Abandoned Mine Posts

Earlier this week, you probably received an issue of Abandoned Mine Posts in which I asked you to urge Pennsylvania Senators Santorum and Specter to incorporate abandoned mine reclamation reauthorization language into a bill that can be passed, and to do so quickly. Congress will be in session until September 29, when they will recess until a post-election lame duck session. If the political will exists, this period is enough time to reauthorize AML funding. Our senators need to hear that this is an extremely important issue for us, their constituents, so they can properly set their priorities. Specifically, they immediately need to hear:

“Passing a law incorporating the language of S.2616 is vital to the reclamation of Pennsylvania’s lands and waters decimated by a century of unregulated coal mining. This can and must be done before the September 29 Congressional recess. Time is short: use your leadership position to deliver the legislation to our citizens now.”

(more…)

by Bruce Golden, Regional Coordinator

For a while, a reauthorization and revamp of federal abandoned mine lands legislation (SMCRA Title IV) seemed tantalizingly close. For Pennsylvania and other states with significant abandoned mine problems, Senate Bill S.2616 seems to have the magic formula to substantially increase abandoned mine reclamation funding over the next 15 years. It would also give a payout to the western coal producing states, heath care coverage to retired mine workers who’ve lost benefits from bankrupt companies, and light at the end of the tunnel for coal operators to a time they’d no longer be paying a reclamation fee on every ton of coal produced. S.2616 has something for most everybody with an interest in the matter.

Alas, in the mysterious ways of Congress, the language of S.2616 was attached to a larger bill (the so-called Trifecta bill, H.R.5970) that has a snowball’s chance of ever being passed. Some skeptics suggested S.2616 was purposely scuttled by political chicanery. Whatever the case, S.2616 deserves better. The citizens of coal-producing states deserve better. It’s time to deliver new legislation that adequately addresses the tremendous reclamation needs imposed by a century of unregulated mining. S.2616 does that.

How do we go about getting it done? Collectively urging PA Senators Santorum and Specter to attach the language of S.2616 to a viable bill is probably the most effective way to get the action that’s needed. They have the power and prestige necessary to see this through. Pennsylvania needs a new law incorporating S.2616, not an excuse why we don’t have one. Tell our Pennsylvania Senators we need the legislation, and we need it now.

(more…)

by Jeffrey Gerard, AmeriCorps OSM/VISTA

Filtering water samples in the field can be a pain in the butt, but it’s also a crucial step in getting the most accurate analysis data.

Filtering involves forcing water through a membrane filled with tiny holes, about 25 microns across (¼ of a human hair). The filter removes suspended solids from the water, and in fact, the weight of the solids caught in the filter is one common analysis parameter: total suspended solids (TSS). Such solids can be virtually invisible to the naked eye, but not dissolved, so they’ll eventually settle out if the sample is left undisturbed.

AMD-impacted water can have tiny bits of iron hydroxide (a.k.a. yellowboy) suspended in it. In a water sample fixed with acid but not filtered in the field, this iron hydroxide will dissolve into the water before it arrives at the laboratory, which will give incorrect test results for metals. Alternatively, in unacidified water samples, dissolved oxygen can cause dissolved ferrous iron to oxygenate into ferric iron en route to the lab. Unless the insoluble ferric iron is filtered out at sampling time, the lab can’t determine how much ferrous vs. ferric iron the water actually contained when it was sampled. Ferrous iron oxygenation also consumes acid, so certain lab acidity or pH measurements will be wrong.

Although filtering water samples eliminates these errors, it requires special equipment and training. Many groups — especially those that rely heavily on volunteers — leave filtering to the analysis laboratory, accepting any inaccuracies that creep in beforehand. Ultimately, the decision to filter relies on a group’s capacity and requirements, and it should be discussed with the chemical analysis lab that receives the water samples.

by Andy McAllister, Watershed Outreach Coordinator

Sampling an abandoned mine drainage (AMD) discharge during the “dog days” of summer can be a refreshing experience, because AMD temperatures remain fairly constant, often in the upper 50°s F. Groundwater in the upper 300 feet or so is normally a couple of degrees warmer than the average yearly air temperature; in Pittsburgh, that average yearly air temperature is 53° F. In the hottest summer months, this cool water can be quite a relief for coldwater fish and overheated biologist alike.

Fish such as trout can be found in some AMD-polluted streams near the confluence with another stream. They use the cool water as a thermal refuge, swimming in and out to escape the warmer water in larger streams. Fish will consume macroinvertebrates living in the AMD-impacted stream, but more often than not, metal precipitate and pH levels prevent any sustainable macroinvertebrate populations to serve as prey, forcing the fish to venture back to the warmer stream to find food.

This cooler water may be just the ticket to help turn a liability into an asset: mine discharges continue to be examined for their potential in aquaculture and cooling buildings or power plants.

(more…)