The Importance of Abandoned Mine Reclamation
A Focus on Phillips Discharge, Fayette County, PA
Acid Mine Drainage (AMD)
The coal industry is well-dated in the United States and can be traced all the way back to the early 1700s. Specifically focusing on the state of Pennsylvania (PA), the history is rich and complex. PA coal has been used not only to generate power for homes and vehicles but also to power the Industrial Revolution and the United States’ wins in both World Wars.
The slopes of Mount Washington, Pittsburgh, PA (formally "Coal Hill") with baren hillsides and erosion from coal mining that made the area unaesthetically pleasing
These operations drastically increased as the population and demand for energy grew not only in PA, but in the United States. By the 1830s, coal consumption in PA shot up greatly, with over 400 tons being consumed daily. The coal industry continued to grow positively while the demand for steel exploded.
The are two types of coal mined in PA: anthracite and bituminous. Anthracite (or "hard coal") is mined in eastern PA. Bituminous (or "soft coal") is mined in western PA.
The northeastern region of PA contains the United States’ only reserves of anthracite coal, so the region has been heavily mined.
It is hard, brittle, and black, and has a high percentage of fixed carbon and a low percentage of volatile matter. Anthracite coal is commonly used to heat buildings and make steel. Due to the fact that it contains little sulfur, anthracite coal does not produce a lot of air pollution when burned.
Bituminous coal is the most abundant form of coal. Bituminous coal has a high heat value and low moisture content.
Additionally, it is easy to store and transport. Because of this, it has a wide range of commercial uses, the most common being steam generation in power plants.
The burning of bituminous coal for steam in plants releases sulfur oxides and even nitrous oxides on occasion. Sulfur oxides interact with the atmosphere and form sulfuric acid, which can enter waterways and harm the environment.
By the late 1900s, mining practices evolved and nearly 75% of coal extraction was occurring underground. Even though PA’s mining activity peaked in the early 20th century, it began to decline in the 70s and now, over 5,000 of these once active mines are abandoned. These abandoned mines have the ability to greatly disturb natural environments which further feed down the chain and impact surrounding communities’ socioeconomic factors. Specifically, over 5,500 freshwater stream miles in PA alone have been impacted and choked by AMD.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) (Title IV and V) was passed by the U.S. government in 1977 and played an important role in standardizing coal mining and reclamation regulations. Before this, there was no regulatory oversight of coal operators, resulting in a lack of accountability for the resulting negative effects of coal activity on the land or around it.
Within the passage of SMCRA, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) was created, simultaneously creating the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Program (Title IV of SMCRA). This program required mine operators and companies within the industry to address hazardous materials and environmental degradation posed by coal mines.
This program is funded by a fee assessed on each ton of coal produced since August 3rd, 1977, in a particular mine. Fee rates per ton of coal began in 1977-2007 as surface mines were 35 cents per ton, underground mines were 15 cents per ton, and lignite mines were 10 cents per ton
AML Effects
The impacts of abandoned mine lands are ranked as either Priority 1 (P1), Priority 2 (P2), or Priority 3 (P3).
P1 and P2 sites are those that are a risk to human health. P1 sites pose extreme danger or have a record of someone getting injured or killed.
Priority 2 (P2) sites are those that pose danger to human health but where there are no documented incidents of injury.
P1 and P2 sides generally include mine lands with open shafts, dangerous highwalls, mine subsidence, etc.
Priority 3 (P3) sites are those that negatively impact environmental, water, and wildlife health. Of the historically scarce funding for the reclamation of AML, only P1 and P2 sites have been included in the use of this funding which has pushed P3 issues like AMD to the side.
Acid mine drainage (AMD) is the process in which acidic or alkaline water from mine pools discharges into nearby streams, wetlands, or even parking lots. The drainage is normally orange or red in color due to high concentrations of iron.
The costs of AMD come in many forms including: property value loss, land value loss, recreation losses, water treatment costs, reclamation costs, damages to land and buildings, damages to aesthetics, damages to aquatic life, and damages to human health. For example, worsened water quality from AMD can corrode infrastructure such as bridges and cause disruption to population growth and death of various aquatic species; in humans, heavy metals in the water, including lead and cadmium, are carcinogenic and can cause damage to the nervous system, brain, kidneys, and liver.
Phillips Discharge, Fayette County, PA
Although previously disregarded, in 2023, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) awarded the Shapiro Administration $7.8 million in grants for environmental restoration which gave a new opportunity to reclaim P3 sites. Alongside that, PA will receive an estimated $245M annually through 2034 to address legacy coal impacts to land and water. One of the sites funded by this grant was Phillips Discharge in Fayette County.
Phillips Discharge (red star) spills into Redstone Creek, a 28.4 mile tributary that runs through Fayette County, PA (gray outline) and drains into the Monongahela River (yellow triangle).
The creek flows through a variety of land, including cities and towns–many of which interact with the waterway. A multitude of fish species call the waterway home, including wild trout, carp, and catfish, and fishing is a popular recreational activity.
As the acid, iron-rich discharge enters the Redstone Creek from Phillips Discharge, both human and nonhuman species alike feel the impacts of the chemicals present in the water.
The discharge itself (red star) is located near the center of the Redstone Creek watershed, and the northern half the watershed (in orange) is impacted. The Creek runs red until reaching the Monongahela.
This discharge, if reclaimed and treated, will eliminate 4,000 gallons per minute of acid mine drainage into Redstone Creek. With treatment, Redstone Creek could once again become a haven for nonhuman species and a community treasure for residents in Fayette County.
An old volunteer ground called the Greater Redstone Clearwater Initiative (GRCI) completed an in-depth analysis called the “Watershed Assessment and Restoration Plan for the Greater Redstone Watershed," which found that over 300 stream miles of the Greater Redstone watershed had been polluted.
Phillips is only one discharge point that considerably affects the local watershed, but there are over 22,000 AML sites and more than 5,000 AMD discharges across Pennsylvania, all of which negatively impact 5,500 stream miles in total in PA.
Treatment
When reclaiming abandoned mine land, there are two treatment types used to cleanse the waterways: active and passive treatment. Active treatment is a process of neutralizing chemicals and precipitation of suspended solids in the water, such as iron and manganese. One chemical used for neutralizing the acidity and oxidizing the water is hydrogen peroxide.
Passive treatment is a system that can treat the water itself by using chemicals and a biological component including routing the water through a constructed wetland, without requiring round-the-clock maintenance. By running the water through a constructed wetland, precipitates are naturally separated from the water. Though passive treatment systems are initially more expensive to install, they require less maintenance than active treatment systems.
Active AMD treatment facility in Preston County, WV (left) and Passive AMD treatment pond in Luzerne County, PA (right)
The decision between using active or passive treatment depends on the specific discharge being treated, as passive treatment systems work better for smaller discharges with less pollution. The video below shows the Montour No. 2 Gladden active AMD treatment system in Allegheny County.
Gladden Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Plant
Such treatment systems were in the works for Phillips Discharge two decades ago; however, as you will see, construction of a treatment system halted before it began. A brief history is enumerated below.
History of Phillips Discharge
Phillips Discharge has a rich history of local Uniontown, PA, and of Fayette County residents' support of wanting to help and remediate the surrounding land and waters of Phillips and Redstone Creek.
Stemming back to the early 2000s, the community’s priority and goal was to clean Phillips Discharge. They named themselves the Greater Redstone Clearwater Initiative (GRCI).
After receiving $137,000 in grants from PA’s Growing Green program, the group contracted environmental engineering groups and consulting firms to perform an in-depth analysis called the “Watershed Assessment and Restoration Plan for the Greater Redstone Watershed.”
This analysis found that over 300 stream miles of the Greater Redstone watershed had been polluted. This watershed stretches over 127 square miles, mostly in Fayette County, Redstone Creek, Little Redstone Creek, and Downers Run. Soon after receiving that news, locals realized this problem was larger than expected but continued to push on strongly.
Working alongside an environmental consulting group based in Pittsburgh, PA, they designed and permitted a treatment system that would cost $3-6 million to construct and would clear the Redstone Creek of the discharge from Phillips.
Beginning preparation for the treatment system, GRCI approached landowners in an attempt to acquire land for the construction of the treatment system. After students from the California University of Pennsylvania performed an archeological survey of the land (6,000-year-old Native American arrowheads were found right near the discharge), the search for permanent volunteers to manage this plant began.
This is where the GRCI hit a major wall and halted their work for the following years. Their work progressed as far as designing and permitting a semi-active, semi-passive treatment system. However, the intensive management of the plant and acquisition of necessary grants that would be required ultimately overwhelmed the volunteer organization who did all this work for no pay.
This is not a single occurrence. Of the states and tribes that face AML issues, Pennsylvania leads in community involvement. Nonprofits and volunteers have been able to accomplish and are willing to accomplish an extraordinary amount of work, handling upwards of million-dollar projects while barely being paid. What's more, they do so despite the large liabilities of dealing with water and water quality.
However, requirements on how to manage federal money is intimidating to local watershed groups, and the majority of these volunteer and non-profit organizations do not have large enough treasuries (if they have one at all), to purchase land for reclamation or effectively handle funding from Growing Greener; moreover, as funding sources switch to the large BIL, handling funds will only prove more difficult for these organizations.
Community Perspective
Discussion of these organizations’ past projects gave insight into the reclamation process itself and, more importantly, how communities’ perceptions can change with time. Take Allegheny Land Trust’s (ALT) Wingfield Pines project: this passive treatment system treats 1500–2000 gallons per minute (gpm) of AMD that would otherwise pollute Chartiers Creek and the corresponding watershed. Although the system was to be built on a golf course, there was considerable pushback from neighboring residents. The many public meetings revealed that people did not believe it would be effective and were worried it would be an eyesore. For many streams polluted by AMD, there is the prevalent idea that pollution is just the status quo. It’s not like people watched their pristine water turn red and all the fish die. "It's always been red. It's always been crappy," says Heather Fowler of the Fayette County Conservation District (FCD). "People don't know any different." However, after the actual implementation of the treatment system, as was seen with Wingfield Pines, local perceptions improved as Chartiers Creek was effectively treated.
Wingfield Pines Abandoned Mine Drainage Recovery
It is crucially important for landowners to have the knowledge and resources they need so that they are properly compensated for the use of their land. Educational material and advocacy can best be spread through local organizations and watershed groups. Communities want to get something more out of reclamation work than just clean water or money for the property. To gain community support, it is a good idea to work towards the creation of new trails, places to fish, birdwatching spots, etc. in tandem with reclamation efforts. Communities must also be educated on how reclamation can boost the local economy and create jobs. It is also important for policy to be established on a State level and applied on a community and local political level so that there is a pre-established outline for how the DEP, BAMR, or another organization overseeing reclamation handles work and relations with communities and property owners. This will help build trust and transparency between community members and reclamation organizations and allow residents to receive equitable treatment.
A Need for Improved Policy
There are still many gaps in the policy for how SMCRA can be applied in Pennsylvania, especially on a private citizen level. While watershed groups are often more familiar with grants and PA DEP legal processes, the average citizen or property owner is likely completely new to the subject. Much of the land affected by abandoned mine discharge is located on private property, and thus the PA DEP is interested in using some of the SMCRA budget to buy parts of or entire property parcels for land remediation. This can include using land to install active and/or passive treatment ponds.
Firstly, property value has been identified as a major focus point that needs to be addressed properly in future contracts and legislation. There are some resources that establish how property value should be appraised, but the field of appraising land that will then be remediated is a relatively new field. This is made more complex by two distinct situations: one, where the DEP buys a parcel of someone’s land completely, and two, where the DEP buys the rights to build on private land. There are many questions to be answered: Does a remediation project make the property value higher or lower? Treatment ponds may take up a lot of space and are not aesthetically pleasing, but they contribute to the overall health of the environment and watershed, which can be considered much preferable to toxic water flowing through one’s property; but because the treatment facilities can cost millions, does that mean the property parcel value should go up by millions of dollars? While this situation may seem trivial to some, the question of land value and personal wealth and assets in Appalachia is an important one. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The question here concerns “just compensation” for property acquisitions which emulate Eminent Domain.
The region of Appalachia has a long history of disenfranchisement at the hands of companies (particularly coal companies) and the government, where personal assets were diminished and folks were not able to build generational wealth, as their wages were stolen by corporations. For example, coal “company towns'' provided housing for coal miners and their families, but also often only paid them in “company money” which could only be used at the “company store”- thus, unable to be used on anything past the company town. Thus, poverty is an important issue in Appalachia, and private land is one of the few large assets that is relatively abundant. True sustainability involves considering socioeconomic principles, so it is important that the policy enacted provides truly “just compensation.”
Michael Donadee, a retired PA lawyer who specialized in real estate, oil, gas, and environment, greatly emphasized the importance of local government and an established, just process. Essentially, if similar property situations are handled vastly differently, certain citizens may feel scammed or upset by the uneven DEP treatment. This could lead to general public discontent with remediation projects, so it is important to work with local citizens and emphasize transparency and equity in the processes.
Miller's Run - before (left) and after (right) treatment by the Gladden AMD Treatment Plant
Other issues that could affect private citizens are: Tap Fees, liabilities, legal representation, communication, and local economy. Tap fees are essentially the fee to ‘tap’ into a local water or sewer line. Many rural citizens around Fayette County operate with septic tanks and well water for sewage and drinking water, respectively. However, for a treatment facility to be installed, potable water and sanitary restrooms are needed for a construction crew and potential operation and maintenance crews. Some DEP officials have proposed that private citizens should handle these tap fees, which can cost thousands of dollars: but why should just one family pay for a fee to enable the remediation of an entire ecological region? Thus, it is a recommendation of this project that Tap Fees are included in the expenses of federal funding, and not thrust onto everyday citizens and private landowners.
Liability and legal representation are also potential policy issues. Someone could be injured, or there is the possibility of other issues with a treatment facility on private property, or an issue next to private property crosses the property line and affects a private property owner. In these cases, it can be incredibly difficult for one person or family to bear the brunt of legal fees and working out the liability if it is not clearly established beforehand. Generally, the DEP should be responsible for any land, injuries, or issues related to treatment facilities and the land immediately surrounding them. The DEP should be able to provide lawyers and assistance to private landowners if a situation arises where that is needed.
Open and transparent communication is another critical policy recommendation from this project. Town halls, community engagement, and publicly available information are all keystones of a healthy and trustful relationship with the general public. This healthy relationship is needed for land reclamation projects to succeed and be embraced by the community. Michael Donadee, in his interview, emphasized the importance of the opinion and trust of the general public. He advised that one technique to better work with any “local public” is to ensure benefits to the local economy. For example, it can be written into a construction contract that at least a certain percent of the work will be contracted to local companies, within a certain mile radius. This adds a layer of relationship building and community support for any land remediation projects, as it will help to boost the community and local economy in the short term, as well as the long term benefits of the remediation.
Phillips Discharge spilling into Redstone Creek
Recap
There are a number of abandoned mine land (AML) related issues that pose threats to human and environmental health. While historically the attention has been focused on Priority 1 and 2 sites that pose danger to human health like open shafts or subsidence areas, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has recently provided funding for Priority 3 sites that pose danger to the environment and wildlife. Such sites include those affected by acid/alkaline mine drainage (AMD). AMD causes worsened water quality, possible corrosion to local infrastructure such as bridges, disruption in population growth and death of aquatic species, and, in humans, cancer and damage to the nervous system, brain, kidneys, and liver.
One such AMD site is Phillips Discharge in Fayette County, PA. Phillips is rich in history, andthe BIL has made it possible to once again pursue reclamation for this discharge that spills 4,000 gallons per minute of iron-rich, acidic mine pool water into Redstone Creek.
Notably, improved and specific policies are needed when acquiring land for the construction of treatment systems. Many of these AML problems exist in Appalachia, so it is crucial that these land owners' and communities members' wants and voices are heard as they have historically been taken advantage of. Regarding community, reclamation efforts must be accompanied by local employment and development of trails, fishing spots, and other types of land that will be beneficial to the residents; otherwise, reclamation will fail to gain the support it needs. With a new source of funding for reclamation projects across the state and nation, it is critical that communities believe in their feasibility, which is why success stories like Gladden or Wingfield Pines are shared. All in all, there is a promising future ahead for abandoned mine reclamation.
Additional Resources
AMD Clearinghouse - http://amrclearinghouse.org/
Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation - https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Land/Mining/AbandonedMineReclamation/pages/default.aspx
Foundation for Pennsylvania Watershed - https://thefpw.org/
Penn State Extension - https://extension.psu.edu/
References
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Clearing House. (last accessed 2024). AMRClearinghouse.org. http://amrclearinghouse.org/
Department of Environmental Protection. (last accessed 2024). AML/AMD grant program. https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Land/Mining/AbandonedMineReclamation/Pages/AML-AMD-Grant-Program.aspx
Department of Environmental Protection. (last accessed 2024). Coal mining in Pennsylvania. https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Land/Mining/Pages/PA-Mining-History.aspx
Department of Environmental Protection. (last accessed 2024). PA's Award Winning Reclamation Projects. https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Land/Mining/AbandonedMineReclamation/ProgramAccomplishments/Pages/PA'sAwardWinningReclamationProjects.aspx
Department of Environmental Protection. (last accessed 2024). What is growing greener?. https://www.dep.pa.gov/Citizens/GrantsLoansRebates/Growing-Greener/Pages/What-is-Growing-Greener.aspx
Fayette County Department of Assessment. (Accessed 2024). Fayette Property. http://property.co.fayette.pa.us/map.aspx?uxPARID=x
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (September 2001). TIER II ACUTE AND CHRONIC AQUATIC LIFE VALUES: STRONTIUM. IDEM, Office of Water Quality. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/in_al_487_09021999.pdf
Lenahan, Gregory. (July 24, 2020). How DEP’s mining program brought thousands of old, decaying mine maps back from the dead and into the digital age. Department of Environmental Protection. https://www.dep.pa.gov/OurCommonWealth/pages/Article.aspx?post=59#:~:text=While%20mining%20activity%20in%20Pennsylvania,underground%20mines%20across%20the%20state.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. (2009). Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation: Acid Mine Drainage Set-Aside Program: Program Implementation Guidelines.
Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access & The Pennsylvania State University. (1996). Pennsylvania Major Rivers. https://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=94
Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access & Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.(2024). Abandoned Mine Land Inventory Polygons. https://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=459
Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access & Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. (2024). Abandoned Mine Land Inventory Points. https://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=458
Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access & Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. (2004). Historic Streams. https://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=1233
Santello, Angie. (March 27, 2005). Organization tags mine discharge first priority. Herald Standard. https://www.heraldstandard.com/news/2005/mar/27/organization-tags-mine-discharge-first-priority/
Shader, Neil. (May 26, 2023). The Shapiro Administration Awards $7.8 Million Dollars In Grants For Environmental Restoration Projects. Pennsylvania Pressroom. https://www.media.pa.gov/pages/DEP_details.aspx?newsid=1751
Susquehanna River Basin Commission. (last access 2024). Abandoned mine drainage. https://www.srbc.gov/our-work/pamphlets/abandoned-mine-drainage.html#:~:text=More%20than%205%2C500%20miles%20of,metals%20including%20iron%20and%20aluminum.
The Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds. (last accessed 2024). Together we can protect and improve Pennsylvania’s water resources. www.theFPW.org
U.S. Department of the Interior. (March 3, 1849). Budget justifications. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/fy2023-osmre-greenbook.pdf
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2023). FY 2023 BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW AML GRANT DISTRIBUTION. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/inline-files/BIL_Distribution_2023.pdf
U.S. Department of the Interior. (January 13, 2022). Interior Department Extends Abandoned Mine Land Program through 2034. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-extends-abandoned-mine-land-program-through-2034
U.S. Department of the Interior. (last accessed 2024). Reclaiming abandoned mine lands. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. https://www.osmre.gov/programs/reclaiming-abandoned-mine-lands
U.S. Department of the Interior. (July 24, 2007). Surface mining and reclamation. https://www.doi.gov/ocl/hearings/110/SMCRA_072507
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (December 1984). Ambient Surface Water Quality Standards Documentation. US EPA. https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sites/static/files/2015-06/documents/ny_hh_396_w_12201984.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (August 2003). DEVELOPING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR SUSPENDED AND BEDDED SEDIMENTS (SABS). US EPA, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. https://archive.epa.gov/epa/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/sediment-report.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008). Drinking Water Health Advisory for Boron and Compounds. US EPA, HECD, OST, OW. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-09/documents/summary_document_from_the_ha_for_boron.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986). Quality Criteria for Water. US EPA, OW. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/documents/quality-criteria-water-1986.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (February 2024). Secondary Drinking Water Standards: Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/secondary-drinking-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals
United States Geological Survey. (last accessed 2024). Streamstats. https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/
University of Pittsburgh, Capstone Group. (April 9, 2024). Capstone project: interview summaries. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17lK6PywOLHw5YwdxJM17y8YolkFPkgive0xz1siQzv8/edit?usp=sharing
World Health Organization (1996). Guidelines for drinking-water quality. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/wash-documents/wash-chemicals/hardness2003.pdf?sfvrsn=64c0da98_3
