine) are identified on the NWI maps for the 17 square-mile area overlying the expanded permit, and despite the fact that the Pennsylvania Game Commission pointed out numerous times during its review of this activity that wetlands were at risk of adverse impact, BMR required no Exhibits 10.1 or 10.3 and thus no identification of wetlands.

This module requires applicants to provide information relating to land use, vegetation, and prime farmland for each surface activity site associated with a proposed underground mine. There is some overlap with Module 10, inasmuch as some of this same information is to be provided on Exhibits 10.2 (Soils Map) and 10.3 (Land Use/Vegetation Maps).

Positive Aspect:

Some of the information to be compiled for this module could be helpful in identifying potential wetland areas (e.g., natural vegetation characteristics and soil map units deemed hydric or known to include hydric inclusions).

Deficiencies:

     1) Because "surface activity sites" are not defined, it is unclear to applicants that areas on the surface that will be affected by planned subsidence are to be addressed in this module.

     2) Although the potential exists to use the information compiled in this module to aid the applicant in the identification of wetland areas in Module 14 (Streams/Wetlands), there is no directive to do so.

Suggestions for Improvement:

     1) "Surface activity sites" should be revised in this module specifically to include areas on the surface that will be affected by planned subsidence. A cross-reference should be provided to Modules 18 and 19.

     2) Wetlands should be specifically listed as an existing land use to be identified in Module 11. Wetland (hydrophytic) vegetation should be specifically listed as a class of resource types to be displayed. This wetland-related information should be cross-referenced with the information to be provided in Module 14. Unless scarce wetland resources are identified, they will never receive any protection.

For each surface activity site a narrative description is required regarding site preparation, grading, and construction activities; erosion and sedimentation controls to be employed; and haul roads. Descriptions are to be cross-referenced to the Site Plan Map (Exhibit 10.1).

Positive Aspects:

The site preparation and facility construction activities to be discussed qualify as activities subject to the regulatory requirements of 25 Pa. Code Chapters 93 and 105 to the extent that they affect wetlands or other bodies of water.

Deficiencies:

1) The applicant is not directed to identify the existence of wetlands in areas proposed for site preparation and facility construction activities, although it is essential to do so in order to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 105.

2) Subsection "d" of Section 12.3 (Haul Roads) directs the applicant to complete Module 14 if a proposed haul road involves the crossing of any intermittent or perennial stream, but makes no reference to affected wetlands.

Suggestions for Improvement:

     1) Applicants should be required to describe whether any site preparation or facility construction activities will affect wetlands, and to cross-reference this information with the information provided in Module 14 (Streams/Wetlands).

     2) Section 12.3.d should be revised to include "wetlands" in addition to "streams".

This module requires plans, reports, and specifications for systems proposed to treat drainage from underground workings and surface runoff that will contact coal or other sources of water pollution. All such plans, reports, and specifications are to be prepared by a licensed professional engineer.

Positive Aspect:

Properly designed treatment systems can help protect the water quality of surface water resources, including wetlands.

Deficiency:

Man-made wetlands have been used successfully to treat acid mine drainage, but there is no mention of that fact in this module.

Suggestion for Improvement:

The module should mention the possibility of using man-made wetlands to treat mine drainage. Cross-references should be included here to Module 14, and reference should be made to Constructed Wetlands for Mine Drainage Treatment (PADEP 1998f). It also should be pointed out explicitly that no part of a natural wetland can be authorized for use as a treatment facility.

Module 14 potentially represents the most relevant and important part of each underground mine application with respect to the identification of, and the assessment of impacts on, wetlands. It solicits considerable information relevant to wetlands, similar in many ways to the information required of applicants for a non-mining Chapter 105 individual permit statewide. In practice, however, Module 14 is largely ignored by the BMR and by mine applicants.

Module 14, revised during 1993, is Form ER-MR-311: Rev. 9/93. This is a different form number from all of the other modules in the underground mine application. It was developed and updated by BMR for the Bituminous Surface Mine Application. The revised Module 14 of the surface mine application was then incorporated directly into the underground mine application. (Prior to 1993, Module 14 was called "Stream Variances/Relocations" and it did not address wetlands at all.)

Positive Aspects:

1) Section 14.3 (Wetland Related Information) applies to the entire "proposed permit area", not just to surface activity sites.

2) Section 14.3.a. requires the applicant to identify the person(s) making the wetland determination for the permit area and his/her qualifications.

3) Section 14.3.b directs that all wetlands are to be identified, delineated, and classified in accordance with normal Chapter 105 policies and procedures when preparing mine permit applications. Neither in Chapter 105 nor in Module 14 is there any specified minimum size of regulated wetland. The extent and classification of regulated wetlands can be determined only upon field examination by qualified professionals. Wetlands in the coalfields of southwestern Pennsylvania tend to be small and not subject to identification from aerial photographs (Figure 21).

4) Existing wetlands, defined and delineated in accordance with Chapter 105 requirements, are to be identified on three different exhibits (6.2, 9, and 18). Unfortunately, as discussed below under Deficiencies (Item 2), the referenced exhibits do not exist in the underground mine application form modules.

5) Specific information about wetlands, which is the same information required in a noncoal Chapter 105 individual permit application, is to be provided for the entire permit area. Section 14.3.b. specifically seeks the information necessary to determine whether any identified wetlands qualify as "exceptional value wetlands" as defined at §105.17(1). The same section elicits information about the functions of each individual wetland identified in the proposed mine permit area. One or more of the eight functions listed is associated with any wetland found in southwestern Pennsylvania.

6) In Sections 14.4.a. and 14.4.b., applicants are required to discuss and evaluate any practicable alternatives to the proposed mining activities that would have lesser wetland impacts.

7) Any wetlands in the proposed permit area that will be directly affected must be identified, and the impacts must be described and assessed (Section 14.4.c.).
 

8) Any wetlands in the proposed permit area that will be indirectly affected must be identified, and the impacts must be described (Section 14.4.d.). Planned subsidence impacts wetlands through alteration of topography, substrate, and/or hydrology.

Two of the three drawings (Exhibits 9 and 18) on which wetlands are supposed to be identified according to Section 14.3.a do not exist in the underground mine application.

9) Potential cumulative wetland impacts of the proposed and anticipated mining activities in the general area must be identified and explained (Section 14.4.e.).

10) Section 14.5 requires the applicant to provide a wetland mitigation/replacement plan, including specific details, and to identify the location of the wetland replacement site(s) on Exhibit 9 - Operations Map and on Exhibit 18 - Land Use and Reclamation Map. (As mentioned above under Module 9, there is no Exhibit 9; perhaps what is meant instead is Exhibit 6.2 - Operation Plan. Likewise, there is no Exhibit 18; perhaps what is meant instead is Exhibit 10.3 - Land Use/Vegetation Map.) Section 14.5.f informs the applicant of the existence of a publication entitled "Design Criteria for Wetlands Replacement" (PADER 1992) which provides general guidance for designing wetland replacement as mitigation for the unavoidable impacts of any kind of development activity in Pennsylvania, including bituminous coal mining.

11) In Sections 14.1.g. and 14.2.c., applicants are required to provide a characterization of the existing water quality and water quantity of streams adjacent to proposed surface activities, as well as the 25 PA Code Chapter 93 protected water use classification for the streams.

Deficiencies:

     1) Section 14.1 (Mining Activities Within 100 Feet of a Stream) and Section 14.2 (Stream Relocation and Channel Changes) apply only to proposed "surface mining activities" rather than the entire permit area.
 

2) Section 14.3.a. requires the applicant to identify the person(s) making the wetland determination and his/her qualifications, but no signed certification as to accuracy is required. (PADEP has not established any minimum professional qualifications for persons performing wetland delineations.) In Module 2, a certification signature for the overall application is required from an engineer, geologist, and/or land surveyor, but those professionals would not necessarily have any education or experience relevant to wetland identification, wetland value classification, wetland assessment, or wetland mitigation.

Section 14.4.d. defines "altering the wetland hydrology" as an "indirect" effect, when in fact, any activity that alters the hydrology of a wetland by changing its course, current, or cross-section is a direct "encroachment" subject to the Chapter 105 regulatory provisions, a critical regulatory distinction that appears to go unheeded by BMR.

     3) The Wetland Delineation Report and data sheets are not specifically directed to be attached to the application, so they are not provided by applicants.

     4) After BMR revised its Surface Mine Application form in 1993, it used the revised Module 14 for its Underground Mine Application form as well. In so doing, however, it failed to make the few necessary changes that would have made Module 14 meaningful in the context of an Underground Mine Application, such as references to appropriate exhibits. The exhibits cited in Section 14.3.b (Exhibits 6.2, 9, and 18) are relevant in the surface mine application but not in the underground mine application.

Referenced Exhibit 6.2 in the surface mine application is the "Environmental Resources Map" (1" = 400' maximum), which is Exhibit 19.2 in the underground mine application. There is an Exhibit 6.2 in the underground mine application (USGS "Location Map", 1" = 2000'), but the information to be shown thereon is not comparable to that for the "Environmental Resources Map". Furthermore, Module 6 of the underground mine application does not specify that wetlands be identified on Exhibit 6.2, although that would be helpful.

There is no Exhibit 9 in Module 9 ("Local Mining, Waste Disposal Water, Sewage and Government Informational" [sic]) of the Underground Mine Application. Exhibit 9 in the Surface Mine Application is the "Operations Map" (maximum scale 1" = 400'). The comparable map in the Underground Mine Application is Exhibit 10.1 ("Site Plan Map", 1" = 100' maximum), on which wetlands are required to be shown, but only for each surface activity site. Furthermore, there is no cross-reference in Module 14 to Exhibit 10.1.

There is no Exhibit 18 in Module 18 ("Subsidence Control") of the Underground Mine Application. Exhibit 18 in the Surface Mine Application is the "Land Use and Reclamation Map" (maximum scale 1" = 400'). The comparable map in the Underground Mine Application is Exhibit 10.3 ("Land Use/ Vegetation Maps", 1" = 100' maximum), on which wetlands are required to be shown, but only for each surface activity site. Furthermore, there is no cross-reference in Module 14 to Exhibit 10.3.

     5) Section 14.4.d. misleadingly addresses "indirect" effects on wetlands, parenthetically defining such effects as "...(e.g., altering the wetland hydrology)...". In fact, any activity that alters the hydrology of a wetland by changing its course, current, or cross-section is a direct "encroachment" subject to the Chapter 105 regulatory provisions. This critical regulatory requirement appears to have been missed in the drafting of this module.

     6) Effects on wetlands from planned subsidence are not specifically cited as requiring assessment. They should be.

     7) A lengthy excerpt from §105.18a (relating to permit requirements for activities in Exceptional Value wetlands), which is mentioned in Section 14.3.b., is provided at the end of Module 14. The excerpted passage is confusing at best, and misleading at worst. The excerpt is incomplete because it omits the lengthy section of §105.18a relating to permit requirements for activities in Other wetlands. Other wetlands are presumably much more common than Exceptional Value wetlands. Hence, the excerpted passage can give the mistaken impression that impacts only on Exceptional Value wetlands need to be addressed in the mining application.

     8) Sections 14.5.b and 14.5.d (Note: Section 14.5.c is missing entirely from the module) direct applicants to identify existing wetlands and proposed replacement wetlands, respectively, on the "Operations Map (Exhibit 9)", but as pointed out above, there is no Exhibit 9 in Module 9. Module 6 (Operation Plan) requires an Exhibit 6.2 (Location Map) in the underground mining application, but does not specifically list "wetlands" among the features to be identified on it.
 

9) Section 14.5.d directs applicants to identify proposed replacement wetlands on the "Land Use and Reclamation Map (Exhibit 18)", but as pointed out above, there is no such exhibit or named map in Module 18 (Subsidence Control).

Module 14 should require that the Wetland Delineation Report and data sheets be included in the application, just as in any Chapter 105 permit application

Suggestions for Improvement:

     1) A certification paragraph and signature line should be added in this Module for "Wetland Professional".

     2) The citations to Exhibits 9 and 18 in Sections 14.3 and 14.5 should be corrected so that they refer the applicant to actual exhibits elsewhere in the underground mining application. Citations should be made to Exhibits 10.1, 10.3 and 19.2, where wetlands are specifically listed as resources to be identified (Figure 24).

     3) The Wetland Delineation Report and data sheets should clearly be directed to be included in the application where wetlands or waters are found on the permit area, just as in any Chapter 105 joint permit application.

     4) Section 14.4.d. should be revised to remind applicants that any activity that alters the hydrology of a wetland (planned subsidence, for example) is subject to the regulatory provisions and requirements of Chapters 93 and 105.

     5) Module 14 should be completed whenever a permit or permit revision involves the addition of underground mine acreage or additional acreage to the subsidence control plan. Several sections of Module 14 (e.g., 14.3, 14.4, and 14.5) are not limited to "surface mining activities", and thus deal with all wetlands above the underground mine permit area.

     6) The excerpt from §105.18a(a) should be deleted because it is confusing to applicants. A simple cross-reference to the requirements at 25 Pa. Code §105.18a would sufficiently inform applicants of the criteria by which proposed activities in wetlands will be evaluated, whatever their value classification.

Actual Examples:

The following examples illustrate how BMR ignores the PADEP wetland protection requirements of Chapter 105 and of its own mining regulations.

McMurray District Office, Review Comments Form, Bituminous Underground Coal Mine Application A 25-page form is used by staff at the McMurray office when conducting the initial review of mining applications for completeness. The form devotes a single page to each of the 24 Modules, plus a cover page. Generally, each major section of each module (and in some cases, subsections as well) is listed on its appropriate page. Check-off boxes are provided to indicate whether the required information is included, is not applicable, or is included but incomplete. Space also is provided for the reviewer's additional comments. Tellingly, the review page for Module 14 (which references the obsolete title "Stream Variances/Relocations") omits entirely the key sections regarding wetlands---Sections 14.3, 14.4, and 14.5.

Enlow Fork Mine, Permit #30841317, Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company: During January 1999, Consol applied for the 40^th permit revision for its Enlow Fork Mine in East Finley Township, Washington County. This permit revision, to install the 3 North #2 Air Shaft and related facilities, was approved by BMR on 1 October 1999. An access road, fill for a construction pad, a sewage treatment plant, and a sedimentation pond discharge channel all were proposed within 100 feet of Rocky Run, classified by PADEP as WWF and reported by the applicant to be an intermittent stream. Six wetlands totaling 0.344 acre were proposed to be filled or otherwise disturbed.
 

The following deficiencies in the Module 14 for this application either were not noticed by BMR review staff or were not considered significant when approving this longwall mining permit revision.

The form used by the McMurray District Office to perform its initial completeness review of underground mine applications omits entirely from Module 14 the key sections regarding wetland identification and assessment --- Sections 14.3, 14.4, and 14.5.

¨ The official PADEP-BMR form for Module 14 was not used for this application. The applicant used its own, transcribed copy of the form, which quietly omitted numerous, relevant questions from the existing form!

¨ Section 14.1 addresses surface mining activities proposed within 100 feet of an intermittent or perennial stream. Section 14.1.b requires a description and justification of the proposed activities. A brief description was given, but the only justification provided was "...to develop this site in a practical manner...". This response hardly seems adequate in light of the regulatory requirement in Subchapter D (Areas Unsuitable for Mining) §86.102(12), which states that the PADEP may grant a variance from the outright prohibition on surface mining activities within 100 feet of an intermittent stream only if the mine operator "...demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that there will be no adverse hydrologic impacts, water quality impacts or other environmental resources impacts as a result of the variance." (emphasis added)

¨ Section 14.1.g requires "A characterization of the existing water quality and quantity of the stream including downstream water uses, and 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93 Protected Water Use Classification." No response at all was given, nor was any reason for the lack of a response!

¨ Section 14.3 requires specific wetland-related information. Although a brief wetland delineation report eventually was provided on 27 May 1999 (four months after filing the application) to supplement this Module 14, the report is incomplete in that it does not address most of the specified items in Section 14.3, including information regarding wetland value classification and information about the functions of the delineated wetlands. Section 14.3 also directs the applicant to identify delineated wetlands on three separate Exhibits in the application, which was not done. The lack of this information effectively renders BMR review of the proposed wetland impacts impossible.

¨ Section 14.4 requires specific information regarding wetland impacts, including a description and analysis of a) alternatives considered, b) practicability of alternatives, c) wetlands (and their functions) directly affected by the proposed activities, d) wetlands indirectly affected, and e) proposed or anticipated cumulative wetland impacts. The applicant's three-sentence response merely states that it is not practical to avoid disturbing six wetlands totaling 0.344 acre. No justification was set forth, no alternatives were considered, no wetland functions were identified, and no possible cumulative impacts were evaluated. No mention was made of any wetland impacts associated with the 39 prior revisions of this permit, nor of any other wetlands affected by other mines permitted in the watershed, nor of any future wetland impacts associated with this mine.

¨ Section 14.5 requires considerable information for wetland mitigation/replacement proposals. Indeed, a "Note" in Section 14.5.d states "At minimum, wetland replacement must be at a 1:1 ratio (replacement acres: affected acres)", echoing the minimum requirements of 25 Pa. Code 105.20a (Wetland replacement criteria). Section 14.5 clearly is not set up as an optional request, but this applicant apparently read it that way; the simple, candid response given here is "Wetland replacement is not proposed". The applicant had no intent to comply with §105.20a. Inasmuch as the BMR readily issued the permit in the absence of compliance with Chapter 105, the applicant's submission demonstrably was acceptable to the agency, even though none of the required written findings were made. Moreover, no permit application or predischarge notification regarding the proposed wetland destruction was made to the Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Bailey Mine, Permit #30841316, Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company: During December 1996, Consol applied for the 71^st permit revision for its Bailey Mine in Richhill Township, Greene County. This permit revision, to add 11,120 acres to the underground mine permit area and 4,126 acres to the subsidence control plan area, was approved by BMR on 24 February 2000. As in other permit revisions involving no specific surface facilities, no Module 14 was submitted by the applicant. No fee for any regulated "encroachments" was paid. No Module 14 was requested by the BMR, who noted "[t]his revision added underground acreage only (no additional surface acreage); therefore, no Exhibit 10.1 or Module 14 was required" [memo from Joe Kalynchuk to Joe Leone, 19 April 2000].
 

During the course of its review of this application, the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) advised the BMR that it believed that subsidence associated with the proposed mining will "adversely impact riparian wetland habitats" and that there is "a critical need for an adequate 'protection and enhancement plan'" pursuant to Section 89.74 (letters from W. Capouillez to W. Plassio, dated 13 October and 3 November 1999). When the permit revision was issued without consideration of its expressed concerns, the PGC filed an appeal of the decision on 22 March 2000 (Environmental Hearing Board 2000). In a file memo detailing the sequence of events leading to the permit appeal, the PGC noted that "DEP concurs with Consol's previous comment that wildlife habitat and wetland documentation, delineation, protection, and/or mitigation has never been made a permit requirement during DEP's review of subsidence control acreage" (PGC file memo on Bailey Mine Revision, dated 8 March 2000).

BMR acknowledged that wildlife habitat and wetland documentation, delineation, protection, and/or mitigation have never been made a permit requirement during its review of subsidence control acreage.

Vesta Bituminous Coal Mining Activity Permit #63951601, Vesta Mining Company. During December 1997 a permit was granted to construct and operate a new coal preparation plant, 227-acre waste coal refuse disposal pile, and wastewater discharges in North Bethlehem Township, Washington County. The following problems posed no difficulty to BMR when issuing the permit:

¨ NWI maps showed no wetlands for this site. Wetlands on half of the site were field-identified accurately by a consultant (Keilman Environmental Services 1992). Not all existing wetlands and waters were acknowledged on the other half of the site investigated by a different consultant (Killam 1994b). Yet the wetland delineation was attributed entirely to the original consultant in the formal permit application submitted ten months later (Killam 1994c; see Schmid & Co., Inc. 1998).

¨ The PADEP permit fails to mention the loss of 2 miles of a Daniels Run tributary (4 acres of highly productive stream channel, (Figure 25) and of 3.35 acres of wetlands to the proposed construction of a coal refuse pile, as shown on the application drawings.

¨ The planned loss of additional onsite wetlands and a pond was ignored entirely in the application narrative although shown on the drawings.

¨ The permit area and resource inventory do not include an offsite "mitigation area" where existing wetlands meeting the PADEP definition of "Exceptional Value Wetlands" were proposed to be destroyed in order to form a sediment basin, in clear violation of 25 Pa. Code 93.4a(b) and (d).

¨ No replacement for the authorized loss of onsite or offsite wetlands was proposed by the applicant or required by PADEP in accordance with 25 Pennsylvania Code 105.20a.
 

Emerald No. 1 Mine, Permit #30841307, Cyprus Emerald Resources Corp.: During March 1998, Cyprus applied for the 31^st permit revision for its Emerald No. 1 Mine in Franklin Township, Greene County, to install the No. 4 Bleeder Shaft and the No. 8 Shaft (Figure 17). Attachment 14.3.a to this application is a wetland report, which identifies wetlands using the Corps 1987 Manual. To compensate for the 0.17 acre of wetlands to be impacted, the applicant proposed, and the BMR accepted (without preparing the required Record of Decision), a $1,000 contribution to the PADEP Wetland Replacement Project Fund. This contribution was calculated in accordance with the PADEP fee schedule for wetland compensation, which heavily subsidizes permittees Statewide who are allowed to fill wetlands. PennDOT's actual per-acre cost to successfully create the required wetland functions in southwestern Pennsylvania a decade earlier was 64 times as much as this Fund contribution (McCoy 1992).
 

Since 1996 such contributions to the Fund have been accepted by PADEP as satisfying Chapter 105 wetland mitigation requirements for impacts totaling less than 0.5 acre, but only after the applicant first demonstrates that on-site replacement is not practicable, is not environmentally necessary, is not environmentally sustainable, and that on-site area is not adequate for a replacement site. No such demonstrations were made by the applicant in this case. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that the applicant would have been unable to find a half acre of suitable upland on which to create replacement wetlands anywhere within the 16,548 acres of the underground mine permit area (or even within the 310 acres of surface activity areas associated with this mine). Evidently BMR did not require that the permittee even consider doing so.

Contributions to the PA Wetland Replacement Fund Project are routinely accepted by BMR in lieu of actual replacement for acknowledged wetland impacts, without the required demonstrations that onsite creation is not practicable.

On occasion, a mine applicant actually appears to follow the required procedure of identifying and avoiding wetlands, as in the recent application for surface activities at the Maple Creek Mining, Inc./UMCO Energy Inc. New Century Mine (#63921301). Earthwork was proposed to be kept outside all identified wetlands, although no basis for the wetland determination was included with the application.

This module requires designs, reports, and specifications for mine openings (e.g., shaft, slope, or drift entries) and mine seals proposed as part of the mine operation. All such designs, reports, and specifications are to be prepared by a licensed professional engineer. Module 15 is relevant to wetlands only to the extent that wetlands may exist in the vicinity of a proposed mine opening where it reaches the surface or where it tunnels beneath a wetland. Section 15.2.a requires applicants to "... provide a drawing showing those features which are relevant to protecting the hydrologic balance" for each shaft, slope, or drift entry. This module should direct that wetlands near or above mine openings be identified on the drawing and protected when the mine opening is designed.
 

Unresolved discrepancies between proposed activities described in a mine's air quality application and those described in the same mine's operation plans make it virtually impossible for the public to understand what has been submitted to or approved by PADEP.

This module requires design plans, reports, and specifications for impoundments proposed as part of the mine operation. All such plans are to be certified by a qualified registered professional engineer or land surveyor.

Positive Aspects:

Section 16.3 specifically directs the applicant to indicate whether a proposed impoundment meets the regulatory criteria for a Chapter 105 dam. Section 16.6 (Removal of Impoundments) alerts the applicant that plans for any impoundment which is proposed to remain following reclamation will be forwarded for review to the Bureau of Dams and Waterway Management (now Division of Waterways, Wetlands and Erosion Control).

Deficiencies:

Impoundments typically are sited in topographic depressions. Such depressions may contain natural wetlands. Module 16 fails to advise applicants that the construction of an impoundment of any kind in a wetland is considered a significant impact that requires mitigation and replacement. In fact, wetlands are never mentioned in Module 16 of longwall mining applications.

Suggestion for Improvement:

This module should advise applicants that the construction of an impoundment of any kind in an existing wetland is considered a significant impact that requires a consideration of alternatives as well as mitigation and replacement, whether or not it is a part of coal mining operations.

This module addresses concerns with air and noise pollution in conjunction with coal processing facilities, mine ventilation equipment, access and haul roads, loading and unloading areas, conveyors, stockpiles, and crushing and sizing equipment. It does not apply to wetlands.

In the case of the Vesta Bituminous Coal Mining Activity Permit #63951601, Vesta Mining Company, for a coal preparation facility in North Bethlehem Township, Washington County, there were significant discrepancies between the proposed surface facilities described in the air quality application and those described in the mine operation plan (Schmid & Co., Inc. 1998). Discrepancies in the plans submitted to BMR apparently posed no impediment to permit issuance, although they make it virtually impossible for the public to ascertain what has been submitted to or approved by PADEP.

This module requires the applicant to provide an inventory of structures within the subsidence control plan boundary and for adjacent lands that potentially may be affected within a 25-degree angle of draw. It also requires descriptions of various aspects of the subsidence control plan, including how mining will be conducted to prevent planned subsidence damage to certain structures or resources and what measures will be taken to minimize damage to certain others (Figure 26).

Positive Aspects:

The required information includes specific details about how the mine operation will be conducted to prevent, minimize, or repair damages due to planned subsidence. Among the resources specifically to be protected are perennial streams (defined in §89.5 as providing habitat for two or more species of aquatic organisms), the values and uses of which are to be maintained by specific mining methods or techniques. Anticipated effects of planned subsidence on the land surface due to high extraction mining, as well as measures to mitigate such damage as may occur, also must be discussed.

Deficiencies:

     1) As pointed out previously, Module 14 (Streams/Wetlands) directs the applicant to identify all existing wetlands in the permit area on each of three exhibits, one of which is reported to be Exhibit 18 (Land Use and Reclamation Map); unfortunately, no such Exhibit of that name or number is mentioned in Module 18 of the underground mining permit application.

     2) Wetlands are not specifically mentioned anywhere in Module 18 among the various features or resources to be described or identified in the Subsidence Control Plan, despite the certainty of damage to wetlands by subsidence.

Suggestions for Improvement:

     1) If the reference to Exhibit 18 in Module 14 is intentional, such an Exhibit should be included in Module 18 and the applicant should be directed to identify all wetlands on it, with the appropriate cross-reference to Module 14.

     2) Concern for wetlands should be specifically added to the following sections of Module 18:

     - In Section 18.2.f., where the applicant is directed to describe in detail how mining activities will be planned and conducted to prevent subsidence damage to seven other specific features,

     - In Section 18.2.i., where the applicant is directed to describe measures which will be taken to assure that the value and uses of perennial streams are not impaired,

     - In Section 18.2.k., where the applicant is directed to discuss the anticipated subsidence effects on the surface lands which overlie parts of the mine where high percentage (longwall) extraction of coal will take place,

     - In Section 18.2.l., where the applicant is directed to describe the methods which will be used to mitigate subsidence damage which may occur.

In this module the applicant is directed to map the extent of the underground permit and subsidence control areas, and within those areas to identify numerous natural and man-made features and resources (Figure 27).

Positive Aspect:

Section 19.2 directs the applicant to prepare an Environmental Resources Map (at a scale of 1" = 500' or larger) on which are to be shown numerous features and resources, including wetlands. The inclusion of "wetlands" among other listed "surface water bodies" on these large-scale maps is significant, and clearly indicates the BMR's obligation to protect them. In theory, the Environmental Resources Map should be the single most important exhibit in the application for identifying wetlands and other natural resources that require protection (Figure 27).

Deficiencies:

     1) There is no directive in Module 19 as to how wetlands to be shown on Exhibit 19.2 are to be identified. Typically, if wetlands are shown at all, the wetlands are those depicted on airphoto-based National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, which significiently underreport wetlands, particularly spring seeps in forested regions of Appalachia (Stolt and Baker 1995; Klemow 1998; Klemow et al. 1999; Schmid 2000).
 

2) There are no cross-references between Exhibit 19.2 and Module 14 (Streams/ Wetlands) or Section 8.6 (Prediction of Hydrologic Consequences) of Module 8. Lacking a direct connection with Module 14 and Sections 8.6, simply showing wetlands on Exhibit 19.2 provides no protection of them and no assessment of potential impacts to them.

No wetlands were identified on Exhibit 19.2 in the Bailey Mine permit revision application to add more than 11,000 acres to the longwall operation, despite the fact that the National Wetland Inventory maps identify numerous emergent, forested, and riverine wetlands within the mine permit area.

     3) Section 19.3 directs the applicant to prepare a Subsidence Control Plan Map (at a scale of 1" = 500' or larger). Section 19.3.d. lists twelve "features and resources relevant to subsidence control plan development". Inasmuch as planned subsidence can change both the topography and hydrology of wetlands, it is essential that all existing and proposed wetlands be identified on this map. Wetlands, however, are not specifically mentioned among the resources to be shown on this map.

Suggestions for Improvement:

     1) Module 19 should make it clear that wetlands to be identified on Exhibit 19.2 are to be delineated according to the PADEP wetland delineation policy stated at 25 Pa. Code 105.451.

     2) There should be a cross-reference between Exhibit 19.2 and both Module 14 and Section 8.6.

     3) Section 19.3 should add "wetlands" to the list of resources that are to be delineated and shown on the Subsidence Control Plan Map. Appropriate cross-references also should be made to Module 14 and Section 8.6.

Actual Examples:

Bailey Mine, Permit #30841316, Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company: During December 1996, Consol applied for the 71^st permit revision for its Bailey Mine in Richhill Township, Greene County. This permit revision, to add 11,120 acres to the underground mine permit area and 4,126 acres to the subsidence control plan area, was approved by BMR on 24 February 2000. Exhibit 19.2 for this permit revision is an enlargement to 1" = 500' of the 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangles. The Exhibit identified no wetlands within the permit area, despite the fact that the National Wetland Inventory overlays to the relevant USGS quadrangles identify numerous emergent, forested, and riparian wetlands within the mine permit area (Figure 28).

Emerald Mine, Permit #30841307, Cyprus Emerald Resource Corp. The Environmental Resources Map submitted for Permit Revision 32 in 1997 identifies only 10 of the 13 NWI wetlands mapped within the 1,954-acre permit expansion area. No field confirmation of the nature, functions, or extent of the NWI wetlands or analysis of probable impacts was performed by the applicant or required by BMR.

This module directs the applicant to discuss proposed plans for reclamation of each surface activity site, including a reclamation schedule, postmining land use, specifications regarding regrading, soil evaluations, and temporary and permanent revegetation. This module is generally not applicable to wetlands. Any plan for mitigation or replacement of wetlands impacted presumably would be separate from the typical mine reclamation plan that covers non-wetland areas, and would be described in accordance with Module 14, Section 14.5. A cross-reference to the wetland replacement plan in Module 14 would be appropriate here.

This module includes separate forms for "Structure Demolition" (Form 21.1A), "Surface Area Reclamation" (Form 21.2A), and "Mine Seals" (Form 21.3A), on which are to be listed relevant specifications and estimates of reclamation costs. If a postmining discharge is expected, the costs of anticipated water treatment also are to be provided.

The costs associated with any wetland mitigation or replacement project proposed in accordance with Section 14.5 should be listed on Form 21.2A to facilitate their inclusion in performance bond calculations. That is not clearly stated, and no examples of such costs having been bonded were found in BMR files.

This module must be completed if any water, waste, or backfill material is proposed to be placed in underground mine voids. If solid waste material can be returned to the mine void, the extent of subsidence can be reduced. If the amount of surface subsidence is reduced, the impacts on wetlands and other resources that otherwise would be affected is lessened. As discussed above, impacts on wetlands and other surface resources could be reduced significantly if backstowing were practiced in southwestern Pennsylvania. This module typically is not required, prepared, or submitted.

MODULE 23 - IN SITU PROCESSING

This module must be completed if activities involving the in-place processing of coal or coal byproducts are proposed. Descriptions are to be provided of measures to be taken "to prevent groundwater and surface water contamination, damage to fish and wildlife, and threats to the public health and safety". Wetlands are not specifically mentioned, but should be. In-situ processing of coal is rare in southwestern Pennsylvania, and this module normally is not prepared.

MODULE 24 - SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT 
FOR HIGH QUALITY WATERS

This module must be completed if the proposed area to be mined is located within a High Quality watershed classified by PADEP pursuant to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93. Physical and chemical information about the coal, the use and nature of each proposed receiving stream, land use information, and certain economic statistics are to be provided. The overall impact of the proposed mining operation, considering adverse impacts versus net benefits, is to be determined.

In High Quality watersheds, the waterways are of such excellent quality that the PADEP has granted them special protection status following an elaborate review process that includes public notice. As a result, activities that could potentially degrade the quality and use of those waters are supposed to receive closer scrutiny than normal. One of the important functions of wetlands is their ability to protect and maintain water quality. Wetlands within any watershed help to support and maintain the uses of the waterways, but this is especially important in High Quality watersheds. Wetlands, unfortunately, are not mentioned specifically among the resources to be addressed in this module.

Also missing from this module is any identification or assessment of EV (Exceptional Value) waters or watersheds. EV waters are even rarer than HQ waters and are supposed to be afforded even greater regulatory protection. It is not clear why there is an entire module devoted to the assessment of impacts in HQ waters and no comparable assessment for EV waters, unless PADEP has determined that it intends never to designate any EV waters in counties with underground mines. The BMR Technical Manual for Stream Protection (PADEP 1998f) does advise applicants to consider EV as well as HQ waters.

Actual Example:

Mine 84, Permit #63831302, Eighty-Four Mining Company. When the application to renew the permit for this mine in Somerset Township, Washington County, was submitted in 1997, the operation encompassed 35,458 acres (55 square miles) of permitted underground area. Overlying a previously unmined section of the permit area is part of the Little Chartiers Creek watershed (classified as HQ-WWF). In Module 4 of this permit application, the applicant correctly acknowledges that the proposed permit area for the longwall operation is within a designated High Quality watershed. Consequently, Module 24 should have been completed and included with the application, but none was.

During 1995, comments were submitted to PADEP by People United to Save Homes (PUSH) in response to an earlier permit revision application for Mine No. 84. Those comments pointed out that the required Module 24 had not been submitted. No Module 24 was submitted with the 1997 renewal application, despite the "requirements" and the earlier comments directed to PADEP, yet the permit was issued on 4 November 1997.

This 2-page appendix lists the required paperwork associated with the transfer of a permit to a new entity or the change in name or ownership of the permittee. To the extent that the creation and monitoring of a wetland replacement project are permit conditions, those responsibilities should be highlighted in this section and transferred formally with any change in permittee.

Permit Revisions and Renewals

Permits for longwall coal mines in Pennsylvania currently are applied for in a piecemeal fashion. An entire mine operation never is approved and bonded all at once. These major operations methodically expand beneath thousands of acres, and the undermining continues over a period of years or decades.

As defined at §86.52 in the mining regulations, a "permit revision" is necessary whenever there is "a change to the coal mining activities set forth in the application upon which the permit is issued". As with the original application, the revision application must "demonstrate [that] the proposed revision complies with the acts and this chapter".

Permit "renewals" can be authorized to extend the term of a mine permit in accordance with §86.55. Applications for permit renewals are made using a Renewal Application, Coal Mining Activity Permit (5600-PM-MR0385). Permit renewals require the typical public notices as well as publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
 

It is common practice for a mine operator to seek numerous permit revisions to expand the longwall operation. A permit revision may involve a relatively minor change, such as the installation of a bleeder airshaft or a ventilation borehole. Alternatively, a permit revision may be sought to allow the mine operator to add substantial additional acreage to the underground mine or subsidence control areas. A single permit revision can address an area the size of the City of Allentown (17 square miles).

By piecemealing a single, huge longwall mine operation into smaller "revisions", each separate application can appear to involve fewer impacts that by themselves may be considered relatively minor, absent cumulative review.Yet a single permit revision can address an area the size of the City of Allentown.

The dozens of permit revisions for the same mine operation span decades and encompass many dozens of square miles. According to both the regulations [§86.52(d), §86.55(b)] and technical guidance on permit renewals (PADEP 1997b), the proposed addition of acreage to a coal mine operation is considered a new permit application, and it is not to be processed as either a permit revision or permit renewal. In practice, expansions of mine permit areas are treated by BMR as "revisions" in that they are not assigned new permit numbers and they are listed among other revisions on each successive version of the original permit. BMR commendably lists the current cumulative totals for underground permit acreage and surface activity acreage in each permit revision. It consistently fails, however, to keep a cumulative tally of wetland impacts and other encroachments.

Actual Examples:

Bailey Mine, Permit #30841316, Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co. On 24 February 2000, the 71^st permit revision was approved for this mine in Richhill Township, Greene County, which began operating in 1985. This permit revision authorized an additional 11,120 acres (more than 17 square miles) of underground mine, increasing the total size of the underground mine permit area to 30,321 acres (more than 47 square miles). No wetlands were identified from NWI or other sources within the application for the additional 11,120 acres (Figure 28).

Emerald Mine No. 1, Permit #30841307, Cyprus Emerald Resources Corp. This mine in Franklin Township, Greene County, received its original permit on 9 July 1986. Twelve years later, its 32^nd revision increased the underground mine permit area by 1,954 acres to 16,548 acres, nearly half of its currently projected total of 35,000 acres (55 square miles). No wetlands were shown.

By piecemealing a single, huge longwall mine operation into smaller components, each separate application can appear to involve fewer impacts that by themselves may be considered relatively minor. If the entire operation were to be presented and evaluated at one time, the cumulative impacts of all phases and all related aspects could be more effectively assessed.
 

Several sections of the underground mine permit application suggest that full disclosure of all aspects of the mine is supposed to be made. Section 5.3 (Anticipated Permits) in Module 5 directs the applicant to identify "any contiguous coal tracts or surface lands for which it is anticipated that individual permits for mining will be sought in the future" (emphasis added). Section 14.4.e in Module 14 asks the applicant whether "the cumulative impact of the proposed and anticipated mining activities [will] result in a major impairment of the wetland resource in the general area" (emphasis added), and to explain how the determination was made. These application questions aimed at identifying the full extent of an anticipated mine operation typically receive, if any, only vague and incomplete responses that are not challenged by BMR.

The review and permitting of underground mines in piecemeal fashion is like allowing residential developers to obtain wetland permits lot by lot, rather than for an entire subdivision. Coal mine "lots" may encompass several thousand acres.

The review and permitting of underground mines in a piecemeal fashion is analogous to what would occur if residential developers were allowed to obtain wetland permits lot by lot, rather than for an entire subdivision. For underground coal mines, of course, the individual "lots" may encompass several thousand acres.

Applications for Related Mining Facilities

Activities directly related to an underground mine, such as coal preparation and coal refuse disposal, often (although not always) are conducted in close proximity to the mine where the coal is extracted (Figure 29). BMR currently uses separate application forms to review coal preparation facilities and coal refuse disposal facilities.

Underground mine operators who propose to build a coal preparation plant need to submit a separate "Bituminous Coal Preparation Plant Application" (Form ER-MR-314, last revised during January 1989). This application consists of 24 modules and is a total of 45 pages long.

Underground mine operators who propose to develop a coal refuse disposal facility need to submit the "Coal Refuse Disposal Application" (Form ER-MR-39, undated). This application consists of 19 Modules and is a total of 62 pages long.

When applications for these related aspects of a single mine operation are not made simultaneously, the specific details of the proposed operation may differ from one application to the next, generating unresolved contradictions. BMR does not require consistency between the different applications for mining operations, so the public understandably has difficulty in commenting on probable impacts.

Actual Example:

Vesta Mine "Reopening", Permit #63951601, Vesta Mining Company. This new corporate entity applied for a permit for a coal preparation facility and a refuse disposal facility in North Bethlehem Township, Washington County, in 1997. These facilities were intended to serve a proposed underground Hillsboro Coal Company Mine (File #63971301), for which a separate permit application was made that same year by a related company owned by the same conglomerate. Details concerning the methods of mining, annual rate of production, need for haul roads and rail sidings, and source of coal for the preparation plant varied significantly between the two applications and within different modules of the same application (Schmid & Co., Inc. 1998).

Review and Comment by Other Agencies and by the Public

In the course of BMR review of an underground mine permit application, other State and Federal agencies are offered an opportunity to review and comment. The BMR has established Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the Pennsylvania Game  Commission (PGC), the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), and the US Office of Surface Mining in the Department of the Interior. In addition, the BMR has established Interagency Agreements with the PADEP Bureau of Waste Management and with the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

The opportunity for comments by other agencies potentially could provide "checks and balances" during the mine permit review process. It might also bring some technical ecological expertise into the process. In reality, neither happens. In its MOU with the PGC, PADEP specifically retains its "lead role in identifying and delineating wetlands areas and in evaluating the impact of proposed mining activities on wetlands" (PADEP 1998e). Likewise, in its MOU with the PFBC, the PADEP asserts that "DEP mining program staff will have the lead role in evaluating the impact of proposed coal mining activities on wetlands pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 105" (PADEP 1998d). The BMR's lead role includes the ability to disregard comments.
 

In the procedures established pursuant to the MOUs with both PGC and PFBC, the PADEP provides to the resource agency only those "portions" of a coal mine application that BMR determines are "appropriate" or "relevant". The commenting agencies then are required to provide their review/response within 30 days. Lack of a response within that timeframe is deemed concurrence with the application.

Interagency review is not effective in preventing mine-related damages to wetlands or other environmental resources because little information is provided and comments are ignored by BMR.

In general, interagency review is not particularly effective in preventing mine-related damages to wetlands or other environmental resources. When no inventory data or analysis are provided in applications, review comments regarding wetlands cannot be substantive. The PGC and PFBC can provide comments only; the BMR retains final decision-making authority.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission has a standard letter of comment that it issues for most longwall permit applications. The rather noncommittal, bureaucratic comment appears to reflect their relative impotence in the environmental review process:

          We [PGC] have reviewed the [subject] material and have determined that if all requirements of
          25 PA Code Chapters 86 and 87 are adhered to, we can find no basis for objecting to the
          issuance of this permit.

The standard PGC comment does not directly mention Chapters 93 or 105. PGC sought, however, to challenge the Doverspike coal slurry impoundment permit (discussed below) and recently filed a formal appeal of Revision 71 of the Bailey Mine permit (see discussion under Module 14) because no wetland information is being provided by BMR that would make substantive PGC review possible.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) also often raises objections when it believes they are warranted. That its comments and objections, like those of the State environmental resource agencies, usually are ignored by BMR, is a source of frustration to USFWS.

Public notices provide a bare minimum of information regarding mining applications. Copies of the full application are made available at the McMurray District Office of BMR and at the county courthouse or other public location. Advertised public hearings provide an opportunity for the public to acquire additional information about proposed mining activities. Yet it is difficult at best for the public to review new applications for mines in the absence of information on prior activities not included in complex new applications.

The public is accustomed to having the concerns expressed during public hearings and in writing during the permit process ignored by BMR. Public concerns seldom, if ever, are reflected in permit conditions attached to mining approvals. Hence the perception is widespread in the coalfields that BMR is allied with politically powerful coal interests against the general public, a perception reinforced by BMR's routine failure to protect wetlands and other resources.

Actual Examples:

Doverspike Brothers Coal Slurry Impoundment, Permit #33860701, D33060, and D33061. The USFWS recounted at length the unwillingness of BMR to consider the objections of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the USFWS, and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission to the Doverspike coal slurry impoundment in Ringgold Township, Jefferson County (Hietsch 1992). About 3.5 acres of wetlands and 3,000 feet of healthy perennial stream were eliminated following the issuance of permits in 1989 and 1990. The applicant began construction prior to issuance of all requisite permits, but incurred no penalty. No replacement of the impacted wetlands was proposed or required. A PGC challenge to these permits was rejected as untimely.

84 Mine, Permit #6381302, Eighty-Four Mining Company. Another instructive example of the unwillingness of BMR to accommodate public comments is found in the record of an application to expand the former Bethlehem Steel Corporation Mine 84 in Washington County (now owned by Consol/RWE). The Eighty-Four Mining Company proposed to add more than 9,500 acres to the authorized subsidence area of a mine complex that already occupied 27,900 acres. An exhaustive review of this application was submitted by affected landowners organized as People United to Save Homes (PUSH 1995). The line-by-line review pointed out some 230 omissions of "required" information from those modules that were submitted by the applicant to support its application.
 

Predictably, no Module 14 was submitted. In that section of the proposed subsidence area within the Washington East USGS topographic quadrangle, the PUSH group identified 55 acres of wetlands at risk. None of these wetlands had been acknowledged in the permit application. Photographs of the wetlands were provided to BMR. Moreover, 14 existing ponds in the subsidence control area were omitted from the applicant's exhibits (Funderburk 1995).

The public review process, like the application forms and the regulatory requirements, appears to be a formality meant to placate and mislead the general public with respect to wetland protection.

The public comments clearly were ignored by BMR. The permit was promptly approved. The same practice of dismissing public comments appears repeatedly in the records of public hearings on longwall mining applications. That such incomplete applications are readily accepted and approved by BMR, even after the deficiencies are pointed out during public review, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the public review process, like the application forms and the environmental requirements in the regulations, is merely a formality meant to placate and mislead the general public.

Permit Approvals

Before a permit for an underground mine is issued, the BMR is required to prepare a "Written Findings Document" which ostensibly states that the applicant has satisfied all of the conditions required for approval. The BMR uses a pre-printed form with 13 listed standards and a signature line for Chief, Permits Section.

The "Written Findings Document" paraphrases the required conditions for approval per §86.37 and §86.38. However, it is deficient in several important ways because it omits at least three crucial considerations found at §86.37(a), namely that

the requirements of the acts ... have been complied with,

 
The assessment of the probable cumulative impacts of all anticipated coal mining in the general area on the hydrologic balance [has been made], (emphasis added)

 
the activities proposed under the application have been designed to prevent damage to the hydrologic balance within and outside the proposed permit area. (emphasis added).

Actual Example:

In the application for Vesta Bituminous Coal Mining Activity Permit #63951601 there were various designs for the proposed wastewater discharges subject to NPDES permit approval. The approved permit allows two effluent outfalls to an unnamed tributary, but the application drawings show three outfalls to Daniels Run itself. Just what outfalls BMR actually approved in this permit cannot be deciphered from the permit file, and the permit itself cites no drawings. Such lack of care exhibited during the BMR permit review and approval process provides no basis for public confidence in the achievement of environmental protection for waters, wetlands, or other resources.

Proposed Underground Mine Permit Application Form

During March 1999, the PADEP-BMR circulated for public review and comment a draft of a proposed new application form. Entitled "Application For Bituminous Underground Mine, Coal Preparation Plant And/Or Coal Refuse Disposal Area" (Form 5600-PM-MR0324), the new form consists of 31 modules and is 116 pages in total length, not counting the 11 pages of instructions that accompany it. As of June 2000, the proposed consolidated form had not been finalized, and there was no information as to when it might be adopted for use.

The following paragraphs summarize highlights of the proposed new application form as it relates to the identification and protection of wetland resources. This summary is not intended to provide a thorough review and analysis of the proposed new form.

The new application form would consolidate and replace information currently required in the three existing, separate applications for related underground coal mine operations. The new form elicits little new information beyond existing requirements. Its primary purpose appears to be to reduce duplication among the old application forms by reformatting the information requested. The new form offers the potential for applicants to provide a consistent proposal to mine coal, clean it in preparation for sale, and dispose of the resultant waste. The proposed application form is significant in that it provides some insight into what the BMR currently considers important in the review process for new underground coal mines.

Provisions for wetland protection and compliance with Chapter 105 requirements continue to be included on the proposed form. In general, however, the wetland information required in the proposed application form appears to be substantially less comprehensive than in the existing application forms.

The principal section of the proposed application which is devoted to wetland issues is Module 15 (Streams/Wetlands). This module is similar in some respects to the existing Module 14 (Streams/ Wetlands). Several major deficiencies exist, however, which make the proposed Module 15 even less protective of wetlands than the existing Module 14 might be, if Module 14 were properly completed by applicants.

One significant deficiency in Module 15 appears in its third section (15.3 - Wetland Related Information) which requires an inventory of only those wetlands which "occur on or within 1,000 feet of surface activity sites". This is a major change from the comparable section of existing Module 14. Current Section 14.3 (Wetland Related Information) addresses all wetlands that "exist within the proposed permit area", which includes all areas above the underground mine area