OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING
RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT
I. Introduction 1
II. Overview of Coal Mining Industry 2
III. Overview of Public Participation in the Program 2
A. Public Participation in OSM's Oversight 2
B. Public Participation in the State Program 3
IV. Major Accomplishments/Issues/Innovations 3
A. Regulatory Program 3
B. Program Amendments 5
C. Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program 5
V. Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA 6
A. Off-site Impacts 6
B. Reclamation Success 8
VI. OSM Assistance 8
VII. General Oversight Topic Reviews 9
Appendix A: Tabular Summaries of Data 16
TABLE 1 17
TABLE 2 18
TABLE 3 19
TABLE 3A 20
TABLE 4 21
TABLE 5 22
TABLE 6 23
TABLE 7 24
TABLE 8 25
TABLE 9 26
TABLE 10 27
Appendix B: State Comments on Report 28
I. Introduction
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 created the Office of Surface Mining in the Department of the Interior. SMCRA provides authority to OSM to oversee the implementation of and provide Federal funding for State regulatory programs that have been approved by OSM as meeting the minimum standards specified by SMCRA. This report contains summary information regarding the Oklahoma program and the effectiveness of the Oklahoma program in meeting the applicable purposes of SMCRA as specified in Section 102. The evaluation period covered by this report is October 1, 1997, to September 30, 1998.
OSM continued to implement the new oversight policy initiated in the 1996 evaluation year. The primary focus of the new policy is an on-the-ground results-oriented strategy that evaluates the end result of State program implementation, i.e., the success of the State programs in ensuring that areas off the minesite are protected from impacts during mining, and that areas on the minesite are contemporaneously and successfully reclaimed after mining activities are completed. This policy emphasizes a shared commitment between OSM and the States to ensure the success of SMCRA through the development and implementation of a performance agreement. Also, this policy continues to encourage public participation as part of the revised oversight strategy. Besides the primary focus of evaluating end results, the oversight guidance makes clear OSM's responsibility to conduct inspections that measure the effectiveness of Oklahoma's program to ensure compliance with SMCRA's environmental protection standards.
Oversight is a continuous and ongoing process. To further the idea of continuous oversight, this annual report is structured to highlight Oklahoma's accomplishments and OSM's and Oklahoma's progress to complete oversight activities. Detailed background information and comprehensive reports for the program elements evaluated during the period are available for review and copying at the Office of Surface Mining, Tulsa Field Office, 5100 E. Skelly Drive, Suite 470, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135-6547.
The following acronyms are used in this report:
AEA Alternative Enforcement Action
AMD Acid Mine Drainage
AMLR Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program
AOC Approximate Original Contour
AVS Applicant Violator System
CHIA Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment
CO Cessation Order
EY Evaluation Year
NOV Notice of Violation
OCC Oklahoma Conservation Commission
ODM Oklahoma Department of Mines
OSM Office of Surface Mining
PHC Probable Hydrologic Consequences
RAMP Rural Abandoned Mine Program
SAR Sodium Absorption Ratio
SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
TFO Tulsa Field Office
TDN Ten-Day Notice
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
733 Action November 12, 1993, 30 CFR 733 Letter to Governor of Oklahoma
II. Overview of Coal Mining Industry
The coal-bearing strata in Oklahoma occur in the eastern portion of the State. The coal is bituminous and is Middle and Late Pennsylvanian in age. The demonstrated coal reserves are 1.6 billion tons, or 0.3 percent of the total U.S. coal reserves. About 8,000 square miles in Oklahoma have coal-bearing strata that are considered to be of commercial value with seams ranging from 10 inches to 5 feet thick.
Coal production for 1997 was 1.61 billion tons. Twelve permits produced coal during EY 1998. One of the 12 producing permits was an underground mine, 1 was a contour mine, while the remaining 10 were area surface mines. Oklahoma had 94 permits that included 34,232 acres at the end of the evaluation period. ODM employed 29.6 people to administer the approved regulatory program.
III. Overview of Public Participation in the Program
A. Public Participation in OSM's Oversight
During EY 1998, OSM's Director and Regional Director met with citizens and industry representatives to discuss their concerns. TFO personnel continue to meet with citizens concerned with environmental protection, landowners, and coal industry representatives on a continuing basis.
As part of OSM's public outreach efforts for EY 1998, letters were mailed to known interested parties soliciting comments on oversight of ODM's implementation of its approved program. Comments received were similar to the responses to TFO's public outreach efforts the previous year. The Pittsburg County Mineral and Surface Owners Association was still active in providing comments on ODM's implementation of its approved program as well as OSM's oversight.
The major concerns expressed by the public were:
1. The 733 action, that was terminated on February 1, 1998, was too narrowly defined, and OSM accepted corrective actions that were not adequate to resolve the issues.
2. There was a continuing appearance of conflicts-of-interests with some members of the Oklahoma Mining Commission relating to the Oklahoma coal industry.
3. AOC was not being defined properly on a number of Oklahoma mines.
4. That large final pit impoundments provide significantly more water than is needed for the post mining land use.
5. That leaving large impoundments has created slopes that are too steep for cattle grazing.
6. The performance bond to cover long-term treatment of AMD on one permit is not adequate.
B. Public Participation in the State Program
ODM allows public input into the State program through several avenues. Citizens may comment on permit applications and amendments to the State program, and citizens may file complaints on mining operations. Citizens may participate in the various conferences and hearings that are part of the permitting and enforcement processes. On February 24, 1998, ODM conducted a meeting in McAlester, Oklahoma, to receive public input on changes to regulations. ODM conducts five commission meetings throughout the year that are open to the public. ODM inspectors and management routinely meet with landowners.
IV. Major Accomplishments/Issues/Innovations
A. Regulatory Program
1. 733 Action
On November 12, 1993, under 30 CFR 733 Action, OSM sent a letter to the Governor of Oklahoma stating that 8 issues involving the implementation of Oklahoma's regulatory program must be corrected. These were: failure to cite all violations, unreasonable extensions of abatement of violations, unjustified reductions in civil penalties, failure to update the applicant violator system, and failures in reclamation and bonding, issuing permits with significant defects, failure to enact program amendments, failure to provide for public participation in the State program.
OSM and ODM worked on the issues for 4 years to find ways to resolve them and improve the implementation of the State program. A key factor was the development of joint teams of OSM and ODM staff members to study the problems and recommend solutions. As a result of the joint work and the resulting improvements, OSM did not have to take the steps outlined in 30 CFR 733 to substitute Federal enforcement or take action to rescind approval of the program.
At the beginning of EY 1998, one of the eight issues, Reclamation and Bonding Failure, had not been completely resolved. During EY 1997 and 1998, OSM and ODM worked together to identify sites in the State where reclamation performance bonds have proved to be inadequate to complete reclamation, and where AEA's should be used to secure additional funds. In EY 1997, the Department of the Interior's Solicitor's Office assisted ODM's Legal Division prepare for filing its initial AEA cases. ODM and OSM also worked together to ensure that the reclamation, which was being done either through bond forfeiture or in lieu of bond forfeiture, complied with the Oklahoma program.
On February 2, 1998, OSM's Director informed the Governor of Oklahoma that the 733 Action on the coal mining and reclamation program in Oklahoma was being terminated. With the termination of the 733 action, OSM stated it would reevaluate the last issue of the 733 action to determine whether the improvements were being maintained. During 1998, ODM made several changes to ensure that the program implementation would remain appropriate: e.g., a new Director was employed, and the agency was reorganized to provide for more accountability.
2. Other Regulatory Program Oversight Activities
OSM addressed problems of national/regional interest during the evaluation period. The issues involved:
B. Program Amendments
During EY 1998, OSM approved two amendments to the Oklahoma program that had been submitted in EY 1997. One of the amendments (OK-022-FOR) was the addition of husbandry practices that could be allowed without restarting the bond liability period. The other (OK-023-FOR) was approval for the Oklahoma Conservation Commission to assume responsibility for emergency reclamation projects on abandoned mine lands. During the year, Oklahoma submitted two additional amendments to the regulatory program that are still being processed. Both of these amendments (OK-024-FOR and OK-020-FOR) are responses to 30 CFR 732 letters in which OSM advised Oklahoma to amend its program to be consistent with changes that had been made in the Federal regulations. Both of the amendments contain rule changes on several topics, but OK-020-FOR mainly addresses changes in ownership and control rules. Oklahoma also withdrew amendment OK-017-FOR that addressed employee protection because it was determined that Oklahoma's current rules were adequate.
C. Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program
The Oklahoma Conservation Commission is the State Regulatory Authority for the AMLR program. It is operating with an annual grant of $1.5 million and full-time staff of 6. Part-time field staff are utilized when necessary for engineering surveys and as construction inspectors. Project selection has been based on a system of protection of health, safety and general welfare, and property from extreme danger of adverse effects of past coal mining practices. Selection of projects for construction complied with Section 403 of SMCRA and the approved AMLR program.
In EY 1998, OCC's projects were those that were funded through its annual construction appropriation plus carry-over of construction projects started in previous years. Projects included reclaiming water-filled coal mine strip pits classified as priority 2 as allowed in the approved AMLR program. The selected projects have usually been located near roads and facilities where the general public has been affected. Where possible, the pits have been filled in and the highwalls reclaimed to eliminate the hazard. In all cases, OCC involved the general public and local citizens in project selection. No citizen complaints were received.
OCC followed standard construction practices using State contracting procedures. OCC has been using AVS to check on all contractors to ensure that active coal miners with outstanding violations were not awarded AML contracts. On-the-ground inspection of the completed projects indicated OCC completed projects appropriately and on time. Citizens have indicated considerable satisfaction with completed projects and program implementation.
In November 1997, OCC signed a cooperative agreement with the Natural Resources Conservation Commission (NRCS) to provide joint reclamation on AML and RAMP sites. Through the agreement, NRCS provided project design and funding while OCC contracted construction work and provided job supervision. This agreement has met with positive results and is working well.
On February 18, 1998, the Secretary of the Interior approved an amendment to the Oklahoma AML Program that authorized OCC to use funds under the AMLR program to abate and control emergency situations in which adverse effects of past coal mining pose an immediate danger to the general welfare. After OCC assumed this responsibility, it completed three emergency projects in a timely and appropriate manner.
During EY 1998, OCC completed 3 reclamation projects on 102 acres, reclaimed 12,150 linear feet of highwall, and 7 hazardous water bodies. Since program approval OCC has reclaimed 2,970 acres.
V. Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA
To further the concept of reporting end results, the findings from performance standard evaluations are being collected for a national perspective in terms of the number and extent of observed off-site impacts and the number of acres that have been mined and reclaimed and which meet the bond release requirements for the various phases of reclamation. Individual topic reports are available at TFO, which provide additional details on how the following evaluations and measurements were conducted.
A. Off-site Impacts
Fourteen off-site impacts were observed by State and Federal personnel during 985 opportunities for observations. An observation is defined as an inspection, either State or Federal, partial or complete. When a Federal observation led to a State observation, or the inspections were conducted jointly, the observation was counted only once. All off-site impacts observed by OSM in EY 98 were observed during joint inspections. No types of mine sites were excluded from observations. An off-site impact is anything resulting from a surface coal mining and reclamation activity or operation that causes a negative effect on resources (people, land, water, structures), outside areas permitted to be disturbed.
ODM and OSM agree that some cited violations (NOV issued) may not result in an off-site impact. However, ODM and OSM personnel disagree on the definition of off-site impacts involving violations of effluent standards. ODM maintains that violations of effluent limits will often be reported as having no off-site impact, because a damage or change to the affected stream cannot always be substantiated. OSM maintains that all effluent violations have some off-site impact on the receiving stream; while ODM's position addresses the degree or seriousness of the impact rather than the occurrence of the event. ODM personnel have committed to reinstate upstream and downstream sampling to substantiate the impact of discharges. When State personnel cite a violation and report no off-site impact, the ODM Director has agreed to require State inspectors to provide an explanation of the violation on the off-site impact form. The differing interpretations of impacts from effluent limit violations did not result in any on-ground disagreements of impact versus no impact during this evaluation period.
No specific issues, regarding off-site impacts, existed in the first half of the 1998 evaluation year. However, in the second half of EY 98 one State NOV, not shown as having an off-site impact, was issued for failure to maintain spillway design, that resulted in a spillway that was eroded to bedrock, and a pond embankment that was in danger of failing. OSM believes that ODM should have reported this violation as having an off-site impact because the eroded spillway soils were deposited off-site.
ODM and OSM personnel have agreed to review a list of off-site impacts periodically in an attempt to identify issues for discussion shortly after they occur.
Ten of the 14 off-site impacts identified were hydrologic in nature; 8 of these were minor; 1 was moderate, and 1 was major. Four observed impacts were land related; 2 of these were minor; and 2 were moderate.
Fourteen impacts from 985 observations is a very small ratio. Further, of the 14 off-site impacts observed, only 1 was a major impact, and only 3 were moderate impacts. The remaining 10 impacts were minor.
In conclusion, the total number of impacts has decreased from 29 in EY 97 to 14 during EY 98, and the number of impacts with major damage has decreased from 8 to 1. Clearly, the number and severity of off-site impacts have improved in Oklahoma during EY 98.
The goal for EY 1999 is for ODM, OSM, and the coal industry to work together, especially in relation to protecting the hydrologic system, to further reduce off-site impacts (See Table 4).
B. Reclamation Success
OSM is evaluating reclamation success by comparing the number of acres released with acres disturbed. At Phase I bond release AOC has been achieved, and usually topsoil or an approved alternative has been replaced on disturbed areas. At Phase II bond release, surface stability has been achieved and vegetation established. Phase III bond release is the final step in reclamation performance bond release, with implementation of the post-mining land use, return of vegetation productivity and restoration of surface- and ground-water hydrology.
At the end of EY 1998, 35,944 acres had been bonded for coal mining in Oklahoma. During EY 1998, 1,776 acres were approved for Phase I bond release, 1,557 acres approved for Phase II bond release, and 3,758 acres approved for Phase III bond release.
OSM participates with ODM on most bond release inspections. Based on oversight and bond release inspections, OSM concluded that in EY 98, ODM was successful in implementing its program so that reclamation success was assured on reclaimed lands where bonds have been released (See Tables 5 and 6).
ODM and OSM worked together to refine the processes for ensuring that bonds were forfeited on abandoned sites, violations were corrected, and reclamation plans were completed. ODM forfeited $239,275 of bond on 1,247.5 disturbed acres involving 7 sites in EY 98 (See Table 7).
VI. OSM Assistance
The State requested and OSM provided assistance in:
• Evaluating reclamation performance bonding instruments.
• Beginning alternative enforcement actions against two permittees that have abandoned the mines without completing reclamation.
• Developing improved guidelines/policies to follow when preparing plans and specifications for bond forfeiture reclamation in lieu of forfeiture, and other policies regarding alternative enforcement action.
•Providing ODM with excess computer hardware and software and technical advice to set up a local area network at its Oklahoma City office.
OSM with assistance from Federal Solicitors worked with ODM to resolve the remaining issue of the 733 action.
Through Administrative and Enforcement and Cooperative Agreement grants, OSM provided ODM with 57.8 percent of its operating costs for administration of its regulatory program, and through AML Administration and Construction grants, 100 percent of funds for its AMLR program.
VII. General Oversight Topic Reviews
Reports and other documents concerning topics reviewed during the evaluation period are available at OSM's Tulsa Field Office located at 5100 E. Skelly Drive, Suite 470, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135-6547.
The following topics were evaluated in EY 1998:
Mine-site Evaluation: During EY 1998, TFO conducted 30 complete inspections, 21 bond release inspections, and 14 other inspections of Oklahoma mines. As a result of the oversight inspections, TFO sent 6 TDN's to ODM alleging 6 violations. No Federal NOV's or CO's were issued in EY 98.
On 5 of the 6 violations listed in TDN's, either ODM took action to cause the violation to be corrected or the operator corrected the violations within 10 days. The remaining violation involved bond adequacy on a site with acid mine drainage. The State's response to the TDN was deemed inappropriate, but that decision was reversed on appeal.
Reclamation and Bonding Failure: This is Issue 5 from the 733 action, that was not completely resolved during the evaluation period. The history and description of the 733 action can be found earlier in this report, in section IV.A.1. - entitled "733 Action." By letter dated July 3, 1997, OSM informed the Governor of Oklahoma that Issue 5 was still not resolved, and extended the time for resolution to November 15, 1997. Included in the notification were 17 specific actions ODM needed to accomplish in order to resolve the 733 action. Each action included a specific date for accomplishment. The 17 actions were accomplished but a probationary period was established on February 2, 1998, to ensure that ODM implemented promised policy changes and pursued alternative enforcement actions by December 31, 1998. The issue was under review at the end of the evaluation period.
Permitting -- Surface Runoff Control Structures: OSM selected surface runoff control structures for review during EY 98 because of concerns documented during previous evaluations, and during public outreach. The concerns involved the designs of open-channel spillways, short-circuiting, sediment storage capacity, and other related pond designs. OSM reviewed two of five permits approved between 10/01/97 and 06/30/98, in addition to a sample of related revisions approved during the evaluation period. Improvements in designs and ODM comments to permittees requiring changes to designs were evident throughout the review. For example, the use of dewatering pipes, the placement of open-channel spillways near the undisturbed soil line, and the use of improved erosion control material in open-channels has greatly reduced the potential for erosion of spillway and embankment failures. Also, short-circuiting has been reduced, sediment storage volume of ponds has increased, and diversion designs have improved. Additional improvements are still needed in pond clean-out plans, and designs that address diversion erodability.
Reclamation Performance Bonding Instruments: In EY 97 OSM conducted a review to determine if deficiencies in bonding documents were contributing to the difficulties that Oklahoma was experiencing with collecting sufficient funds to reclaim bond forfeiture sites. The 1997 review reported several specific deficiencies with bonding documents. The 1998 evaluation found that the problems listed in the 1997 review were not resolved. However, both the 1997 and 1998 reviews did not show that any listed bond document deficiencies caused any failures in bond forfeiture reclamation. OSM continues to be concerned that the collectability of reclamation performance bonds might be impaired by irregularities in bonding instruments and record keeping. OSM recommends that ODM revisit the policies/procedures used to process and maintain bonding documents. Emphasis should be placed on both the adequacy of bond and the accuracy of the bond instruments.
Bonding for AMD site: During EY 1996, the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma determined on appeal that a mining company was responsible for meeting the pH standards of surface discharges from its permit. OSM became concerned that ODM had not required the company to post an adequate bond or otherwise submit and obtain approval for a plan that ensures continued adequate treatment of AMD. ODM agreed during EY 97 to require a plan for providing adequate bond or to otherwise ensure adequate treatment of the AMD if bond forfeiture occurred. During EY 98, OSM concluded that the permittee did not provide adequate bond and issued a TDN for, "Failure to post bond sufficient to assure completion of the reclamation plan." OSM originally found the State's response to the TDN to be inappropriate regarding sufficiency of bond because an escrow account, established by the coal company involved, was not sufficient to provide third-party treatment of the AMD. However, OSM later reversed the inappropriate determination. Oklahoma agreed to develop a policy to provide adequate bond on AMD sites and on sites that have a potential for AMD. ODM and OSM will form a team to review AMD bonding and propose an AMD policy to the ODM Director in EY 1999.
Postmining Land Use: This topic was included in the EY 98 evaluations because of concerns raised during reviews in EY 96 and EY 97. On March 18, 1997, the OSM Regional Director sent ODM a letter explaining the findings of a joint OSM/ODM team regarding postmining land use on a State-approved Federal permit. The letter instructed ODM to require a permit revision, and to implement three recommendations for changes in policy from the joint OSM/ODM team. ODM required an application for and approved the revision on the Federal permit, but did not implement the joint team's policy recommendations. ODM's response to the team's recommendations was a statement that ODM planned to continue approving postmining land uses as it had in the past. Review of this topic in EY 98 included the evaluation of six permits approved since the joint team report of 1997. ODM's implementation of the postmining land use sections of the State program were generally appropriate except in relation to the use of steep slopes after mining and the use of water in final pit impoundments. Several permit applications that were approved after the joint team made its recommendations include steep impoundment slopes and water uses with no documentation to show how the water use will be achieved. ODM's decisions regarding steep impoundment slopes and water uses were not based on accepted agricultural practices in Oklahoma. The approved postmining land uses will not be achieved for pastureland on the steep slopes or on the developed water resources that exceed the amount needed for cattle watering.
OSM recommended the following:
Contractor Reclamation with Forfeited Funds: Concerns identified during previous evaluations and the 1993 - 733 action precipitated the review of this topic. Prior to EY 98, OSM identified permits where forfeited funds were not all collected and/or forfeiture reclamation did not meet Title V Standards.
After collecting forfeited funds, ODM has continued to conduct much bond forfeiture reclamation as they had in the past, with many of the same problems continuing. For example, ODM needs to provide more detailed reclamation plans to help ensure that reclamation complies with the State program. Although many of the forfeiture actions and contracting for forfeiture reclamation reviewed in EY 98 were done before the approval of a new State guideline document entitled Policy & Procedures #10. This policy outlines the procedures that ODM is to follow when conducting reclamation with forfeited funds.
ODM collected all bond funds available in the two cases reviewed during EY 98. These collection efforts are a significant improvement as compared to previous evaluation periods. ODM personnel have also attended training sessions with the Oklahoma Conservation Commission in an attempt to learn how to improve the quality of bond forfeiture reclamations plans. The emphasis of ODM's Bond Forfeiture/Reclamation Program is to get the "most bang for the buck" during contract reclamation. Both OSM and ODM personnel believe that this attitude has helped the State to move spoil and topsoil inexpensively on some bond forfeiture projects. However, the State did not eliminate all violations on the one forfeited site where it had adequate funds, and has continued to make agreements with landowners to spend money on construction that is not reclamation of forfeited permits, e.g., construction of fencing and spending funds on prelaw reclamation. Revisions to reclamation plans have not always followed the State program. State personnel continue to disagree about what constitutes Title V reclamation, and no arbitration process exists to remedy the disagreements. The new ODM Director has committed to developing systems of arbitration to remedy disagreements within ODM, to ensure that established procedures are followed, and that sites are reclaimed to Title V standards.
OSM informed State personnel that spending $48,888 of forfeited funds on a prelaw minesite is contrary to the State program, and has recommended that the State follow its policy and procedure documents that address bond forfeiture reclamation, as these documents comply with the State program.
Surety Reclamation in Lieu of Forfeiture: Concerns identified during previous evaluations by State personnel, and as a result of the 733 action precipitated the inclusion of this topic in the EY 98 review. ODM developed a policy and took action to require compliance with settlement agreements and associated schedules for reclamation of several permits during EY 98. ODM has also approved a Phase III release on one permit. One problem regarding a lack of vegetation on 20 acres of one permit remains to be resolved through a suitable action plan or other means selected by ODM. OSM has recommended that ODM develop an action plan with the surety company to eliminate the vegetation problem. If a suitable plan cannot be developed, ODM should forfeit the bond and use the funds to establish vegetation on the problem areas.
Alternative Enforcement Actions: Concerns identified during previous evaluations by State personnel, and as a result of the 733 action, precipitated the inclusion of this topic in the EY 98 review. Review of ODM-generated documents and interviews with ODM personnel provided OSM with the data to conclude that ODM has generally demonstrated both "the will and the ability" to pursue AEA's during EY 98. OSM also concluded that ODM adhered to the AEA policies and procedures developed in response to OSM's request of July 3, 1997. However, OSM has identified potential problems with Oklahoma's system for pursuing AEA's that if allowed to develop, may result in the AEA action plan being "short circuited." The ODM Director has committed to continue working with OSM to assure that AEA's are implemented when CO's exceed the designated abatement period or 30 days, whichever is longer.
Customer Service: This review was conducted because customer service is a national review topic, and because of input from ODM personnel. Based on the review of citizen's complaints, permitting actions, bond releases, administrative and judicial review, and availability of records, OSM found that ODM appropriately provided opportunities for public participation in each of these areas. ODM investigated citizen's complaints promptly and thoroughly, but the files did not contain follow-up notification letters. ODM required appropriate advertisement of permit applications and placement of permit applications so that citizens could know about permitting actions and have an opportunity to comment on them. Permit applications on file in a public place were available but not always organized and easily useful for review. ODM provided citizens the opportunity to know about bond releases, participate in bond release inspections, and offer comments. ODM notified citizens of its actions and provided opportunity for administrative and judicial review. ODM made records available to the public through notebooks placed in public places in coal mining areas. The notebooks contained lists of permits, revisions, and violations along with instructions for obtaining copies, and except for the permit lists, ODM maintained the notebooks so that they were current.
OSM has recommended that Oklahoma personnel develop a better system to document it's follow-up actions with citizen complainants.
Permitting - Fish and Wildlife Resources: Review of Fish and Wildlife resources was conducted to follow-up on a 1993 review, and ongoing oversight, that identified several problems. The concerns addressed in the review conducted in 1993 have been adequately addressed. Oklahoma is to be commended for the progress that has been made to improve its coordination with Federal and State Fish and Wildlife agencies and in handling issues related to threatened and endangered species. Oklahoma adequately implemented its approved program related to protection of fish and wildlife and related environmental values with the exception that high quality wildlife habitat may not be adequately restored on reclaimed mine sites resulting in a long-term loss for Oklahoma wildlife species. Oklahoma does not have a system to quantify the value of pre- and post-mining wildlife habitat, therefore, ODM has no way to know how great a loss of habitat is actually occurring. Oklahoma's commitment to make the necessary revisions to implement this aspect of its program should help to eliminate this problem. OSM will conduct a follow-up review on this topic in EY 2000.
Permitting - Surface Water Quality: This was a follow-up review of concerns documented during previous evaluations and during public outreach. The overall implementation of surface water quality permitting requirements is generally consistent with the regulatory program, and the State continues to show improvement (i.e., improved sampling and analysis of baseline surface water resources). The EY 98 review found three issues of concern with regard to surface water resources: 1) a few baseline surface monitoring points did not report the required baseline data to reflected seasonal variations in flow as required by the approved program; 2) the lack of quantitative evaluations of mining impacts on surface waters in PHC and CHIA documents where pollutants (i.e., TDS and sulfate) have built up in surface waters to a level that approaches the Material Damage Criteria limits; and 3) the lack of inclusion of some constituents important to surface water use, in particular, SAR and sulfate, in the Material Damage Criteria.
OSM has recommended that a joint State/Federal team be formed in EY 2000 to evaluate the quantitative methods for evaluation of mining-related impacts to surface waters.
Permitting - Acid/Toxic-forming Materials Handling Plans: Previous evaluations identified geologic baseline data, overburden analysis, and acid/toxic forming materials handling plans as areas where permit application packages could improve. Oklahoma's enforcement of acid/toxic materials handling requirements for permitting is generally consistent with the regulatory requirements of the approved program. However, the EY 98 review identified areas in the sample permits where the State's procedures relative to acid-base accounting and Acid/Toxic Materials Handling Plans could be improved.
OSM has suggested that a joint State/Federal team be formed in evaluation year 2000 to review the Acid/Toxic Materials Handling Plan permitting procedures in the following areas:
1. the analysis and material handling of coal refuse, underground mine development waste, cover materials, and blended materials;
2. the need for proper volumetric calculations;
3. the need to obtain acid-base accounting for coal beds that may be spoiled;
4. the inclusion of the immediate underburden in the acid-base accounting.
Permitting - Permit Review Procedures: Based on the review of three permit applications issued in EY 98, OSM concluded that ODM properly reviewed the applications for compliance with the State program. ODM allowed for public participation, determined whether the applicant was eligible to receive a permit, required additional information when needed, made the appropriate written findings, and required appropriate permit conditions. ODM has appropriate permit review procedures in place, and followed those procedures when determining whether to award permits.
These tables present data pertinent to mining operations and State and Federal regulatory activities within Oklahoma. They also summarize funding provided by OSM and Oklahoma staffing. Unless otherwise specified, the reporting period for the data contained in all tables is October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998. Additional data used by OSM in its evaluation of Oklahoma's performance is available for review in the evaluation files maintained by the Tulsa OSM Office.
| COAL PRODUCTION
(Millions of Short Tons) | |||
| Period | Surface
mines |
Underground
mines |
Total |
| Coal productionA for entire State: | |||
| Calendar Year | |||
| 1995 | 1.82 | 0.07 | 1.89 |
| 1996 | 1.71 | 0.14 | 1.84 |
| 1997 | 1.40 | 0.21 | 1.61 |
A Coal production as reported in this table is the gross tonnage which includes coal that is sold, used or transferred as reported to OSM by each mining company on form OSM-1 line 8(a). Gross tonnage does not provide for a moisture reduction. OSM verifies tonnage reported through routine auditing of mining companies. This production may vary from that reported by States or other sources due to varying methods of determining and reporting coal production.
| INSPECTABLE UNITS
(As of September 30, 1998) | |||||||||||||||
|
Coal mines and related facilities |
Insp.
UnitD |
Permitted acreageA (hundreds of acres) | |||||||||||||
| Active or temporarily inactive | Inactive |
Abandoned |
Totals |
||||||||||||
| Phase II bond release | |||||||||||||||
| IP | PP | IP | PP | IP | PP | IP | PP | IP | PP | Total | |||||
| STATE and PRIVATE LANDS | REGULATORY AUTHORITY: STATE | ||||||||||||||
| Surface mines | 0 | 40 | 0 | 11 | 6 | 22 | 6 | 73 | 13 | 280 | 293 | ||||
| Underground mines | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Other facilities | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Subtotals | 0 | 42 | 0 | 11 | 6 | 22 | 6 | 75 | 0 | 13 | 281 | 294 | |||
| FEDERAL LANDS | REGULATORY AUTHORITY: STATE | ||||||||||||||
| Surface mines | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 70 | 70 | ||||
| Underground mines | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Other facilities | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Subtotals | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 72 | 72 | |||
| ALL LANDS B | |||||||||||||||
| Surface mines | 0 | 51 | 0 | 11 | 6 | 23 | 6 | 85 | 0 | 13 | 350 | 363 | |||
| Underground mines | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | |||
| Other facilities | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Totals | 0 | 54 | 0 | 11 | 6 | 23 | 6 | 88 | 0 | 13 | 353 | 366 | |||
| Average number of permits per inspectable unit (excluding exploration sites)
Average number of acres per inspectable unit (excluding exploration sites) |
1
389 | ||||||||||||||
| Number of exploration permits on State and private lands:
Number of exploration notices on State and private lands: |
0
0 |
On Federal lands:
On Federal lands: |
0
0 |
C
C | |||||||||||
| IP: Initial regulatory program sites.
PP: Permanent regulatory program sites. | |||||||||||||||
| A When a unit is located on more than one type of land, includes only the acreage located on the indicated type of land.
B Numbers of units may not equal the sum of the three preceding categories because a single inspectable unit may include lands in more than one of the preceding categories. C Includes only exploration activities regulated by the State pursuant to a cooperative agreement with OSM or by OSM pursuant to a Federal lands program. Excludes exploration regulated by the Bureau of Land Management. D Inspectable Units includes multiple permits that have been grouped together as one unit for inspection frequency purposes by some State programs. | |||||||||||||||
|
STATE PERMITTING ACTIVITY (As of September 30, 1998) | ||||||||||||
|
Type of application |
Surface
mines |
Underground
mines |
Other
facilities |
Totals | ||||||||
| App. Rec. |
Issued |
Acres |
App. Rec. |
Issued |
AcresA |
App. Rec. |
Issued |
Acres |
App. Rec. |
Issued |
Acres | |
| New permits | 1 | 5 | 3,228.1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 3,228.1 | ||||
| Renewals | 2 | 1 | 57.0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 57.0 | ||||
| Incidental boundary revisions | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Revisions (exclusive of incidental boundary revisions) | 55 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 56 | 0.0 | |||||
| Transfers, sales and assignments of permit rights | 0 | 1 | 2,436.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,436.7 | ||||
| Small operator assistance | ||||||||||||
| Exploration permits | ||||||||||||
| Exploration noticesB | ||||||||||||
| Totals | 62 | 63 | 5,721.8 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| OPTIONAL - Number of midterm permit reviews completed that are not reported as revisions 3
A Includes only the number of acres of proposed surface disturbance. B State approval not required. Involves removal of less than 250 tons of coal and does not affect lands designated unsuitable for mining. | ||||||||||||
| INSPECTABLE UNITS | PARTIAL | COMPLETE |
| ACTIVE *A | 396 | 241 |
| INACTIVE | 18 | 25 |
| ABANDONED *B | 177 | 128 |
| IN-RECLAMATION | ||
| EXPLORATION | 0 | 0 |
| TOTAL | 591 | 394 |
A. Includes sites In Reclamation - Phase II
B. Includes sites in Bond Forfeiture
|
Water |
||||||||||||||
| DEGREE OF IMPACT | minor | moderate | major | minor | moderate | major | minor | moderate | major | minor | moderate | major | ||
| TYPE OF
IMPACT AND TOTAL NUMBER OF EACH TYPE |
Blasting | 0 | ||||||||||||
| Land Stability | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Hydrology | 9 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| Encroachment | 0 | |||||||||||||
| Other | 3 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||
| Total | 14 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
|
RESOURCES AFFECTED |
People |
Land |
Water |
Structures | ||||||||||
|
DEGREE OF IMPACT |
minor | moderate | major | minor | moderate | major | minor | moderate | major | minor | moderate | major | ||
| TYPE OF
IMPACT AND TOTAL NUMBER OF EACH TYPE |
Blasting | |||||||||||||
| Land Stability | ||||||||||||||
| Hydrology | ||||||||||||||
| Encroachment | ||||||||||||||
| Other | ||||||||||||||
| Total | ||||||||||||||
The objective of this Table is to report all off-site impacts identified in a State regardless of the source of the information. Report the degree of impact under each resource that was affected by each type of impact. Refer to guidelines in Directive REG-8 for determining degree of impact. More than one resource may be affected by each type of impact. Therefore, the total number of impacts will likely be less than the total number of resources affected; i.e., the numbers under the resources columns will not necessarily add horizontally to equal the total number for each type of impact. As provided by the Table, report impacts identified on bond forfeiture sites separately from impacts identified on other sites. If bond forfeitures sites were not evaluated during the period, clearly note the table to indicate that fact. Impacts related to mine subsidence or other areas where impacts are not prohibited are not included in this table. Refer to report narrative for complete explanation and evaluation of the information provided by this table.
TABLE 5
|
ANNUAL STATE MINING AND RECLAMATION RESULTS | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate original contour restored
Topsoil or approved alternative replaced |
1,776.10 |
|
|
Surface stability
Establishment of vegetation |
1,556.50 |
|
|
Post-mining land use/productivity restored
Successful permanent vegetation Groundwater recharge, quality and quantity restored Surface water quality and quantity restored |
3,758.20 |
| Bonded Acreage StatusA | Acres | |
| Total number of bonded acres at end of last review periodB | 35,943.60 | |
| Total number of acres bonded during this evaluation year | 2,116.80 | |
| Number of acres bonded during this evaluation year that are considered remining, if available | Not Available | |
| Number of acres where bond was forfeited during this evaluation year (also report this acreage on Table 7). | 0.00 | |
| A Bonded acreage is considered to approximate and represent the number of acres disturbed by surface
coal mining and reclamation operations.
B Bonded acres in this category are those that have not received a Phase III or other final bond release (State maintains jurisdiction). | ||
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF
MINING AND RECLAMATION RESULTS
October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998
| Backfilled/Graded to AOC and drainage reestablished | 1,520.5 |
| Topsoil Replaced | 332.3 |
| Vegetation Reestablished | 2,403.4 |
| Cropland | 35.9 | Developed Water Resources | 41.8 |
| Pasture/Hayland | 972.2 | Public Utilities | - |
| Grazingland | 1,240.2 | Industrial/Commercial | 6.8 |
| Forestry | - | Recreation | - |
| Residential | - | Remined | Not Available |
| Fish and Wildlife Habitat | 60.3 | Undisturbed | Not Available |
| Undeveloped | - | Other |
**
| Corn (bu/ac) | Hay (lb/ac) | ||||
| Beans (bu/ac) | Other | ||||
| Wheat (bu/ac) | Other |
**
| Forest | Industrial/Commercial | ||
| Fish and Wildlife Habitat | Recreation | ||
| Grazingland | Remined | ||
| Residential | Other |
** This information is not available for the entire evaluation period.
It is now being tracked for next year's evaluation.
TABLE 7
|
STATE BOND FORFEITURE ACTIVITY (Permanent Program Permits) | ||||
| Sites | Dollars | Acres | ||
| Bonds forfeited as of September 30, 1997A | 0.0 | $0.00 | 0.0 | |
| Bonds forfeited during EY 98 | 0.0 | $0.00 | 0.0 | |
| Forfeited bonds collected as October 1, 1997A | 12.0 | $1,705,684.00 | 1,935.5 | |
| Forfeited bonds collected during EY 1998 | 7.0 | $239,275.50 | 1,247.5 | |
| Forfeiture sites reclaimed during EY 1998 | 0.0 | $0.00 | 0.0 | |
| Forfeiture sites repermitted during EY 1998 | 0.0 | $0.00 | 0.0 | |
| Forfeiture sites unreclaimed as of October 1, 1998 | 0.0 | $0.00 | 0.0 | |
| Excess reclamation costs recovered from permittee | 0.0 | $0.00 | 0.0 | |
| Excess forfeiture proceeds returned to permittee | 0.0 | $0.00 | 0.0 | |
|
A Includes data only for those forfeiture sites not fully reclaimed as of this date. B Cost of reclamation, excluding general administrative expenses. | ||||
TABLE 8
|
OKLAHOMA STAFFING (Full-time equivalents at end of evaluation year) | |
| Function | EY 1998 |
| Regulatory program | |
| Permit review | 4.8 |
| Inspection | 10.8 |
| Other (administrative, fiscal, personnel, etc.) | 14.8 |
| Sub-total | 29.6 |
| AML Program | 6.0 |
| TOTAL | 35.6 |
TABLE 9
|
FUNDS GRANTED TO OKLAHOMA BY OSM (Millions of dollars) | |||
|
Type of grant |
Federal funds awarded |
Federal funding as a percentage of total program costs | |
| Regulatory | Administration and
enforcement |
$900,512.00 |
57.8% |
| Small operator
assistance |
|||
| $900,512.00 | |||
| AMLR | Administration and
construction |
$1,795,397.00 | 100% |
| $1,795,397.00 | |||
| $2,695,909.00 | |||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
| Unfunded | Funded | Completed | |||||
| Priority 1 & 2 (Protection of public health, safety, and general welfare) | |||||||
| Clogged streams | Miles | 1.0 | .2 | 11.8 | 13.0 | ||
| Clogged stream lands | Acres | 143.0 | 0 | 0 | 143.0 | ||
| Dangerous highwalls | Lin Feet | 860,891 | 13,500 | 183,789 | 1,058,180 | ||
| Dangerous impoundments | Count | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | ||
| Dangerous piles and | Acres | 773.0 | 0 | 0 | 773.0 | ||
| Dangerous slides | Acres | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Gases: hazardous/explosive | County | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Underground mine fires | Acres | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Hazardous equip. & facilities | Count | 17 | 0 | 16 | 33 | ||
| Hazardous water bodies | Count | 530 | 12 | 150 | 692 | ||
| Industrial/residential waste | Acres | 43.0 | 0 | 7.1 | 50.1 | ||
| Portals | Count | 69 | 10 | 156 | 235 | ||
| Polluted water: agric. & indust. | Count | 4 | 0 | 3 | 7 | ||
| Polluted water: human | Count | 8 | 0 | 2 | 10 | ||
| Subsidence | Acres | 100.8 | .4 | 12.4 | 113.6 | ||
| Surface burning | Acres | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Vertical opening | Count | 17 | 8 | 107 | 132 | ||
| Priority 3 (Environmental restoration) | |||||||
| Spoil areas | Acres | ||||||
| Benches | Acres | ||||||
| Pits | Acres | ||||||
| Gob piles | Acres | ||||||
| Slurry ponds | Acres | ||||||
| Haul roads | Acres | ||||||
| Mine openings | Count | ||||||
| Slumps | Acres | ||||||
| Highwalls | Lin Feet | ||||||
| Equipment/facilities | Count | ||||||
| Industrial/residential waste | Acres | ||||||
| Water problems | Gal/min | ||||||
| Other | |||||||