Annual Oversight Report
|
|
1998 Arkansas Annual Oversight Report |
| |
I. Introduction 1
II. Overview of Coal Mining Industry 2
III. Overview of Public Participation in the Program 2
IV. Major Accomplishments/Issues in the Arkansas Program 3
A. Regulatory Program 3
B. Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program 4
V. Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA 5
A. Off-Site Impacts 5
B. Reclamation Success 5
C. Customer Service 6
VI. OSM Assistance 6
VII. General Oversight Topic Reviews 7
Appendix A: Tabular Summaries of Data 10
TABLE 1 11
TABLE 2 12
TABLE 3 13
TABLE 4 14
TABLE 5 15
TABLE 6 16
TABLE 7 17
TABLE 8 18
TABLE 9 19
TABLE 10 20
Appendix B: State Comments on Report 21
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 Arkansas program and the effectiveness of the Arkansas 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. The new 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, the new policy continued 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 to monitor the State's effectiveness in ensuring 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 report on OSM's and Arkansas' progress in conducting evaluations and completing oversight activities. It also reports accomplishments during the evaluation period. 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:
ADPCE Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
AEA Alternative Enforcement Action
AMD Acid Mine Drainage
AML Abandoned Mine Land
AMLR Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EY Evaluation Year
NOV Notice of Violation
NRCS National Resource Conservation Service
OSM Office of Surface Mining
SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
SMRD Surface Mining Reclamation Division [Arkansas]
PA Arkansas/OSM Performance Agreement
TFO Tulsa Field Office
TIPS Technical Information Processing System
II. Overview of Coal Mining Industry
Arkansas has reserves of bituminous, semianthracite, and lignite coal. The original bituminous and semianthracite coal reserves were estimated at approximately 2.2 billion tons, half of which is recoverable. Prior to the 1950's, much of the coal was mined by underground mining methods. Since then, most Arkansas coal has been mined by area surface mining methods. Remining, especially surface mining methods to remove coal left in pillars in old underground mines and removing coal from old coal mine waste piles, has been common. Lignite, potentially a major energy resource in Arkansas, was mined in southern Arkansas before the Civil War and used as a fuel by local industries. The Arkansas lignite deposits are estimated as high as 9 billion tons. In 1988, an exploratory operation confirmed that Arkansas lignite could be used in the State's coal-fired energy plants. As yet, the lignite field has not been developed. In 1997, the 4 coal-producing operations in the State produced approximately 19,288 tons of bituminous coal using conventional methods. Permitted acreage was 1,395 acres. In 1998, the number of producing operations permitted acreage remained essentially static. Because coal operations in Arkansas are small and the demand for coal unsteady, the industry employs fewer than 25 on a daily basis.
III. Overview of Public Participation in the Program
The State allows public participation in a number of ways including commenting on permit and major revision applications and State rule making. The public can also participate in the informal and formal review process of many State decisions related to permitting and inspection and enforcement matters. The public can further participate in the State inspection and enforcement process through bond releases and citizen's request for inspections.
OSM held one public meeting in Arkansas during the evaluation period. The meeting was held in Ft. Smith, Arkansas, located on the western end of the active coal field. ADPCE, NRCS, and one AML contractor were represented at the meeting. All three entities requested a higher AML funding for Arkansas.
The only other comment received was a question on the intended effectiveness of OSM's enforcement efforts when it projected assessing no civil penalties during the upcoming fiscal year.
During the evaluation period, the State had input from one member of the public. A landowner on the one bond release application the State received initially protested the release request, then verbally withdrew his request. OSM attempted to contact the landowner to ascertain his perspective on the State's handling of his comments. OSM provided him with TFO's phone and fax number as well as mailing address.
IV. Major Accomplishments/Issues in the Arkansas Program
A. Regulatory Program
The joint ADPCE/OSM AMD Team continued the AMD study initiated during the previous evaluation period. Acid generating Title V sites were identified. As this evaluation period closes, the AMD Team is working toward improved permitting procedures addressing identification of potentially Acid-/Toxic- Forming Materials, and Acid-/Toxic- Forming Materials Handling Plans. This team will continue working on the AMD issue during the 1999 evaluation period.
During EY 1997, OSM found that ADPCE had not incorporated into its revegetation rules cover standards necessary for the appropriate evaluation of Phase II and Phase III bond release applications. To address the program deficiency, the State submitted and later withdrew a formal program amendment [AR-031-FOR] during EY 1998. Concurrent with the State's withdrawal of AR-031-FOR it submitted a new formal program amendment [AR-032-FOR] addressing concerns OSM raised with the State's original submission. ADPCE worked very closely with OSM in the preparation of AR-032 FOR. OSM anticipates that the needed rule changes will be approved during the next evaluation period.
The State also submitted a formal program amendment [AR-030-FOR] in response to a 30 CFR 732 letter it received in the previous evaluation period. AR-030-FOR addressed revisions in the State's definition of siltation structures, requirements for maps and plans, changed "Soil Conservation Service" to the agency's new name "Natural Resources Conservation Service", postmining rehabilitation of sedimentation ponds, diversions, impoundments, and treatment facilities, disposal of excess spoil, backfilling and grading requirements, prime farmland, and operations on steep slopes. OSM anticipates that a final rule Federal Register Notice will be published early in EY 1999.
The formal program amendment, AR-027-FOR, Arkansas previously submitted on its own initiative was approved by OSM's Director during the evaluation period. The amendment revised State rules to address changes in Federal rules on remining, subsidence damage, compensation, and water replacement. Corrections and other revisions to several Arkansas rules were also made. Arkansas promulgated the revised rules, which took effect in December 1997.
ADPCE completed reclamation on 114 acres using collected bond funds. All forfeiture reclamation completed during the evaluation period was accomplished on the Sugarloaf site. At the close of EY 1998, Arkansas has reclaimed 284 acres of the 434 disturbed acres at Sugarloaf. Three other forfeited sites await completion of reclamation activities.
OSM anticipates ADPCE's successful implementation of its approved program throughout EY 1999.
B. Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program
ADPCE is the agency designated by the State to administer the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program. It operated in EY 1998, with a grant of $1.50 million and 6.3 staff members. Project selection has been based on a system that considers protection of the public health, safety and general welfare, and property from extreme danger of adverse affects of coal mining practices. ADPCE solicited citizen input for projects selected for construction. Priority selection complied with Section 403 of SMCRA. No program deficiencies were noted during this evaluation period.
In EY 1998, ADPCE's construction of AML projects consisted of its annual appropriation plus carry-over projects started in previous years. Most planning and design is done with in-house staff. Projects selected for construction met eligibility requirements under the approved AML program. The majority of health and safety features on approved projects were open strip pits with dangerous high walls and associated water impoundments that are located near the general public. Where possible, the pits were filled in with mine spoil and the high walls reclaimed to eliminate the hazard. ADPCE involved the general public and local citizens in project selection before construction was initiated. No citizen complaints were received.
ADPCE followed standard construction practices using State approved contracting procedures. Inspection of projects indicated ADPCE completed projects on time with no significant problems. There were four projects completed for a total of 281 acres, 5,870 linear feet of highwall, and 1 vertical opening closed this EY. Since program approval, ADPCE has reclaimed 2,448 acres of abandoned mine land.
V. Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA as Measured by the Number of Observed Off-site Impacts and the Number of Acres Meeting the Performance Standards at the Time of Bond Release
To further the concept of reporting end results, the findings from performance standard and public participation 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, 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 Tulsa Field Office that provide additional details on how the following evaluations and measurements were conducted.
A. Off-Site Impacts
Using both State and Federal inspections, eight off-site impacts were observed from 237 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, the observation was counted only once; no bond forfeiture sites were included; and all observations were those that resulted in an NOV. Seven of the eight off-site impacts identified were impacts to water with minor impact. One of the eight off-site impacts was a continuing impact to the hydrologic system from an abandoned interim site. The conclusion is that off-site impacts from coal mining and reclamation in Arkansas were minimal in EY 1998.
B. Reclamation Success
One formal bond release application request for a Phase II and Phase III release was considered by the State during the evaluation period. A final determination to approve or deny the request was pending at the close of EY 1998. During the previous evaluation period, OSM identified one problem in the State's bond release procedures in that ADPCE does not have approved cover standards and statistical evaluation methods for evaluating vegetation success. The State has submitted rule revisions to address the issue. OSM's approval of this program amendment is pending.
During the evaluation period the State informally released one bond. The reclamation performance bond for a 1,500 ton exploratory permit was released to the permittee. The State did not go through its approved bond release process. Basic backfilling and grading was not completed prior to the release of the bond. OSM took enforcement action in an attempt to achieve complete reclamation.
OSM is evaluating reclamation success by comparing the number of acres released in comparison with acres disturbed. At the end of EY 1997, Arkansas had 1,116.29 disturbed acres with an additional 14 acres disturbed during EY 1998. No Phase I, II, or III bond release applications were received, approved, or denied by ADPCE during the evaluation period. (See Table 5, Appendix A).
C. Customer Service
Customer service topics for this year's review included handling of citizen's complaints, permitting actions, bond releases, land unsuitable petitions, and administrative and judicial reviews. The only category that generated activity to review was bond releases. During the review period, the State reviewed a request for a Phase II and Phase III bond release. A final decision on approving or denying the release request was pending as of the close of the evaluation.
Since a final decision was still pending on the release action that was reviewed, a final conclusion on the State's handling of public notification and input could not be made. Based on the State rules in effect at the time, two deficiencies were noted. Both were judged as minor and did not adversely prejudice any interested party. One party, the surface owner, expressed an interest in the bond release process. Based on documentation in the State files, the surface owner was afforded adequate opportunity under the State's approved program to participate and his objections were handled in an appropriate manner. OSM provided the surface owner with an opportunity to express his perception of the State's bond release procedures. As of the close of the evaluation, he had not provided any.
VI. OSM Assistance
As part of OSM's continuing national emphasis on AMD, OSM assisted the State in implementing the AMD plan previously developed by a joint ADPCE/OSM team. The AMD plan has the dual goals of preventing AMD from future coal extraction and the cleanup of AMD impacts from previous coal mining activities. During EY 1998, OSM assisted the State in implementing its AMD plan and provided technical assistance as sites identified as potential AMD producers were reviewed. During the next evaluation period, OSM will continue to provide technical assistance to the State as plans are developed for the mitigation of potential impacts from AMD and as possible changes in ADPCE's permitting procedures are made to prevent future AMD.
In addition to TIPS training, OSM provided ADPCE with training in erosion and sediment control, enforcement procedures, blasting and inspection of blasting operations, inspection of mining operations, and soils and revegetation of disturbed areas. OSM provided one half of ADPCE's administrative and enforcement budget for its approved regulatory program. OSM provided 100 percent funding for ADPCE's AMLR program (See Table 9, Appendix A).
VII. General Oversight Topic Reviews
OSM intends the oversight reviews and reports be used as a basis for continuing joint efforts in assisting the State in meeting its regulatory responsibilities. 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.
Mine-site Evaluation: During EY 1998, TFO conducted 7 complete inspections on Arkansas mines. All inspections were conducted jointly with ADPCE. One TDN was issued that was followed by a Federal NOV. Abatement was pending at the close of the evaluation year. In addition to OSM's usual complete oversight inspections, special focus inspections were preformed emphasizing hydrologic structures and sediment control plus contemporaneous reclamation. Two concerns were identified as a result of OSM's inspections.
Bond forfeiture reclamation: The review was completed by a joint ADPCE/OSM team with the oversight report co-written by OSM and ADPCE staff. Four forfeited permits met the review criteria outlined in the PA. The State had partially reclaimed two of the sites with forfeited funds. On one of the sites the available funds were inadequate for the State to complete the approved reclamation plan. On the other, the State was waiting for a coal preparation plant to be removed to make way for completion of reclamation. On the
remaining two sites the State expects to complete reclamation on one early in the next evaluation period and develop a bond forfeiture reclamation plan for the last of the sites sometime in EY 1999.
Since the sample did not include sites where the State had completed reclamation, the team could not make a final determination if ADPCE used bond forfeiture funds appropriately to abate all outstanding violations. The team did find that on the two sites where ADPCE spent bond forfeiture funds, progress was made toward abating outstanding violations. Overall the work was well planned and executed. The State was successful in obtaining additional funds for reclamation of one of the sites. The team recommended additional work on better defining reclamation standards for bond forfeiture sites, particularly on some of the older sites encountered in the review. The team also recommended additional work in the area of AEAs, which OSM can provide assistance with. Since reclamation was not completed on any of the sites studied, the team recommended the review be continued into the next evaluation period.
Hydrology: The hydrology review had two phases. One was a review of permitting actions to determine compliance with the State's approved program in the areas of acid-/toxic-forming materials and designs for hydrologic structures. Due to a lack of relevant permitting activity during the period under review, no evaluation was made on acid-/toxic-forming materials. Although not conducted as an oversight review, the AMD team did conduct work in this area. The AMD team anticipates that its report will be finalized some time in EY 1999. The review of designs for hydrologic structures identified concerns in the areas of minimizing short-circuiting, riprap requirements, and construction of structures to approved designs.
The second phase of the review entailed special focus inspections to determine on-the-ground compliance status in the areas of acid-/toxic- forming materials, discharge structures, diversions, construction/maintenance of impoundments, and sediment control. All special focus inspections were joint OSM/ State inspections. With respect to Acid-/Toxic-Forming Material Handling Plans, the review was somewhat inconclusive. Many of the sites were at a stage in the mining and reclamation sequence that made it impossible to determine compliance based on observations of current site conditions. Noted over the course of the review was a shortage of observations indicating non-compliance with Acid-/Toxic-Forming Material Handling Plans. The review did identify concerns with construction certifications, sediment control for permits that were actively removing coal, and maintenance of spillways and diversions.
OSM will continue to work with the State during the upcoming evaluation on these issues.
Contemporaneous reclamation: OSM with ADPCE conducted special focus inspections on sites that had not achieved a Phase I bond release. The objective of the inspections was to determine compliance with contemporaneous reclamation rules. A total of 11 sites were reviewed. Overall, the State's implementation of this part of its approve program was judged successful.
These tables present data pertinent to mining operations and State and Federal regulatory activities within Arkansas. They also summarize funding provided by OSM and Arkansas 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 Arkansas' performance is available for review in the evaluation files maintained by TFO.
|
COAL PRODUCTION
(Millions of short tons) | |||
| Period | Surface
mines |
Underground
mines |
Total |
| Coal productionA for entire State: | |||
| Calendar Year | |||
| 1995 | 0.019 | 0 | 0.019 |
| 1996 | 0.02 | 0 | 0.02 |
| 1997 | 0.019 | 0 | 0.019 |
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 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 1.15 | 11.9 | 13.05 | ||||
| Underground mines | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.7 | 0.70 | ||||
| Other facilities | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.20 | ||||
| Subtotals | 0 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 1.15 | 12.8 | 13.95 | |||
| FEDERAL LANDS | REGULATORY AUTHORITY: STATE | ||||||||||||||
| Surface mines | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Underground mines | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Other facilities | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Subtotals | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| ALL LANDS B | |||||||||||||||
| Surface mines | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 1.15 | 11.9 | 13.05 | |||
| Underground mines | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | |||
| Other facilities | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |||
| Totals | 0 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 1.15 | 12.8 | 13.95 | |||
| Average number of permits per inspectable unit (excluding exploration sites)
Average number of acres per inspectable unit (excluding exploration sites) |
1
77.5 | ||||||||||||||
| Number of exploration permits on State and private lands:
Number of exploration notices on State and private lands: |
2
2 |
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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||
| Renewals | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||
| Incidental boundary revisions | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||||||
| Revisions (exclusive of incidental boundary revisions) | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| Transfers, sales and assignments of permit rights | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||
| Small operator assistance | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| Exploration permits | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||
| Exploration noticesB | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||||||
| Totals | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| OPTIONAL - Number of midterm permit reviews completed that are not reported as revisions 1
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. | ||||||||||||
|
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 | |||||||||||||
| Land Stability | ||||||||||||||
| Hydrology | 7* | |||||||||||||
| Encroachment | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Other | ||||||||||||||
| Total | 1 | 7 | ||||||||||||
|
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 | ||||||||||||||
* One Hydrology impact has continued for several years - source: abandoned interim site.
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 |
0.00 |
|
|
•Surface stability
•Establishment of vegetation |
0.00 |
|
|
•Post-mining land use/productivity restored
•Successful permanent vegetation •Groundwater recharge, quality and quantity restored •Surface water quality and quantity restored |
0.00 |
| Bonded Acreage StatusA | ||
| Total number of bonded acres at end of last review period (September 30, 1997)B | 1387.00 | |
| Total number of acres bonded during this evaluation year | 0.00 | |
| Number of acres bonded during this evaluation year that are considered remining, if available | 0.00 | |
| Number of acres where bond was forfeited during this evaluation year (also report this acreage on Table 7). | 5.00 | |
|
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 | No Bond Releases |
| Topsoil Replaced | |
| Vegetation Reestablished |
| Cropland | Developed Water Resources | ||
| Pasture/Hayland | Public Utilities | ||
| Grazingland | Industrial/Commercial | ||
| Forestry | Recreation | ||
| Residential | Remined | ||
| Fish and Wildlife Habitat | Undisturbed | ||
| 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 |
TABLE 7
|
STATE BOND FORFEITURE ACTIVITY
(Permanent Program Permits) | ||||
| Sites | Dollars | Acres | ||
| Bonds forfeited as of September 30, 1997 | 4 | $463,002 | 389 | |
| Bonds forfeited during EY 98 | 1 | $2,000 | 5 | |
| Forfeited bonds collected as September 30, 1998 | 4 | $463,002 | 389 | |
| Forfeited bonds collected during EY 1998 | 1 | $2,000 | 5 | |
| Forfeiture sites reclaimed during EY 1998 | 1 | $550,096 | 114 | |
| Forfeiture sites repermitted during EY 1998 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Forfeiture sites unreclaimed as of October 1, 1998 | 5 | 235 | ||
| Excess reclamation costs recovered from permittee | 0 | |||
| Excess forfeiture proceeds returned to permittee | 0 | |||
|
A Includes data only for those forfeiture sites not fully reclaimed as of this date.
B Cost of reclamation, excluding general administrative expenses. | ||||
|
ARKANSAS STAFFING
(Full-time equivalents at end of evaluation year) | |
| Function | EY 1998 |
| Regulatory program | |
| Permit review | 0.55 |
| Inspection | 2.45 |
| Other (administrative, fiscal, personnel, etc.) | 2.95 |
| Sub-total | 5.95 |
| AML Program | 6.20 |
| TOTAL | 12.15 |
|
FUNDS GRANTED TO ARKANSAS BY OSM
(Millions of dollars) | |||
|
Type of
grant |
Federal
funds awarded |
Federal funding
as a percentage of total program costs | |
| Regulatory | Administration and
enforcement |
$0.16 | 50% |
| Small operator
assistance |
$0.00 | 100% | |
| $0.16 | |||
| AMLR | Administration and
construction |
$1.50 | 100% |
| $1.50 | |||
| $1.66 | |||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
| Unfunded | Funded | Completed | |||||
| Priority 1 & 2 (Protection of public health, safety, and general welfare) | |||||||
| Clogged streams | Miles | 1.0 | 0 | 0.5 | 1.5 | ||
| Clogged stream lands | Acres | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Dangerous highwalls | Lin Feet | 72,338 | 2,400 | 46,926 | 121,664 | ||
| Dangerous impoundments | Count | 0 | 0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Dangerous piles and | Acres | 122 | 209 | 539 | 870 | ||
| 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 | 4.0 | 0 | 2.0 | 6.0 | ||
| Hazardous water bodies | Count | 36.0 | 10.0 | 48.0 | 94.0 | ||
| Industrial/residential waste | Acres | 1.0 | 0 | 19.0 | 20.0 | ||
| Portals | Count | 8.0 | 0 | 17.0 | 25.0 | ||
| Polluted water: agric. & indust. | Count | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Polluted water: human | Count | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Subsidence | Acres | 1.0 | 0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | ||
| Surface burning | Acres | 0 | 0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | ||
| Vertical opening | Count | 6.0 | 1.0 | 64.0 | 71.0 | ||
| Priority 3 (Environmental restoration) | |||||||
| Spoil areas | Acres | 1,792 | 0 | 0 | 1,792 | ||
| Benches | Acres | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Pits | Acres | 87.0 | 0 | 0 | 87.0 | ||
| Gob piles | Acres | 26.0 | 0 | 0 | 26.0 | ||
| Slurry ponds | Acres | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Haul roads | Acres | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Mine openings | Count | 8.0 | 0 | 0 | 8.0 | ||
| Slumps | Acres | 9.0 | 0 | 0 | 9.0 | ||
| Highwalls | Lin Feet | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | 4,000 | ||
| Equipment/facilities | Count | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Industrial/residential waste | Acres | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Water problems | Gal/min | 20.0 | 0 | 0 | 20.0 | ||
| Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
ADPCE submitted nine comments regarding OSM's "Draft" 1998 Annual Evaluation Report for Arkansas. The State's comments along with OSM's response to each comment are made part of this report.
ADPCE Comments:
1. The November 19, 1998 cover letter provides a December 4, 1998 deadline for the submission of written comments.
Comments:
On page II-1 of Appendix II (Annual Reports) of Directive REG-8, 3rd bullet under Reporting Requirements: "The State will be provided no less than a 15-day comment period." The November 19, 1998 to December 4 1998 time frame is 15 days; however, this time frame includes the weekend of November 21-22, 1998, which was consumed for OSM's mailing purposes, and the Thanksgiving holiday period of November 26-29, 1998. OSM has afforded the SMRD only eight work days to write comments and mail sufficiently early in order that Tulsa have the report in hand by December 4, 1998. We contend that this is pushing it a little bit.
OSM Response:
No comment.
2. Page 5, B. Reclamation Success, 3rd sentence: "During the previous evaluation period, OSM identified one problem in the State's bond release procedures in that ADPCE does not have approved cover standards......"
Comments:
The ADPCE, with the knowledge and approval of OSM, has been releasing bonds under the permanent program without cover standards for 18 years.
OSM Response:
The one site encountered was H.H.H. Mining, Permit P354-M-CO. The permittee requested a Phase III bond release and a field inspection was conducted on September 11, 1998. During the review of both the field conditions and the submitted application for bond release, it was observed that the requested release area did not have adequate cover to meet release requirements. OSM had assumed that the technical standard for Arkansas bond releases were 100 percent for pasture and grazing lands (the default value used when alternate technical standards are not in place). According to the submitted application, this site had only 81.8 percent desirable cover in 1996. Using the formula applied in earlier Arkansas' releases (90 percent of 100 percent cover), the site would have to meet 90 percent cover for approval of the release request. When the Arkansas staff was asked what the State's approved technical standards were, they indicated they were unsure. A review of the Arkansas approved program showed that it lacked technical standards for evaluating revegetation success for bond release. The released Arkansas sites referred to in the State's comment met both the technical standard for cover of 90 percent of 100 percent and exceeded the county production averages. This site was the first not to meet those requirements, thus raising a red flag that Arkansas' approved program did not include technical standards for pasture and grazing lands.
3. Page 5, last paragraph, 2nd sentence: "The reclamation performance bond for a 1,500 ton exploratory permit was released to the permittee. The State did not go through its approved bond release process."
Comments:
Asserting that the State did [not] go through its approved bond release process is not entirely a valid statement. The State did go through a process.
OSM Response:
OSM acknowledges that anytime a reclamation performance bond is released some "process" is used. In the specific case referred to, ADPCE's process was based on releasing the reclamation performance bond based on Illini Energy's verbal agreement to reclaim the affected area to the extent possible with material available. The reclamation agreed upon was not completed. Even if the reclamation had been completed as promised, it would not be in compliance with the requirements of Arkansas' approved program for bond releases. The release was consummated without meeting public participation or any other bond release requirements of the State's approved program. OSM maintains that its statement that the State did not go through its approved bond release process is entirely valid.
In September of 1985, when the Illini Energy exploratory permit was issued, there were no 30 CFR requirements for reclamation performance bonds on exploration permits. In this sense the State's approved program's requirement to post a minimum bond of $5,000 on all exploration permits (see March 16, 1984, Final Rule Notice 49 FR 9896) was more effective than the Federal counterpart regulations. Although when the exploration permit was issued, the Federal rules did not require it to be bonded. Arkansas' approved program did contain the requirement to post, at a minimum, a $5,000 reclamation performance bond on the exploratory permit in question. Arkansas was at that time and still is a primacy State. As a primacy State, OSM's oversight is based on the requirements of Arkansas' approved program.
4. Page 6, 1st paragraph, last sentence: "No Phase I, II, or III bond releases were approved during the evaluation period."
Comments:
The existing language could be interpreted in a manner that would suggest that the ADPCE has not approved any bond release applications received. We suggest the following language: "No Phase I, II, or III bond release applications were received by the ADPCE during the evaluation period."
OSM Response:
No bond release applications were received by ADPCE during the evaluation period. During the evaluation period ADPCE had Phase II and III bond release requests on Area B of H.H.H. Mining, Permit P354-M-CO. The requests were received prior to the start of the evaluation period. At the conclusion of the evaluation period, the State had not issued a decision to approve or deny the requested bond releases.
OSM will modify the report by replacing "No Phase I, II, or III bond releases were approved during the evaluation period.", with, "No Phase I, II, or III bond release applications were received, approved, or denied by ADPCE during the evaluation period."
5. Page 6, VI. OSM Assistance, 1st paragraph, last sentence: "During the next evaluation period, OSM will continue to provide technical assistance to the State as plans are developed for the mitigation of impacts from AMD...."
Comments:
We suggest the following language "During the next evaluation period, OSM will continue to provide technical assistance to the State as plans are developed for the mitigation of potential impacts from AMD...."
OSM Response:
To date, the joint ADPCE/OSM team addressing AMD has not addressed the issue of documenting existing AMD impacts. Therefore, the report will be modified per ADPCE's suggestion sans the underline of "potential."
6. Page 7, VII., General Oversight Topic Reviews, Mine Site Evaluation, 1st bullet: "Arkansas released a reclamation performance bond without requiring completion of basic reclamation." (Emphasis added)
Comments:
Refer to comment No. 4. The SMRD contends that basic reclamation was achieved on this exploratory permit, in this circumstance, a euphemism for a garbage dump.
OSM Response:
The bond release was not a Phase I, II, or III, release, but a complete bond release without requiring elimination of the water-filled pit and highwall, completion of grading, topsoil replacement, and revegetation. (Refer to OSM response to State comment No. 3). The report will be revised, modifying the referenced bullet to read: "Arkansas released a reclamation performance bond without requiring completion of basic reclamation, including elimination of the water-filled pit and highwall, completion of grading, topsoil replacement, and revegetation of the disturbed area. This issue is being addressed through Federal enforcement actions."
7. Page 7, VII., General Oversight Topic Reviews, Bond forfeiture reclamation, last sentence: "Since the sample did not include sites where the State had completed reclamation, the team could not make a final determination if ADPCE used bond forfeiture funds appropriately to abate all violations." (Emphasis added)
Comments:
The State team representatives do not recall agreeing to a statement that - "a final determination could not be made as to if the reclamation abated the violations." All of the SMRD's bond forfeiture reclamation plans are designed to address the outstanding violations.
OSM Response:
The sentence in question is a quote (first sentence, first paragraph, page 9) from the team's report BOND FORFEITURE RECLAMATION REVIEW ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY EVALUATION YEAR 1998. This report was signed by all OSM and State team members on September 3, 1998. The team's report was transmitted to ADPCE via a letter on State letterhead dated September 3, 1998. The transmittal letter was addressed to the Chief, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology with a copy to the Field Office Director, OSM's Tulsa Field Office. The transmittal letter was signed by all OSM and State team members.
8. Page 8, Hydrology, 2nd paragraph, next to last sentence: "Noted over the course of the review was a shortage of observations indicating non-compliance with Acid-/Toxic-Forming Material Handling Plans."
Comments:
The SMRD agrees with this statement. It has always been the objective of the SMRD, to have a dearth of observations that would indicate a non-compliance with Acid-/Toxic-Forming Material Handling Plans.
OSM Response:
No comment.