November 11, 2026 - The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in the past few months hosted an open public hearing addressing an application for LCT Energy, LP for the Rustic Ridge #2 project.

At a public meeting this week the firm’s renewal of the Rustic Ridge #1 permit was discussed.

California District Mining Manager Troy Williams, P.E. told a gathering of about 30 area residents that the status of the Rustic Ridge #2 project has not yet been determined.

The Rustic Ridge #1 project has been ongoing since Dec. 23, 2016, and a major amendment for additional underground and subsidence control plan acreage was issued on April 4, 2025.

Tuesday’s gathering addressed the firm’s five-year permit renewal application.

Williams informed those attending that the application is under review to determine if it complies with applicable Pennsylvania laws and regulations. LCT Energy LP has published notices of the application in area newspapers as required between Aug. 25 and Sept. 15.

If the permit is issued, an additional five years of operations will be granted. The public may appeal with concerns if the permit is issued and individuals believe that the approval was in error through writing or orally at any public meeting.

A small map was printed on the back side of the DEP informational paper that was available to those in attendance. The map showed the present mining area and an approved expansion area in Donegal Borough.

Many individuals presented concerns, including representatives of the Mountain Watershed Association, which has kept close water quality scrutiny in Saltlick, Donegal, Mt. Pleasant, and Springfield townships, and Donegal Borough and the Route 31 corridor to Laurelville.

William Boucher said the Watershed Association has done a good job of monitoring and cleaning up problem areas created by invasive water runoff.

“We see orange water flowing into the creek,” Boucher said. “The Mountain Watershed is the lifeboat for this area, but (mining operations) are putting heavier boots into that lifeboat.”

Boucher added, “This is a pristine area that really can’t take any more. The water table has been compromised and the margin of error is zero.”

Stacey Magda, director of advocacy for the Mountain Watershed Association, said the quality of water not only affects residents, but peoples’ livelihoods.

“They knock on doors in the area, and if not, the property owners wouldn’t have a clue,” what is happening, Magda said.

Concerns ranged from one resident wondering if a new well he has drilled will be compromised by the mining operations to residents asking what happens if subsidence damage results from the operations.

Williams said the mining company would be held responsible if it was determined that property damages or water pollution occurred as a result of the Rustic Ridge operations. In response to other questions, he said such responsibility could be penalized for up to 10 years after mining operations had ceased.

“In 10 years, (LCT Energy LP) could still be mining and we’d still be monitoring,” Williams said.

Steve Waugaman referred to a case in southern West Virginia that he said resulted in mine water infiltrating a water system. “Every mine subsequently loses water,” Waugaman said.

His comment was in response to a claim he said LCT had allegedly made that there would never be any water seepage outside of the mine area even after the operation site would close.

Area residents James and Judith Miller asked if answers would be forthcoming for the questions that had been asked during the previous public meeting pertaining to Rustic Ridge #2.

Williams reminded the gathering that no decision has yet been made on the Rustic Ridge #2 project and some matters are being reviewed by the DEP’s legal department.

He also said that there were matters he couldn’t address that involved pending lawsuit issues where individuals had issued statements that the area was unsuitable for mining.

“Legal opinions are being reviewed by the Bureau of Mine Program,” he said.

Following the one-hour period of reviewing the project and question and answer period, the DEP officials conducted an “open house” period in which they said individuals could review maps of the mining operations area and ask additional questions.

Among many questions that were posed by the Mountain Watershed Association on printed papers distributed at the meeting, were asking about the existence of property damage that has already occurred, the possibility of future flooding causing more damage, and incomplete and inaccurate geological records the association claimed had been received by the DEP.

The association also concluded that, “the community should not have to wait for more property damage or water pollution to find out whether the mine is safe. DEP needs to address these risks before renewing the permit, not after.”