Abandoned Mine Posts

By Andy McAllister, Watershed Coordinator

The Pennsylvania Prevailing wage has been on the minds of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Community for some time now. As funding levels continue to drop and watershed groups and conservation districts look for creative ways to stretch their shrinking reclamation dollar, the issue of prevailing wage forcing higher project costs has begun to come to the forefront.

The current Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act enacted in 1961 requires that all workers on a “public work” project must be paid the prevailing wage determined by the Department of Labor and Industry. ” Public work” means construction, reconstruction, demolition, alteration and/or repair work other than maintenance work, done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of the funds of a public body (in other words all state and/or taxpayer funds) where the estimated cost of the total project is in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).

To better understand the Commonwealth’s Prevailing Wage, we need to understand the original Federal legislation that spurred the creation of Prevailing Wage Acts within Pennsylvania and other states. The Davis Bacon Act (the Federal prevailing wage act), enacted in 1931, is the brainchild and namesake of two Northeastern politicians; Senator James Davis (R) Pennsylvania and Representative Robert Bacon (R) New York. According to reports, the impetus for creating such legislation revolved around preventing contractors from the Southern US from bringing their cheaply paid labor up North to successfully compete for Northern jobs against Northern contractors who paid their workers a higher wage. Remember, the country was slowly climbing out of the Great Depression and jobs were at a premium. In the end, the Act was meant to “level the playing field” between contractors who performed federal government jobs throughout the country with the main rationale being that a Federal Prevailing Wage would stimulate economic growth. The language of this federal statute was sufficiently ambiguous to require clarification in 1935 before it could be effectively enforced. The Act was modified again in 1964 to include fringe benefits.

Because the U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment constrains the federal government’s ability to dictate contract terms for state government projects, state and municipal governments were required to institute their own prevailing wage laws, if they chose to do so.

After Davis-Bacon was enacted, many states began the process of creating their own prevailing wage acts, popularly known as “Little Davis Bacons”. State prevailing wages were initially set up to protect local wage rates and foster a better qualified work force. Not all states have chosen to go this route however. States such as Virginia have no state prevailing wage act, preferring instead to allow public construction work costs and wages to be whatever the market will bear.

By 1969, 41 states and the District of Columbia enacted prevailing wage laws. But, despite the promise of economic advantages touted by proponents of the prevailing wage laws, beginning in 1979 there were widespread efforts to repeal existing prevailing wage laws. Changes in the dominant political philosophy and government budgetary difficulties are often cited as the cause of the repeal movement. Between 1979 and 1988, nine states repealed their prevailing wage laws. Florida was the first to repeal its legislation, followed by Alabama in 1980. Utah was the third state to repeal, but only after vetoes from its governor. Arizona repealed its statute in 1984, followed by Idaho, Colorado and New Hampshire in 1985.

Currently, 29 states have a prevailing wage act and while some states have chosen to repeal their prevailing wage acts over the years, others have decided to retain Prevailing Wage but provide for exemptions, sometimes temporarily. In 1997 a bill was passed in Ohio which exempted school construction from their state prevailing wage but required a study be performed to assess the effects of this exemption upon the construction cost, quality, and wages. After the exemption expired, the Ohio Legislative Service Commission in 2002 concluded that there was no negative effect on the construction industry and reported a cost savings of 10%. The State of Florida instituted a similar exemption which saved them 15%.

In Pennsylvania, the minimum wage rates listed by the PA Dept. of Labor and Industry have been updated yearly along with the cost of fringe benefits since the enactment of the law in 1961. This wage rate is in large part determined by the union scale rate, which according to reports constitutes less than 23% of Pennsylvania’s construction industry. However, the project cost threshold that dictates whether a project must comply with the state Prevailing Wage, has NEVER been updated since 1961 and still remains at $25,000. Apparently, no mechanism had been put into place in 1961 to adjust the threshold to account for inflation.

Upon further examination, a $25,000 threshold in 1961 dollars, if adjusted for inflation, would be a whopping $172,000 in 2007 dollars. This is quite a difference, a difference that has not gone unnoticed by members of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation community. The potential for cost savings for AMR projects priced below this revised threshold is obvious—some put the cost savings figure at 25%. Of course for the AMR community, cost savings ultimately translates to more systems on the ground and more streams cleaned up.

While the particular reason for lack of inflation adjustments in the original threshold amount remains unclear, the end product for AMD construction projects is that recipients of public funding have to comply with the PA Prevailing Wage Act for projects that cost more than $25,000—a figure that is easily exceeded by virtually every single AMD project.

With funding streams shrinking and project costs skyrocketing, watershed groups, conservation districts and other members of the AMR community are becoming even more cost-conscious than ever before. In a subsequent issue of Abandoned Mine Posts, we will take a look at some proposed legislative changes that are afoot in Harrisburg which would bring equity to this 47 year old problem and we’ll talk about ways for the AMR community to make their voices heard.

by Andy McAllister, Watershed Coordinator

The PA Dept. of Environmental Protection, in cooperation with the Citizen’s Advisory Council, has scheduled two additional public town hall meetings in Clearfield and Freeport to gather public input regarding how to best utilize increased abandoned mine reclamation funding.

As a result of the changes to the federal legislation known as the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), Pennsylvania is now poised to receive over $1.4 billion to reclaim abandoned coal mines over the next 15 years. Amended by Congress in December 2006, SMCRA will give Pennsylvania more flexibility to fix its abandoned coal mine hazards.

Eight similar meetings were already held throughout Pennsylvania’s coal regions. These additional meetings will provide concerned Pennsylvanians with even more opportunity to weigh in on how those funds should be used.

Pennsylvania has more abandoned coal mine problems than anywhere else in the country, with approximately 250,000 acres of mine-scarred land and nearly 5,000 miles of stream affected by over 100 years of unregulated coal mining practices. Highwalls (man-made cliffs), underground mine fires, subsidence, and abandoned mining structures are among the problems that litter the landscape. Acid mine drainage remains Pennsylvania’s number one water pollution problem.

Among the issues to be discussed will be new opportunities to direct more money toward fixing acid mine drainage problems. Under the new law, the state now has the option to set aside an even greater amount of their annual grants to address water quality problems stemming from abandoned coal mines.

As a prelude to the public input portion of the town hall meetings, WPCAMR will present a video aimed toward the general public explaining Pennsylvania’s abandoned mine problems and SMCRA Title IV funding. The video is available on WPCAMR’s website. The meetings will also provide an opportunity for public review of Pennsylvania’s Abandoned Mine Land inventory and maps during a poster session.

From the levels of public participation in the meetings to date, there is obviously significant public interest in abandoned mine reclamation throughout the coal regions of the Commonwealth. Pennsylvania is commendably the only state to ask for public comment in formulating how best to use the increased funding from SMCRA.

The additional Town Hall Meetings are:

September 12, 2007 – Lock Haven Univ. of Pennsylvania, Founders Hall, Clearfield, PA

September 13, 2007 – IUP at Northpointe, Room 131, Freeport, PA

All town hall meetings will follow the agenda below:
4:00 to 5:30 pm – Educational videos and overview of SMCRA Title IV Reauthorization.
5:30 to 6:30 pm – Poster session of PA’s Abandoned Mine Land inventory and maps.
6:30 to 8:30 pm – Town hall meeting

Click here for the Department of Environmental Protection’s official
notice of the meetings, containing the complete schedule and locales.

by Andy McAllister, Watershed Coordinator

By the mid-19th century, coal mining became important enough as an industry for the federal government to begin keeping statistics on annual production. In spite of the government’s interest in the industry during those early years, reclamation of mined sites was not required by law. As surface mining in particular became more commonplace in the early parts of the 20th century, states started seeing a need for mandatory reclamation. By the mid-1940s, many states were enacting laws regulating the coal mining industry but unfortunately, the need for coal was great during World War II and reclamation took a back seat.

After World War II, the need for coal to supply electric generation facilities increased and by the early 1970s, the increased need for coal impelled many states to begin setting up reclamation legislation. Unfortunately, there was a lack of uniformity between those individual state surface mining programs. Pennsylvania, for example, was a bit ahead of the curve compared to the rest of the coal mining states and had some of the most progressive and comprehensive state coal mining laws and regulations in the country prior to any federal legislation. However, the increase in mining-related water pollution and un-reclaimed land across the coal regions as a whole prompted a growing demand for the federal government to step in.

In 1974 and 1975, the US Congress sent mining regulations bills to President Ford. Those bills were vetoed due to concerns that they would harm the coal industry and restrict the nation’s energy supply. While campaigning in the coal regions of Appalachia in 1976, then-presidential hopeful Jimmy Carter promised to sign a mining regulation bill. On August 3, 1977, President Carter signed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).

The main thrust of the SMCRA legislation consists of two parts; regulation and reclamation. SMCRA not only covers the regulation and reclamation of active mining but also the reclamation of abandoned coal mine sites. Of course, those of us in the abandoned mine reclamation community are familiar with a part of SMCRA called Title IV. That section deals with reclamation of coal mine sites abandoned prior to the original passing of SMCRA in 1977.

Additionally, the passage of SMCRA resulted in the creation of a new agency within the Department of Interior, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). The OSM has oversight of state programs and has the responsibility of preparing federal regulations and assisting the states in carrying out their regulatory activities. Under SMCRA and with oversight by OSM, Pennsylvania and other Appalachian states except for Tennessee administer their own laws and regulations as well as Abandoned Mine Land programs.

Over the years, SMCRA had to be re-authorized periodically by Congress but those reauthorizations were little more than stop-gap measures in order to keep SMCRA alive. There was a growing need for positive changes to SMCRA. Those changes came in the form of the amended SMCRA passed by Congress in December of 2006.

This week, WPCAMR marks the 30th anniversary of the passage of the original SMCRA legislation and congratulates OSM on 30 years of service!

For more information :

The Office of Surface Mining

For Abandoned Mine Reclamation in Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania DEPs Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation

For Active Mining in Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania DEPs Bureau of District Mining Operations

by Bruce Golden, Regional Coordinator

!!! UPCOMING CONFERENCES REMINDER AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POSTING !!!

Over the past few weeks, eight public roundtable meetings were held around PA on how the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should best spend an estimated $1.4 billion for abandoned mine reclamation over the next 15+ years. The meetings were designed to educate the public and solicit comments. The funding is derived from a recently amended federal law known as the Surface Ming Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and represents a substantial increase in both the amounts and the flexibility for using the funding. So far, Pennsylvania is the only state affected by this law that has elected to gather public comment.

The meetings themselves were held in cooperation with the Citizens Advisory Council (CAC), Mining Reclamation Advisory Board (MRAB), Western PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (WPCAMR), Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR), and local sponsors in addition to DEP. In each meeting Andy McAllister of WPCAMR presented a video on how the amended law works, and Mike Hewitt of EPCAMR demonstrated an interactive computer program able to display maps of abandoned mine problems anywhere in PA. DEP also displayed large local maps depicting abandoned mine problem areas. The public comment portions of the meetings were facilitated by members of CAC and / or MRAB while DEP personnel were on hand to provide additional information.

The facilitators generally directed comments around the following Target Issues:

1. What should funds be spent on - land reclamation, water supplies, abandoned mine drainage?
2. How much should we ’set aside’ (up to 30%) for AMD, and how should it be used?
3. How can we maximize our efforts?
4. Are there related issues that need to be considered (unintended consequences of other programs, future land use, economic benefits)?

Here are some general impressions from the 8 meetings:

• Audience size varied from about 15 to 35 with generally greater attendance in western counties
• The makeup of audience varied with members of watershed and conservation organizations consistently representing the majority of participants
• The tenor of each of the meetings was respectful and constructive
• DEP personnel mostly listened, but provided commentary as appropriate
• There were quite a few comments about a range of reclamation methodologies and how they should be employed
• There were quite a few comments about the value of partnerships and watershed organizations for future reclamation

The only subjects that appeared to have a general consensus were:

• On the 30% AMD Set Aside, the majority of participants appeared to favor having DEP take the full 30%
• Most participants appeared to favor the establishment of an Operations & Maintenance fund to take care of AMD treatment systems.

A variety of materials is / will be available at the DEP/BAMR website, including
· Informal notes from each meeting
· Formal transcript (not yet available)
· Comment form

If you haven’t seen the SMCRA Title IV video, go to WPCAMR’s SMCRA Title IV page. If you haven’t been able to attend one of the roundtables and still wish to make a comment, go to the DEP/BAMR website for information on where to send a written comment.

***UPCOMING CONFERENCES REMINDER!

2007 NORTHWEST REGIONAL WATERSHED CONFERENCE

Saturday, June 23rd, 9:00 A.M.– 4:00 P.M., at Clarion University, Venango Campus, 1801 West First Street, Oil City PA 16301. This conference is geared toward watershed groups and municipalities with Non-Point Source Pollution prevention and education being the primary focus of the meeting. Registration information for this event can be obtained by visiting the Venango Conservation District website.

2007 PENNSYLVANIA STATEWIDE CONFERENCE ON ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION

July 20 & 21, 2007 at the Ramada Inn and Conference Center, State College, PA. For more information and to register, go to: http://2007.treatminewater.com/