OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Annual Evaluation Summary Report

for the

Regulatory and Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Programs

Administered by the State

of

ALABAMA

for

Evaluation Year 1998

October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998

December 1998

During the 1998 Evaluation Year, the Office of Surface Mining, Birmingham Field Office (BFO), conducted oversight evaluations of the Alabama Surface Mining Commission (ASMC) and the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations (ADIR), the State coal mine regulatory and abandoned mine lands program agencies, respectively. The oversight studies focused on the success of these agencies in meeting the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's (SMCRA) goals for environmental protection and prompt, effective reclamation of land mined for coal. An evaluation (performance) plan for each agency was cooperatively developed by the BFO and the State to tailor the oversight activities to the unique conditions of each State program. The purpose for the oversight activities was to identify the need for and then provide financial, technical, and other program assistance to the State to strengthen its programs.

National initiative studies were conducted by the BFO in the areas of off-site impacts, reclamation success, and customer service. The BFO's study of off-site impacts concluded that the State is operating its inspection and enforcement program in a manner that discourages the occurrence of off-site impacts and is diligent in discovering and citing violations involving off-site impacts as they occur. Off-site impacts occurred at only 35 of the 278 minesites within the State. The BFO's review of 30 bond release actions demonstrated that the State is ensuring successful reclamation through compliance with bond release performance standards. The BFO's customer service review, which concentrated on the citizen complaint process, analyzed 20 complaints processed by the State during the evaluation year. The BFO review indicated that the ASMC was both timely and responsive to citizen complaints. The ASMC addressed the concerns voiced by citizens and consistently conducted on-site investigations of these complaints. In addition to the national initiatives detailed above, Title V program evaluations were conducted on State inspection activities relative to acid/toxic materials and bond forfeiture reclamation.

Oversight evaluations of Alabama's Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Program were conducted to determine ADIR's success in achieving the reclamation goals established by the agency. Studies were conducted in the areas of lien recording and maintenance, Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System maintenance, and project construction: backfill material stability. In all instances, the studies demonstrated that ADIR successfully administered the AML program in accordance with the AML Reclamation Plan and policies and procedures in the annual AML Reclamation grant. Reclamation was completed on 19 emergency and non-emergency projects. During the 1998 evaluation year, ADIR completed reclamation of its first Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative project, the Cane Creek AMD Remediation Project. In addition, ADIR cooperated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management to reduce unnecessary paperwork by streamlining its consultation procedures.

Executive Summary i

Table of Contents ii

List of Acronyms Used in Report iii

I. Introduction 1

II. Overview of Coal Mining Industry 1

III. Overview of Public Participation in the Program 2

IV. Major Accomplishments/Issues/Innovations 3

V. Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA 5

A. Off-site Impacts 5

B. Reclamation Success 6

C. Customer Service 9

VI. OSM Assistance 12

VII. General Oversight Topic Reviews 14

A. Program Evaluations of the State Regulatory Program 14

B. Program Evaluations of the State Abandoned Mine Lands Program 17

Appendix A: Tabular Summary of Core Data to Characterize the Program

Appendix B: State Comments on the Report

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED IN THE REPORT

ADIR - Alabama Department of Industrial Relations

AMD - Acid Mine Drainage

AML - Abandoned Mine Lands

AMLIS - Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System

AOC - Approximate Original Contours

ASMC - Alabama Surface Mining Commission

BFO - Birmingham Field Office

Board - Walker County Soil and Water Conservation District Board

EY - Evaluation Year

FY - Fiscal Year

GIS - Geographic Information System

MCRCC - Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center

NOV - Notice of Violation

NPDES - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

OSM - Office of Surface Mining

PAD's - Problem Area Descriptions

SMCRA - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

TIPS - Technical Information Processing System

I. INTRODUCTION

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) created the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) in the Department of the Interior. SMCRA provides authority to OSM to oversee the implementation of and provide Federal funding for State regulatory and abandoned mine lands programs that have been approved by OSM as meeting the minimum standards specified by SMCRA. This report contains summary information regarding the Alabama Regulatory and Abandoned Mine Lands Programs and the effectiveness of the Alabama Programs in meeting the applicable purposes of SMCRA as specified in section 102. These programs are administered by the Alabama Surface Mining Commission (ASMC) and the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations (ADIR). This report covers the period of October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998. Detailed background information and comprehensive reports for the program elements evaluated during the period are available for review and copying at OSM's Birmingham Field Office (BFO), 135 Gemini Circle, Suite 215, Homewood, AL 35209.

II. OVERVIEW OF THE ALABAMA COAL MINING INDUSTRY

Alabama ranks fourteenth in coal production among coal-producing States. The majority of Alabama's coal is ranked high-volatile A bituminous. Moderate amounts of low and medium-volatile A bituminous coal also exist. The coal is generally of good quality, and most beds have low percentages of sulfur and ash.

Alabama has four coalfields that are part of the great Appalachian coal basin - the Plateau field, the Warrior field, the Cahaba field, and the Coosa field. Alabama's total coal reserves have been estimated at 4.8 billion tons. A total of 3.1 billion tons is estimated as recoverable reserves (.73 billion ton is recoverable by underground mining, i.e., overburden of greater than 120 feet; and 2.4 billion tons are recoverable by present strip mining techniques, i.e., overburden less than 120 feet). A total of 9,700 square miles of the State is underlain by coal. Coal is the most abundant and important mineral resource in the Warrior, Cahaba, and Coosa fields. The great majority of coal mined today is in the Warrior field. The Plateau field, with a greater area than all the other coalfields combined, has attracted little commercial mining. The coal mined in Alabama is used principally for electric power generation. Other uses include methane gas recovery and coke production.

.

Coal is recovered by both surface and underground mining techniques. Surface mining in Alabama includes auger, contour, and area methods. Room and pillar and longwall methods are used for underground mining. Prior to 1986, surface mining predominated; since that time, underground mines have accounted for the majority of the coal recovered. For calendar year 1997, approximately three-fourths of the coal mined was by underground mining (tonnage recovered by underground mining - 18,472,066; tonnage recovered by surface mining - 6,547,453). Underground mining operations employed 3,664 people while surface mining operations employed 828 people as of September 30, 1998.

As of September 30, 1998, 39 permitted surface mines, 10 permitted underground mines, and 10 preparation and loading facilities were actively producing coal in Alabama. Production reports show that bituminous coal was produced in ten Alabama counties: Bibb, Cullman, Fayette, Jackson, Jefferson, Marion, Shelby, Tuscaloosa, Walker, and Winston. Approximately 86 percent of that production came from Jefferson, Tuscaloosa, and Walker counties. For the first three quarters of Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 (October l, 1997, through June 30, 1998) coal production in Alabama totaled 18,028,662 gross tons (13,100,212 tons recovered by underground mining and 4,928,450 tons recovered by surface mining).

III. OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES IN THE OVERSIGHT PROCESS AND THE STATE PROGRAMS

Opportunities for public participation occur at significant points in the Alabama regulatory program and involve the ability of the public to initiate rulemaking (880-X-2A-.08), to initiate civil suits (880-X-2A-.09), to request that areas be designated as unsuitable for mining (880-X-7D-.05), to review permit and revision applications (880-X-8K), to object to proposed bond releases (880-X-9D-.02), and to request an inspection of a minesite (880-X-11B-.03). Monthly meetings of the Commissioners are also open to the public. Opportunities for public participation in the Alabama Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Program occur at the time of (1) project selection, (2) consultation under the National Environmental Policy Act, (3) grant application review, (4) obtaining right of entry documents, (5) management and disposal of land acquired by the AML Program, (6) stormwater runoff permit application process, and (7) amendment of the State Plan. Although no specific OSM evaluations were conducted on the State processes listed above, the oversight evaluations conducted and the regular interactions with the State regulatory and abandoned mine lands program staffs and the public did not determine any deficiencies in these processes.

On March 17, 1998, the Birmingham Field Office conducted a Planning Meeting to solicit input from OSM's customers and stakeholders on OSM's programmatic priorities for FY 2000. A briefing on the President's Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation request to Congress was presented at the beginning of the meeting. Nineteen individuals, including a wide mix of representatives from the coal industry and associations, concerned citizens and environmental groups, State and Federal agency officials, a public utility company representative, a newspaper reporter, and a staff member from Senator Jeff Sessions' office, attended the meeting. A newspaper article, describing the meeting, was published in The Birmingham News on March 18, 1998. An active exchange of information, concerns, issues, and suggestions resulted in a list of priority items for consideration in budget planning. None of the discussion topics related directly to oversight activities of the Birmingham Field Office even though input was solicited and an opportunity for discussion was provided.

On July 23, 1998, the BFO mailed out a solicitation letter to ten entities, requesting recommendations regarding the office's oversight process, suggestions for improvement of future annual reports, and review topics for the 1999 Evaluation Year (EY). Recipients included the Alabama Coal Association, two State environmental agencies, six environmental groups, and the Walker County Soil & Water Conservation District Board. Although no responses were received from this solicitation, all of these groups or agencies, many of which had interacted with our office during the 1998 Evaluation Year on various issues, were given an opportunity to provide input into our evaluation process.

The BFO interacted with the public on a routine and periodic basis throughout the year. BFO personnel met with environmental groups, provided concerned citizens with requested information, and represented OSM at meetings related to water quality and Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative funding. The BFO enrolled in the Alabama Rivers Alliance listserver to provide a mechanism for disseminating information on OSM programs and policies electronically to local watershed groups. Information regarding the Acid Mine Drainage Conference, sponsored each year by OSM and the Environmental Protection Agency, was transmitted over the listserver.

IV. MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES/INNOVATIONS IN THE ALABAMA PROGRAM

ASMC successfully administered its regulatory program during EY 1998 to achieve the goals identified in Section 102 of SMCRA. In all instances identified during the review year, ASMC conducted its regulatory program in a manner that ensured protection of the environment and people from the excesses of coal mining.

During the evaluation year, ASMC issued ten new permits and 37 permit renewals. Ninety-four permit revisions and four incidental boundary revisions were approved. One permit transfer was submitted, but was not approved. ASMC approved 33 Notices of Intent to Explore. A total of 3,742 inspections were conducted, including 3,212 complete inspections and 530 partial inspections. One hundred and thirty-eight Notices of Violation, representing 173 violations, and 28 Cessation Orders, with a total of 39 violations, were issued (not including vacated violations).

ASMC faced two major challenges during EY 1998. In November 1997, ASMC was subjected to the periodic review by the Alabama Legislative Sunset Commission to determine whether the agency should be continued, modified or abolished. Following extensive discussions between the agency and the Sunset Committee, the ASMC was continued in its current Commission format for an additional four years. One of the issues explored by the Sunset Committee was the agency's declining revenue base and the need for the ASMC to develop a long-range solution for funding to support the regulatory program. The agency explored several proposals that would improve its financial situation, including raising its permitting fees to generate additional revenue and downsizing its staff. In May 1998, based on additional revenues received by the agency in the areas of licensing and permitting fees and penalty collections, coupled with planned retirements, ASMC determined that sufficient funds would be available for FY 1998.

The BFO assisted in the organization and facilitation of the Hurricane Creek Stakeholders Group, a consortium of state and federal agencies, industry, academia, local governments, and environmental groups concerned with the water quality of Hurricane Creek in central Alabama. ASMC took a leadership role in preparing land use maps for the watershed and in chairing the team determining the data needs for the creek. ADIR provided AML inventory data to show the extent of abandoned mine lands in the watershed and used the newly-developed Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping capabilities of OSM's Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS) to produce a map of the delineated watershed. The long-range goal of the stakeholders group is to develop a watershed plan that will restore the health of the creek while allowing for continued economic growth and resource use.

ADIR successfully administered the AML Program during EY 1998 in accordance with the AML Reclamation Plan and policies and procedures established in the annual AML grant. The AML Program completed 19 projects (including seven emergency projects) during the evaluation year. Reclamation of the seven emergencies involved $358, 885 in construction expenses. Pothole subsidence events were the predominant problems with one project involving the closure of two mine portals that were daylighted during road construction (teenagers were seen entering the mine through the openings). A major landslide occurred in February 1998, on Monte Sano Mountain near the City of Huntsville. The Alabama AML Program provided $350,000 in emergency funds toward resolving the problem. Reclamation achieved by non-emergency activities included 12,100 linear feet of dangerous highwall, four dangerous impoundments, 43 acres of spoil, and 1000 linear feet of dangerous piles and embankments.

ADIR completed its first Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative project during EY 1998. Reclamation on Phase I of the Cane Creek AMD Remediation Project began in July 1997, and was completed April 24, 1998, at a cost of $408,403. The project was the first in Alabama to use the technology of open limestone drains installed above the influx of acid mine drainage (AMD) to raise the pH of the creek prior to contact with the contaminated flow. Downstream of the gob piles (the major contributors of AMD to the watershed), are a sediment pond and constructed wetland to perform additional clean-up of the acid mine drainage as it flows down the creek. The Walker County Soil and Water Conservation District Board (Board) performed the reclamation under a long-standing cooperative agreement with ADIR. The project provided a number of opportunities for in-kind contributions from state agencies and a university. A local high school performed water testing of the receiving stream and assisted in planting wetland plants in the wetland constructed on the site. The completed project has been a favorite outdoor classroom for Alabama teacher training conferences, school children, and environmental organizations.

To increase efficiency and cut down on unnecessary paperwork, ADIR has been engaged in streamlining activities for several years. During EY 1998, ADIR developed consultation agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management to streamline interactions between ADIR and the two agencies.

ADIR was the test site for OSM's effort to improve the mapping capabilities of the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System. Quadrangle maps showing Alabama's AML problem areas were digitized so that development of a GIS for AMLIS could be tested. A demonstration to ADIR of the new mapping abilities of the system was conducted in June 1998. ADIR provided excellent cooperation for this project.

V. SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING THE PURPOSES OF SMCRA AS DETERMINED BY MEASURING AND REPORTING END RESULTS

To further the concept of reporting end results, the findings from performance standard and pubic participation evaluations are being collected for a national perspective in terms of the number and extent of observed off-site impacts, the number of acres that have been mined and reclaimed and which meet the bond release requirements for the various phases of reclamation, and the effectiveness of customer service provided by the State. Individual topic reports are available in the Birmingham Office which provide additional details on how the following evaluations and measurements were conducted.

A. Off-Site Impacts:

OSM annually evaluates and reports on the effectiveness of ASMC's regulatory program in protecting the environment and the public from off-site impacts resulting from surface coal mining and reclamation operations. Off-site impact data is gathered nationwide in order to portray the on-the-ground success of State programs in preventing or minimizing off-site impacts.

An off-site impact is defined as anything resulting from coal mining which causes a negative effect on resources (people, land, water, structures). Also, the impact would be regulated or controlled by the applicable State program. The impact must be coal mine related and must occur outside the area authorized by the permit for conducting mining and reclamation activities.

For EY 1998, off-site impact data was collected for the period of October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998, during the BFO's field inspections and file reviews of four types of State documents: inspection reports, Notice of Violation (NOV) actions, bond releases, and bond forfeitures. The field and file reviews were conducted to determine if the State properly recorded off-site impacts for the mine sites inspected by the BFO.

The BFO's inspections of mine sites occurred throughout the evaluation year, beginning in October 1997, and ending in August 1998. Of the 20 inspections performed for the Bond Forfeiture study, seven off-site impacts were identified. Of the 30 inspections performed for the Bond Release study, two off-site impacts were identified. Of the 54 complete inspections performed, nine off-site impacts were identified. All of these off-site impacts had been identified and cited by the State. The examination of the State NOV database and associated hard copy NOV's identified an additional 46 off-site impacts not associated with the before-mentioned studies.

To recap, a total of 64 off-site impacts, affecting people, land, water and structural resources, were identified on 37 mine sites. (Fifty-seven off-site impacts involving 35 permits were identified for "active" sites, and seven off-site impacts involving two permits were identified for bond forfeiture sites.) Affects on resources were determined to be major in 11 cases, moderate in 27 instances, and minor in 26 cases (Table 4). The "active" off-site impacts involved failure to meet effluent limitations (21), uncontrolled run-off (13), other hydrological impacts (4), failure to maintain setbacks - encroachment (10), blasting violations (6), and land stability (3). The bond forfeiture off-site impacts were associated with uncontrolled run-off.

Studies on off-site impacts have been conducted during EY 1996, EY 1997, and EY 1998. Off-site impacts associated with Alabama mine sites were 14 impacts in EY 1996 and 13 impacts in EY 1997. The increase to 64 off-site impacts resulted from the inclusion of ASMC's Notices of Violation indicating off-site impacts. The non bond forfeiture off-site impacts (57) occurred on 35 permits. Alabama's inspectable mine sites total 278. Therefore, off-site impacts occurred on only a small portion of the permitted sites.

While the occurrence of off-site impacts is beyond ASMC's control, the State is operating its inspection and enforcement program in a manner that discourages the occurrence of off-site impacts and is employing diligence in discovering and citing

violations involving off-site impacts as they occur. No instances were noted in which the State failed to take proper enforcement actions.

B. Reclamation Success:

The ASMC's effectiveness in ensuring successful reclamation through compliance with performance standards relative to bond release was evaluated. A sample of bond release actions reviewed by ASMC after October 1, 1997, was selected for the evaluation. The total number of bond releases reviewed was 30 sites. The sample included Phase I, II, and III bond releases. The field reviews occurred throughout the evaluation year. All of the sites were reviewed prior to the ASMC's approval/denial of the bond release request.

The following parameters were evaluated through field observations and/or review of the State bond release files:

• Phase I - Approximate Original Contour (AOC) achievement

• Evaluation Method - Onsite inspection

• Phase II - Replacement of soil resources, vegetation stability

• Evaluation Method - Onsite inspection and permit file review

• Phase III - Postmining land use, successful revegetation, surface water quality and quantity, restoration of ground water recharge capacity, comparison of premining to postmining surface water quality and quantity restoration

• Evaluation Method - Onsite inspection and permit file review

Phase I

The BFO inspected and conducted permit file reviews on 14 increments requested for Phase I bond release, totaling 1,034 acres. These increments were field inspected for AOC achievement, toxic material coverage (where indicated), and the removal of temporary structures and equipment. When indicated, water discharge was tested, toxic material coverage was measured, and topsoil variance compliance was analyzed. A permit file review was conducted to determine the premining/postmining surface/ground water quality comparison and compliance of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) monitoring points.

All 14 of these increments were determined to have met the requirements for Phase I bond release. These increments had achieved AOC, toxic material had been covered when applicable, the permit files reflected a comparison of premining/postmining surface/ground water quality, compliance of NPDES monitoring points was on file, and temporary structures and equipment had been removed.

Phase II

Thirteen Phase II increments, representing 919 acres, were inspected. Onsite inspections were conducted to determine the presence of topsoil or suitable soil replacement, to verify the establishment and presence of approved vegetation, to determine that vegetative success standards were met (90% cover), and to ensure that the site was stabilized. A determination was also made that lands were not contributing suspended solids off the permit and that removal of temporary ponds and diversions was completed. The permit files were reviewed to determine acres of basins approved as permanent water impoundments, the applicability of prime farmland productivity, and the presence of topsoil waivers.

Eleven increments, totaling 411 acres, met the requirements for Phase II bond release. These increments reflected suitable soil replacement, adequate and approved species of vegetative cover, and site stabilization (no rills or gullies). All temporary ponds and diversions were appropriately removed, basins were approved as permanent water impoundments, and reclamation did not contribute suspended solids off the permit. A difference in opinion regarding a Phase II bond release on one site, totaling 29 acres, was noted. This discrepancy concerned the establishment of adequate vegetative cover. Vegetation had failed on a portion of the backfilled highwall. While no sampling was conducted to determine vegetative cover, additional soiling and reseeding were suggested as necessary to meet Phase II bond requirements.

Two increments, totaling 508 acres, were determined to not be releasable under a Phase II bond release. Problems on these increments included the failure to remove equipment from the site, lack of submission of required water monitoring data, failure to eliminate rills and gullies, and lack of established vegetation in some areas.

Phase III

Thirty increments, totaling 2,762 acres, were reviewed for Phase III bond release. These sites were field inspected for the achievement of postmining land use and successful vegetative cover. The permit files were reviewed to determine the approved postmining land use, the monitoring of the quality of the water, groundwater recharge capabilities, and compliance with surface water discharge effluent limits. The permit files were also reviewed to determine that the appropriate liability periods had been met.

Twenty-seven of these increments were determined to have met the requirements for a Phase III bond release. These increments totaled 2,442 acres. All increments had achieved postmining land use, vegetative success, and met water quality standards. Permit files reflected that water leaving the minesite was comparable to or better than pre-mining conditions (where applicable), that the groundwater recharge capabilities had been tested, and that compliance with surface water discharge effluent limits had been verified. In all cases, the liability periods had been met.

Three increments, totaling 320 acres, were determined not to have met the requirements for a Phase III bond release. Problems on these increments were failure to remove a basin or to request approval for a permanent impoundment and failure to establish vegetative cover.

The BFO determinations were consistent with ASMC's actions on Phase I, II, and III bond releases on all but one site inspected in this sample. Based upon this review, the BFO determined that ASMC's decisions on approving bond release requests met the requirements of the approved Alabama surface mining program. As shown in Table 5, ASMC released 2,451 acres under a Phase I bond release, 2,535 acres under a Phase II bond release, and 5,744 acres under a Phase III bond release.

C. Customer Service:

The BFO selected the processing of citizen complaints as its review of specific State activities related to customer service. This review compared the actions and steps taken during the processing of citizen complaints with the guidelines developed and adopted by the ASMC. It also included a review of the appropriateness of the ASMC's response to the citizen to assure that the citizen's concerns were addressed. The processing of citizen complaints received by ASMC through the Ten-Day Notice process was also reviewed.

The ASMC directly received 50 citizen complaints during the period of October 1, 1996, through September 30, 1997. Thirty-three of the complaints were for blasting, and 17 were subsidence-related. One Notice of Violation for blasting was written based upon the investigation of one of the citizen complaints during the time period. A random sample of the complaints was developed which consisted of 17 citizen complaints.

The ASMC also receives citizen complaints through the Ten-Day Notice process from OSM. Citizen complaints received in writing by OSM which provide reason to believe that a violation exists, but which do not allege (and provide adequate proof) that an imminent danger or harm exists, are transmitted to the regulatory authority by a Ten-Day Notice. The review included three Ten-Day Notices regarding citizen complaints sent to the ASMC by the BFO.

The ASMC's procedures for processing blasting complaints are different from procedures for handling all other types of citizen complaints. The three categories outlined below reflect the different procedures for processing (1) citizen complaints

exclusive of blasting concerns, (2) citizen complaints regarding blasting, and (3) citizen complaints received through the Ten-Day Notice process.

Citizen Complaints Received Excluding Blasting Citizen Complaints

Five of the complaints in the random sample concerned subsidence.

• Correspondence to the Citizen

In all cases, it was determined that the citizen was advised of the opportunity for confidentiality status and provided an opportunity to accompany the authorized representative during the inspection. Inspections were conducted by the ASMC for all five subsidence complaints. Responses were made to the complainant within the 10-day time frame as required. The responses to the citizens from the ASMC addressed the concerns and issues presented by the citizen and also provided an explanation of the person's right to informal review of the action or inaction of the ASMC. It was noted, however, that inspection dates were not always included in the information provided in the letter to the citizen.

• Correspondence to Persons Alleged to be in Violation

A review of the files indicated that the ASMC did not issue any enforcement actions for this random sample of citizen complaints. The ASMC did state that when enforcement actions are taken, the persons alleged to be in violation are provided with copies of the enforcement action. An explanation to the persons alleged to be in violation of why no enforcement action was taken as required in Rule 880-X-11B-.03(5) was not located during the file review.

Citizen Complaints Concerning Blasting

Twelve of the complaints received by the ASMC in the random sample involved blasting concerns.

• Correspondence to the Citizen

Upon review of the 12 blasting complaint files, it was determined that in all cases the citizen was advised of the opportunity for confidentiality status. Also, when an inspection was conducted as a result of the information provided by the person to the ASMC, the citizen was provided with the opportunity to accompany the authorized representative of the ASMC during the inspection.

Inspections were conducted by the ASMC for ten of the complaints. The remaining two blasting complaints had previous inspections conducted within the two weeks prior to receipt of the complaints.

All responses to the complainants addressed the complainants' concerns and issues, although in some cases inspection dates were not provided to the citizen. In all cases, the ASMC determined whether the cause of the complaint was related to blasting at the surface mine and advised the complainant in writing whether the operator was presently meeting minimum requirements. Rights to an informal conference or a formal appeal were outlined in the correspondence to the citizen.

The review of the citizen complaint files did not indicate that an informal conference with both parties was needed or had occurred regarding any of the blasting complaints in the random sample review.

• Correspondence to Persons Alleged to be in Violation

In seven of the 12 blasting complaint cases in the review, complaint information was forwarded to the surface mine operator alleged to be in violation as required. Under Alabama procedures for blasting complaints, "a copy of the complaint will be forwarded to the surface mine operator. The surface mine operator shall attempt to resolve the problem and report the results of these efforts to the State Regulatory Authority in writing within 15 days."

The ASMC did not forward the complaint or complaint information to the mine operator for the remaining five blasting complaints. Three of the complainants had requested confidentiality, and the ASMC staff reported that to protect the confidentiality of the complainant that they do not forward these complaints to the surface mine operator. One complaint did not specifically identify a surface mine operator, nor could the ASMC make a positive identification of the operator. The other complaint named a surface mine operator who had been forwarded a complaint letter approximately one month before this complaint.

Citizen Complaints Received through the Ten-Day Notice Process

The random sample review included three citizen complaints received by the ASMC through the Ten-Day Notice process. Two of the complaints were for blasting and one was subsidence-related.

The ASMC procedures for processing Ten-Day Notices include conducting an onsite inspection if an inspection has not been previously made regarding the complaint. If an inspection is conducted, the information is sent to the BFO. If there has been a previous inspection conducted on the complaint, usually this information is sent to the BFO without another inspection being conducted. Although contact is made with the citizen, the written correspondence is made directly to OSM rather than to the citizen.

A review of the files indicated that one of the Ten-Day Notice blasting complaints had been previously investigated, and one had not been previously investigated. In both instances, the ASMC took appropriate action or showed good cause for not taking action and responded to the BFO within the 10-day time frame.

The Ten-Day Notice involving subsidence had not been previously investigated. Within ten days of receipt of the Ten-Day Notice, the ASMC had requested additional time to investigate. As this was a complex issue, the ASMC also requested additional time to allow the surface mine operator an opportunity to respond. It was determined that the ASMC had taken appropriate action or showed good cause for not taking action.

The BFO review indicated that the ASMC was both timely and responsive to citizen complaints. The ASMC addressed the concerns voiced by the citizen and consistently conducted on-site investigations of the complaints.

During the file review it did not appear, however, that the ASMC was routinely and consistently following all of the procedures or requirements regarding providing citizen complaint information to the person alleged to be in violation. The ASMC has now taken action to remedy this situation by providing the mine operator with a copy of the letter which is sent to the citizen outlining the findings of the investigation. We recommended that the ASMC also forward copies of complaints involving blasting to the surface mine operator with complainant identity information removed from the document when confidentiality has been requested by the complainant. While we supported the ASMC's efforts to protect the complainant's identity, we believed that this measure was necessary to be consistent with the Rules as they are now written.

Other changes which were made to improve documentation and responsiveness to citizens included providing inspection dates in the correspondence to the complainant and the preparation of an inspection report by the inspector for each complaint inspection. We believe these changes satisfy the requirements outlined in ASMC's Rules and also will enhance the responsiveness to the citizen and strengthen customer service.

As to the processing of citizen complaints received through the Ten-Day Notice process, the BFO determined that the ASMC appropriately processed these citizen complaints.

VI. OSM ASSISTANCE

OSM's oversight role has shifted to focus more on on-the-ground reclamation success and end results than on processes. OSM's changing role now emphasizes assisting the State in improving its regulatory and abandoned mine lands programs by identifying program needs and offering financial, technical, and programmatic assistance as necessary to strengthen the State programs. The BFO routinely provides information to ADIR and ASMC regarding new policy guidelines and procedures as well as changes in existing guidelines and procedures.

Identification/Quantification of Acid Mine Drainage Sites

The BFO entered into an Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative agreement with ADIR to provide technical assistance toward developing an inventory of potential Clean Streams Initiative projects. The BFO used the list of AMD-impacted abandoned mine lands sites, which was developed in July 1996, to provide the population for field review. Eighty-one sites had previously been identified. Water quality data was last collected on all but five of these problem areas during the early 1980's. The BFO agreed to assist in quantifying current conditions at the 81 sites identified as being sources of acid mine drainage and provide updated information.

It was determined that the study would be conducted in two phases. The first phase of the study was to screen each of the 81 sites by testing pH and total iron to determine if the definition of AMD (pH < 6 and/or total iron =/> 10 mg/L) was met for that site. Field investigations would be performed during high and low flow conditions.

The first phase of the study, performed under high flow conditions, began on

February 24, 1998. Thirty sites were visited. Due to the end of high flow conditions, this portion of the study concluded on April 30, 1998. Field measurements for pH, total iron, and flow rate were taken at 23 problem area sites. Of the 23 sites tested, 12 sites had AMD present. The remaining 11 sites did not exhibit AMD under high flow conditions. Six of the 30 sites were dry, and could not be tested. One site had been identified as having only erosion problems, and, therefore, was not tested. This site was well vegetated and no erosion was present. Data gathered at each site was standardized and furnished to ADIR.

Prior to the beginning of the second phase the BFO, in cooperation with the Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center (MCRCC), will offer training on water sampling and testing procedures as well as the use of equipment. Training will be provided to all BFO personnel participating in the study and interested ADIR personnel and members of watershed groups.

The second phase of the study will focus on in-depth field investigations of the sites that met the definition of AMD. The investigations will test and collect information as indicated in the first phase of the study, but, also, will include cold acidity, alkalinity, specific conductivity, temperature, flow rate, manganese, iron, sulfates, aluminum, dissolved oxygen, and zinc.

As the review demonstrated, AMD remains a problem on several of the sites identified in the early 1980's. The study will continue into EY 1999.

Other Assistance Activities

On June 17, 1998, ASMC requested technical assistance regarding a permit revision request which proposed the use of less than four feet of cover material at a coal processing waste disposal site. This request was forwarded to the technical staff at the MCRCC, and comments were provided to the ASMC on June 23, 1998.

On August 20, 1998, ASMC requested technical assistance from OSM regarding the design and construction of anoxic drains used in the mitigation of acid mine drainage. The State had received a permit revision which proposed using this technology. The BFO forwarded this request to the technical staff at the MCRCC, which provided a verbal response on August 24, 1998, and sent technical literature to the State on the subject. At the end of the evaluation year, the MCRCC was continuing to research the availability of design plans and will continue to coordinate with the State on this issue.

During FY 1998, the OSM Technical Training Program provided technical training courses on a variety of technical subjects. Seventeen training slots in these courses were assigned to the ASMC and ADIR technical staffs.

New Technical Information Processing System (TIPS) hardware and software was provided to both the ASMC and ADIR by the MCRCC during the evaluation year. The State was also assisted in acquiring digital quadrangle maps for the mining areas of the state.

VII. GENERAL OVERSIGHT TOPIC REVIEWS

A. Program Evaluations of the State Regulatory Program:

Inspection Activities Relative to Acid/Toxic Materials

The purpose of this review was to examine the ASMC inspection process as it is associated with the handling of acid/toxic materials on the mine site. The review was intended to capture the procedures for inspecting sites containing acid/toxic materials and the interaction between the inspection staff and the technical staff with regards to acid/toxic materials.

A study completed during the previous evaluation year focused on the permitting requirements for identification and subsequent handling of acid/toxic materials. That study dealt with the technical aspects of identifying, isolating, and treating such materials.

ASMC had previously suggested that permits associated with specific coal seams with known toxic overburden or associated soils were identified as potentially acid/toxic forming. Using those guidelines, the BFO selected part of its sample for the study from permits issued prior to September 30, 1997, where mining would occur in potentially acid-producing coal seams. To this list was added permits issued during the same time period in which toxic-forming overburden layers were identified. A sample of 20 sites was selected from the resultant population of 36 permits. In order to assure that the State evaluation of potentially acid/toxic materials was ongoing, sites were selected only if coal was actively being removed or if the site was active and in temporary cessation. Information relative to inspection procedures and technical staff coordination was collected through staff interviews and a field review of each permit.

Through discussions with the inspection staff and the technical staff, the BFO determined that established procedures are in place for permit review, inspection, and for coordination between the inspection staff and technical staff following permit approval. Once the permit application is received, the technical staff reviews individual sections of the application and routinely confers with the inspection staff. They also confer, on an as-needed basis, with the permittee or his consultants to assure that identified issues or concerns are resolved in a reasonable manner.

Once approval is imminent, the technical staff and the assigned inspectors meet to review the permit and identify any special requirements for toxic materials handling. Once the inspector has reviewed the new permit, he meets with the permittee to review the permit, highlighting any special conditions and any special requirements so that the permittee is aware of what is expected of him during the mining and reclamation activities.

It was noted that not all permits with potential acid/toxic materials required formal toxic materials handling plans. Special materials handling requirements were generally addressed in other locations within the permit, such as in the reclamation plan, the hydrology section, etc. Common handling procedures for acid/toxic materials included blending with other spoils, separation of specific overburdens for isolated burial, selectively placing the specific material back in the mine excavation, or covering remaining coal pads with four feet of non-toxic material prior to revegetation. Approved waivers might provide exceptions to any of these procedures.

A BFO representative accompanied the ASMC inspector on each of the 20 review sites to focus on inspection procedures relative to AMD. The ASMC inspector maintained a copy of the permit for review as necessary prior to routine inspections. During the field inspection phase, the inspector observed the current spoil handling activities to evaluate the permittee's adherence to permit requirements. If potential problems were observed, he made notes, advised the permittee, and consulted with the technical staff as necessary to assure continued compliance. The ASMC inspector also continued to monitor the situation and to take enforcement action as necessary.

During site inspections, the inspector routinely field tested the outfall of any discharging ponds. He would also occasionally check inflow or seeps if suspicious conditions existed, such as a change in the pH of the pond, water or soil discoloration, or revegetation failure. For the same reasons, he might also occasionally field check the spoil or overburden. However, if such conditions persisted, the inspector coordinated with the technical staff for extensive testing of water, spoil or overburden. If conditions occurred which were not identified prior to permit approval, the inspector coordinated with the technical staff on an as-needed basis to mitigate the problem.

During the field review of the 20 permits, all discharging ponds were field tested. None were found to be out of compliance for pH or iron. There were no circumstances such as discoloration, low pH, or revegetation failure which indicated that any spoil or overburden should be field tested. No soil tests were conducted. Additionally, there were no observations of noncompliance with acid/toxic materials handling plans.

The study indicated that ASMC's permit review procedures by the technical staff provides sufficient opportunities for consultation or coordination with the permittee prior to permit approval and also with the inspection staff following permit approval. The study further indicated that the inspectors are familiar with the permit language addressing AMD, and that they keep the permittee advised of any special requirements. Further, ASMC inspection procedures assure permittee adherence to acid/toxic materials handling, as required in the permit, to minimize or alleviate potential AMD problems.

Bond Forfeiture Reclamation

The Rules of the Alabama Surface Mining Commission, Chapter 880-X-9E, provide for the forfeiture of the reclamation bond as a result of a permittee's failure to meet the conditions of the bond. The ASMC determines the amount of bond funds to be forfeited based on cost estimates, and uses the funds on the forfeiture site to complete the reclamation plan. This review focused on the extent of reclamation achieved following the collection of forfeited funds. The intent of the review was to compare final reclamation to the approved reclamation plan.

Only sites on which forfeited funds had been collected by the ASMC were considered for the review; therefore, there were no surety bond reclamation sites included in the review. The population of 29 sites included all bond forfeiture sites reclaimed since October 1995, as well as all bond forfeiture sites not reclaimed as of October 1, 1997. From this population a random sample of 20 was selected.

The ASMC explained the process for receiving forfeited funds and outlined the procedures for determining the order of site reclamation and extent of reclamation required. A file review was conducted on each of the sample permits to gather related information. This file review was followed by a field review of each site by a BFO inspector and program specialist. During each field review, the completed reclamation was observed and compared to the approved reclamation plan. For permit review consistency, findings were recorded on a prepared form.

Through discussions with ASMC bond forfeiture staff, BFO staff determined that procedures were in place to handle bond forfeiture reclamation. Once the forfeited money is received, the reclamation process begins on the bond forfeited site. This process includes devising site specifications, visiting the site with prospective construction bidders, and awarding a contract to the successful bidder. The site specifications correspond with the approved permit plan as closely as the current site conditions will allow.

Once construction begins, the State inspector monitors the ongoing site work closely until construction is completed and vegetation established. When trees are required, they are planted at a later date or in the proper planting season. If the site has vegetation failure, then the contractor is required to return to the site and replant and do whatever is necessary to establish vegetative cover.

During the bond forfeiture field review, the following conditions were observed on the 20 randomly selected sites: (a) three sites had not been reclaimed nor placed under contract for reclamation; however, reclamation design and specifications were being prepared for these sites. During the evaluation, no off-site impacts were identified with these sites; (b) two sites had complete reclamation before bond forfeiture. These sites were forfeited for administrative conditions not related to reclamation; (c) one site was under construction during the review; (d) fourteen sites had been reclaimed through the ASMC's bond forfeiture process and had met the required reclamation plans.

The review indicated that procedures are in place to receive the bond forfeited money, to determine the order of site reclamation, and to secure qualified contractors to complete the reclamation. ASMC staff securing the contractors are familiar with site conditions and construction methods, and pursue reclamation on the forfeited sites to meet the approved reclamation plan requirements while meeting construction costs with the bond monies collected. Further, ASMC's monitoring and inspection methods while construction is ongoing assures that the site is reclaimed to the specific site specifications.

B. Program Evaluations of the State Abandoned Mine Lands Program:

Realty Procedures for Lien Recording and Maintenance

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the compliance of ADIR with the policies and procedures related to lien recording and maintenance.

In order to evaluate the State procedures for tracking the status of liens, the BFO chose as the population of the study all State AML projects covering properties on which a significant increase in property value (enhancement) had occurred as a result of the reclamation. From this population, the BFO chose to study eight projects which had not been reviewed during a study conducted in 1994. The project files were reviewed for the thirteen decision points or file documentation associated with lien determinations.

All appropriate documentation, except for the notification to the Probate Court of the intent of ADIR to file a lien (the requirement located in section IV.E. of the State realty procedures), was located. The State lien tracking system collected all data necessary to track properties on which appraisals indicated enhancement and showed which of these properties received formal liens. The State files contained all paperwork necessary to track the progress from appraisal to lien satisfaction, except for the notification to the Probate Court.

The study demonstrated that the State is actively processing and collecting all paperwork required to document the potential for enhancement on AML projects and is tracking the resolution of actions associated with possible property liens in a computerized system. The system captures pertinent data, such as the name of project, the property owner, the amount of enhancement and whether it was paid, and the status of any resulting liens.

The absence of the required notification to the Probate Court of the State's intent to file a lien was noted. On March 5, 1998, ADIR submitted a minor Plan revision which included wording changes to the section of the Plan covering Notification of Intent to File a Lien and a new notification form which will be utilized by the State to address the notification to the Probate Court.

Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System Maintenance

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the State's success in developing accurate Problem Area Descriptions (PADs) and in inputting the information collected on the PADs into the AMLIS.

Feature and cost information contained in AMLIS is utilized by OSM to quantify the number of reclaimed AML sites in the coalfields versus the number of unreclaimed sites. The accuracy of PADs, both in their presentation of actual AML conditions in the field and in the translation of that data into the national inventory, is essential in quantifying not only Alabama's program success over time, but OSM's success in rectifying the problem of abandoned mine lands.

The BFO conducted the study by collecting data from all PADs submitted with grant closeout packages or with proposed AML projects approved during the period of

October 1, 1997 through July 30, 1998. Each PAD was evaluated for accuracy in feature and cost (quantitative check) by comparing it with all previous PADs submitted for that problem area. The PAD is required to contain cumulative data from all features or costs previously identified. In addition, the PAD was also compared with the project feature and cost data for the associated project. After this activity was completed, the data on the submitted PADs were checked against the corresponding AMLIS entries (qualitative check).

Of the 39 PADs submitted during the review period, all data, including the general administrative information, was correct on 36 PADs (92%). Two PADs contained inconsistencies in the general administrative information (i.e., reason for the update and the program area); in one the total cost for Priority One reclamation was incorrect. The accuracy check of AMLIS records showed data inputted on 34 records (87%) was correct in all regards. AMLIS feature or cost data for five records did not match the paper copies of the corresponding PADs.

It was recognized that PADs are changed frequently from discovery of the AML problem to the reporting of final costs on the associated reclamation project, making it possible to list incorrect data on either the paper or computer copy of the PADs. The following suggestions were offered as methods for improving the process:

• the "Date of Preparation" be changed on the PAD each time it is updated.

• routine quality checks of AMLIS entries be instituted, either periodically on all entries or on a sample of entries.

The ADIR agreed to initiate these actions to improve the quality of AMLIS information.

Project Construction: Backfill Material Stability

A review was conducted to evaluate project construction relating to stability in backfill material and to determine if on-the-ground reclamation is achieved in a timely, cost-effective manner.

A sample of 22 projects was chosen from all projects completed between October 1, 1995, and September 30, 1997. The study involved non-emergency projects, exclusive of projects designed primarily for the reclamation of portals and vertical openings, and specifically addressed on-the-ground reclamation success.

Joint site visits were made to each of the sites, and each site was evaluated for any signs of slumping, fracturing, and erosion in the backfill material. If instability was noted on a project, a file review was conducted of that project to examine construction plans.

Of the 22 projects evaluated, four showed signs of slumping, fracturing, and/or erosion in the backfill material. These four projects had either significant impoundments and/or muddy conditions at the base of the highwall prior to reclamation, or had experienced above average rainfall during the construction of the project. Although it was evident that water contributed to the backfill instability occurring in these four projects, other projects evaluated in the study experienced some of the same conditions with no resulting instability.

ADIR expects that some slumping/fracturing/erosion will occur in the backfill material of certain projects, and, therefore, writes specifications into its contracts to address these possibilities. ADIR has concluded that the following conditions contribute to instability in the backfill material: 1) large boulders in backfill material, 2) muddy conditions at the base of the highwall, 3) above normal rainfall during construction, and 4) rock face to the top of the highwall (i.e., no discernable soil layer in the highwall cut). ADIR stated that backfill instability could not be predicted; therefore, they address the concern by preparing for the possibility of backfill instability through contract specifications designed to minimize or eliminate these occurrences. These specifications include compaction requirements, dewatering requirements, vegetation requirements, drainage provisions, and the inclusion of language that holds the contractor responsible for any necessary repair to backfill material for up to one year after completion. ADIR project monitors ensure that contract specifications are followed.

ADIR was already aware of each of the instability problems identified during the study by way of their post-construction monitoring and maintenance program. Under this program, all sites are inspected on a routine basis over a 2-year period. If certain problems arise, additional site visits during or after the normal 2-year post-monitoring period are made. Each project site is closely examined to ensure that no problems have developed. Any problems noted are documented by ADIR personnel, and maintenance and/or repairs are scheduled. As noted in the contract, "any displacement of graded material (cut or fill) which results in settling, slumping or any other reason which occurs within one year after completion of construction shall be repaired by the contractor ... No additional compensation will be paid to the contractor for this work." The four projects that showed signs of slumping, fracturing, and/or erosion have since been repaired by the contractor.

ADIR uses construction techniques which improve stability. ADIR is following its State Plan and grant agreement provisions and enforcing its contract provisions. The reclamation work on every site appeared to be according to plan and met project goals and objectives. On-the-ground completed reclamation results were good to excellent, and notable improvement was observed on several sites previously visited by the BFO. None of the unstable areas noted in the backfill material would cause the reclamation to fail, and all sites had been monitored and maintained as appropriate and repaired by the contractor as appropriate.

Grant Reviews

On September 21 through 22, 1998, an MCRCC grants financial specialist performed a drawdown analysis and a property management study at ADIR's Montgomery office. The drawdown analysis indicated that ADIR disposes of grant monies drawn down from the AML fund as soon as administratively feasible, as required by Federal regulations. The property management study showed that ADIR has the proper internal controls in place. ADIR's internal controls reflected that property is accounted for as required by Federal regulations.

The following tables present data pertinent to mining operations and State and Federal regulatory activities within Alabama. They also summarize funding provided by OSM and Alabama staffing. Unless otherwise specified, the reporting period for the data contained in all tables is the same as the evaluation year. Additional data used by OSM in its evaluation of Alabama's performance is available for review in the evaluation files maintained by the Birmingham OSM Office.

^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.