Annual Evaluation Summary Report
Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
of
IOWA
for
Evaluation Year 1998
October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998
I. Introduction 1
II. Overview of the Coal Mining Industry 2
III. Overview of Public Participation in the Program 2
IV. Major Accomplishments/Issues/Innovations 3
V. Success in Achieving the Purposes of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 4
A. Off-site Impacts 4
B. Reclamation Success 5
C. Customer Service 5
D. Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation 6
VI. OSM Assistance 6
Appendix A: Tabular Summaries of Data Pertaining to Mining, Reclamation and Program Administration A-1
Appendix B: State Comments on Report B-1
1998 IOWA ANNUAL EVALUATION REPORT
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 regulation 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 Iowa Division of Soil Conservation (IDSC) and the effectiveness of the Iowa program in meeting the applicable purposes of SMCRA as specified in Section 102. This report covers the period of October 1, 1997, to September 30, 1998.
The primary focus of the OSM oversight policy for the 1998 evaluation year is an on-the-ground results oriented strategy that evaluates the end result of State programs in ensuring that areas on 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 State to ensure the success of SMCRA through the development and implementation of a performance agreement. Also, the policy this year continues to encourage public participation as part of the 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.
To further the idea that oversight is a continuous and ongoing process, this annual report is structured to report on the progress of OSM and Iowa in conducting evaluations and completing oversight activities, and on their accomplishments at the end of 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 OSM office in Alton, Illinois.
The following list of acronyms are used in this report:
AML Abandoned Mine Land
AMLIS Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System
AVS Applicant/Violator System
EPR Enhancement and Performance Review
EY Evaluation Year
FY Fiscal Year
OSM Office of Surface Mining
IDSC Iowa Division of Soil Conservation
MCRCC Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center
SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
TIPS Technical Information Processing System
U.S. United States
II. Overview of Coal Mining Industry
Iowa's coal ranges from sub-bituminous to high-volatile C bituminous. The demonstrated coal reserve base is estimated to be 2.2 billion tons, or less than one-half of one percent of the United States (U.S.) coal reserves. The coal-bearing areas cover about 18,468 square miles, or 33 percent of the State. Most coal seams are less than five feet thick. The coal has a relatively high sulfur content.
Coal deposits in Iowa were first mined in the 1840's. As in other States, coal production fell as industry converted to natural gas and fuel oil. Coal production steadily declined from 708,602 tons in 1981 to no production in 1995. As shown in Table 1, there has been no coal production in Iowa since 1994 when 50,000 tons were produced. Coal production was confined to the south-central part of the State.
During the 1998 evaluation period, Iowa had 28 inspectable units averaging 335 acres per unit. Twenty-three of these units were surface mines, two were underground mines, and three were wash plants (Tables 2 and 4).
Before the enactment of SMCRA, approximately 13,764 acres were affected by coal mining in 17 Iowa counties. The AMLIS includes the following information on hazardous conditions that resulted from this pre-law mining activity: 99,504 feet of dangerous highwalls; 1,377.4 acres of dangerous piles and embankments; 44 hazardous water bodies; 18 vertical openings; 1,923.5 acres of mine lands which cause flooding and sediment deposition on unmined land. Table 10 shows Iowa's accomplishments in eliminating these hazardous conditions. There were no reported deaths associated with AML hazards during this evaluation period.
III. Overview of Public Participation in the Program
Iowa provides prompt responses to AML inquiries and maintains good communication with landowners when developing projects. Iowa conducted 15 meetings with AML project landowners to review reclamation design status for problem areas on their land. In addition, daily contact with landowners is maintained during the active phase of construction projects.
On March 17, 1998, OSM conducted, and IDSC participated in, a public meeting to gain stakeholder input and advice concerning current issues, problems, and priorities for consideration in developing OSM's FY2000 budget. Twenty-nine people attended the meeting. The major concerns expressed were bond release on post-SMCRA mined land, reclamation of AML sites, and the possibility of increasing AML funding to Iowa.
IV. Major Accomplishments/Issues/Innovations
Iowa follows the State reclamation plan in the solicitation and consideration of public input into the reclamation program (Title IV). Public requests for information and investigations receive prompt consideration and response. Iowa developed a system to track public inquiries regarding the AML program and implemented it this evaluation year (EY). Iowa coordinates with appropriate State and Federal agencies in development and implementation of reclamation projects.
Iowa initiated and completed the consultant selection process on six new AML engineering design contracts. These contracts will allow design work to begin on 13 projects, two of which could be partially funded with Clean Stream Initiative funds.
The State entered into six new AML engineering design services contracts and held 12 initial landowner meetings to begin the design on new reclamation project sites. Two meetings were held with project landowners to review the final designs and obtain construction easements on two reclamation projects.
During the evaluation period, Iowa awarded two new construction contracts for AML reclamation projects. Maintenance work was also initiated on two projects and completed on two other projects.
Iowa completed three new wetland delineations and one U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 wetland mitigation permit application. The 404 application received permit authorization by the Corps. Four wildlife and archeological surveys were completed on AML problem areas.
Iowa maintains its AML information in the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS). Funded and completed project data is entered at the appropriate times. New problems are entered into AMLIS when they are identified. Iowa also maintains internal systems to track public inquiries and project ranking and selection data. These systems are efficient and effective.
IDSC submitted a nomination for the 1998 Annual AML Awards Program. This project won the Mid-Continent Region AML Award for outstanding reclamation.
In a letter dated September 26, 1994, the OSM Director notified Iowa that its AML Plan must be amended to comply with the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Act of 1990 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The State has requested and been granted several time extensions for submittal of a formal proposed amendment to its Reclamation Plan. IDSC is preparing a written request for another extension.
On September 28, 1998, Iowa submitted a formal proposed amendment to establish revegetation standards for its Title V program. Release of Phase III bond will become possible when the standards are approved by OSM.
Initial forfeiture reclamation was conducted at one underground mine site during evaluation year 1998. IDSC also sent out a total of five Notices of Intent to Forfeit to the sureties involved with three different permits.
IDSC drafted contract documents for the reclamation of four bond forfeiture sites in 1997 and subsequently submitted a schedule to award a construction contract for reclamation of each of these sites by March 16, 1998, and complete the construction phase by June 30, 1998. The schedule was not met, and draft contract documents for the four sites were not finalized by the end of the 1998 evaluation year. OSM considers reclamation of abandoned sites in Iowa to be a serious issue. Oversight activities during the upcoming evaluation year will concentrate on working with the State to achieve reclamation of these forfeiture sites and other mine sites in Iowa where permittees are no longer solvent.
Iowa's FY98 Title V grant cost report was not submitted to OSM on time, but both the FY99 Title V grant application and FY98 grant closeout were timely submitted. The State has committed to follow its plan to assure timely submittal of all grant documents.
V. Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA
To further the concept of reporting end results under Title V of SMCRA, the findings from performance standard evaluations are being collected for a National perspective in terms of the number and extent of observed off-site impacts and the number of acres that have been mined and reclaimed and which meet the bond release requirements for the various phases of reclamation, and the effectiveness of customer service provided by the State.
The overall measure of excellence in the AML (Title IV) program is the degree to which States are successful in achieving planned reclamation goals. One of the primary goals of AML Enhancement and Performance Reviews (EPR) is to improve upon this success. EPR's document each State's ability to achieve desired outcomes. Emphasizing outcomes will allow OSM to identify when the end result is not being achieved and establish a basis for reaching agreement with (and providing assistance to) a State to improve its program.
Individual topic reports that provide details on how the following evaluations and measurements were conducted are available at the MCRCC in Alton, Illinois.
A. Off-site Impacts
A sample of the 28 most recent State complete, seven joint Federal complete inspections, and three joint Federal partial inspections were used for the evaluation of off-site impacts on 28 permits. Twenty-nine off-site impacts (land stability, hydrology, and encroachment) affected land, water, and structure resources (Table 4). The impacts on resources off the permits were usually considered minor to moderate based on the size and quality of the resources affected. The off-site impacts were caused by deterioration of haulroads, diversions, and general lack of maintenance.
Off-site impacts were most often observed on operations where the permits expired without permit renewal. The State has addressed the resulting violations through appropriate enforcement actions. However, without continued maintenance by the permittee most of these sites are expected to continue to deteriorate until the disturbed areas are reclaimed by the surety or the State.
Based on joint inspections, OSM has concluded that off-site impacts are a significant concern in Iowa. The State and OSM will review this topic again during the 1999 evaluation year. OSM has offered to assist the IDSC in its efforts to achieve reclamation of these problem sites.
B. Reclamation Success
The effectiveness of the State program in ensuring reclamation success was determined by assessing data gathered for Table 5. The State submitted an independent Table 6 on reclamation success.
None of the 2,876 acres disturbed by mining in Iowa received Phase I, II, or III bond release this review period, and there has been no release of bond since 1988. Less than five percent of the total disturbed permanent program acreage in Iowa has received Phase III bond release since the permanent program was approved in Iowa. OSM concluded that Table 5 and Table 6 both show that Iowa is not effectively ensuring successful reclamation on lands affected by surface coal mining operations.
There are a number of factors that have influenced Iowa's lack of timely bond release. Iowa believes the main factor for its inaction is that the State has not received any bond release requests since 1991, even though disturbed areas on many sites have been reclaimed. The State is working with OSM to address all sites and achieve greater levels of reclamation success.
There were no permits issued and no other activities in the regulatory (Title V) program that required an Applicant/Violator System (AVS) review during this evaluation period.
A review of the State's handling of complaints and inquiries was conducted in the AML (Title IV) program. Three emergency complaints and 29 routine inquiries were received by IDSC.
Twenty-five citizen inquiries about the regulatory (Title V) program were received by the IDSC, but there were no citizen complaints concerning the program.
All Title IV and Title V complaints and inquiries were handled in a timely and appropriate manner. OSM has concluded that the Iowa program is effective in responding to citizen complaints and inquiries.
D. Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation
Iowa received $1.5 million in Federal AML funds this evaluation year. This is the minimum level of funding that OSM allots to any State reclamation program, regardless of coal tonnage mined.
Iowa does not administer the AML Emergency Program within the State. It receives and forwards initial emergency complaint information to OSM for investigation. During the evaluation year, OSM investigated three emergency complaints. All were determined to be non-emergencies. Work was completed on a fourth project that was declared an emergency at the end of EY97.
Iowa completed reclamation begun in previous evaluation years. IDSC reclaimed AML lands and waters associated with 2,770 feet of dangerous highwall, one hazardous water body, one polluted water problem, and 35 acres of dangerous spoil piles and embankments. Since program approval, Iowa has reclaimed 13 vertical mine shafts, 51,240 feet of dangerous highwall, 500 acres of mine land contributing to flooding problems, 5.6 miles of sediment clogged stream, 812 acres of dangerous spoil piles and embankments, 21 hazardous water bodies, and 14 polluted water problems (Table 10).
An OSM evaluation of completed projects indicates that Iowa's project designs succinctly address priority one and two hazards. Reclaimed sites meet objectives outlined in environmental analysis documents and project proposals without undue environmental consequences. Iowa monitors completed project sites and performs maintenance until stable conditions are achieved.
VI. OSM Assistance
OSM's goal is to provide direct technical assistance to Iowa in all aspects of the
Technical Information Processing System (TIPS) and electronic permitting initiatives (Geographic Information System, Global Positioning System, and other spatial data technologies). OSM is also available to provide support for State symposia or conferences, topical seminars, workshops, interactive forums, specialized on-site training, and technology outreach programs.
OSM updated the TIPS workstation for IDSC in March 1998. OSM has worked with the State on the installation and utilization of Hummingbird. This program allows workers to connect to the TIPS station at their desktops. The MCRCC has also provided Access Database support for the State. OSM provided, concurrent with joint complete Federal inspections, informal training regarding bond forfeiture and inspection and enforcement policies, methods, and procedures.
OSM provided an AMLIS Workshop on July 14-15, 1998, in the MCRCC, with one Iowa employee in attendance.
Appendix A: Tabular Summaries of Data Pertaining to Mining, Reclamation, and Program Administration
These tables present data pertinent to mining operations, State and Federal regulatory activities, and the reclamation of abandoned mines within Iowa. They also summarize funding provided by OSM and Iowa staffing levels. 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 Iowa's performance is available for review in the evaluation files maintained by the MCRCC Office in Alton, Illinois.
|
COAL PRODUCTION (Millions of short tons) | |||
|
Period |
Surface
mines |
Underground
mines |
Total |
| Coal productionA for entire State: | |||
| 1994 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05 |
| 1995 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 1996 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 1997 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
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.
(As of September 30, 1998) and related facilities (hundreds of acres) PP: Permanent regulatory program sites. 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.
INSPECTABLE UNITS
Coal mines
Number and status of permits
Insp.
UnitD
Permitted acreageA
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
17
2
1
0
3
2
21
23
3
49
52 Underground mines
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
32
32 Other facilities
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
3
3
0
2
2 Subtotals
0
21
2
1
0
4
2
26
28
3
83
86 FEDERAL LANDS
REGULATORY AUTHORITY: STATE Surface mines
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 Underground mines
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 Other facilities
0
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
17
2
1
0
3
2
21
23
3
49
52 Underground mines
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
32
32 Other facilities
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
3
3
0
2
2 Totals
0
21
2
1
0
4
2
26
28
3
83
86 Average number of permits per inspectable unit (excluding exploration sites)
1
Average number of acres per inspectable unit (excluding exploration sites)
307
Number of exploration permits on State and private lands:
0
On Federal lands:
0
C Number of exploration notices on State and private lands:
0
On Federal lands:
0
C IP: Initial 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.
|
STATE PERMITTING ACTIVITY | ||||||||||||
|
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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Renewals | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Incidental boundary revisions | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Revisions (exclusive of incidental boundary revisions) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Transfers, sales and assignments of permit rights | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Small operator assistance | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Exploration permits | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Exploration noticesB | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Totals | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0PTIONAL - Number of midterm permit reviews completed that are not reported as revisions n/a
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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Land Stability | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Hydrology | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 12 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Encroachment | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 14 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| OFF-SITE IMPACTS ON BOND FORFEITURE SITES | ||||||||||||||
|
Water |
||||||||||||||
| DEGREE OF IMPACT | minor | moderate | major | minor | moderate | major | minor | moderate | major | minor | moderate | major | ||
| TYPE OF
IMPACT AND TOTAL NUMBER OF EACH TYPE |
Blasting | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Land stability | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Hydrology | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Encroachment | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
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 Evaluation Year 1998 | ||
|
Bond release phase |
Applicable performance standard |
Acreage
released
during this evaluation period |
| Phase I | Approximate original contour restored
Topsoil or approved alternative replaced |
0 |
| Phase II | Surface stability
Establishment of vegetation |
0 |
| Phase III | Post-mining land use/productivity restored
Successful permanent vegetation Groundwater recharge, quality and quantity restored Surface water quality and quantity restored |
0 |
| Bonded Acreage StatusA | ||
| Total number of bonded acres at September 30, 1997B | 2,876 | |
| Total number of acres disturbed during this evaluation year | 0 | |
| Number of acres disturbed during this evaluation year that are considered remining, if available | 0 | |
| Number of acres where bond was forfeited during this evaluation year (also report this acreage on Table 7) | 0 | |
| 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
| Site | Permit | Uneffected | Disturbed | Phase 3 | Initially Reclaimed | Unreclaimed |
| Name | Area | Acres | Acres | Release Acres | Acres | Acres |
| ACC #1 wp | 40 | 10 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 30 |
| ACC #1A | 250 | 88 | 162 | 132 | 161 | 1 |
| ACC #3 | 262 | 75 | 187 | 3 | 185 | 2 |
| ACC #5 | 124 | 40 | 84 | 0 | 71 | 13 |
| ACC #6 | 95 | 12 | 83 | 0 | 80 | 3 |
| ACC #7 | 401 | 140 | 261 | 0 | 161 | 100 |
| ACC #8 | 250 | 190 | 60 | 0 | 0 | 60 |
| ICMC #1wp | 140 | 35 | 105 | 53 | 90 | 15 |
| ICMC #8 | 163 | 93 | 70 | 0 | 70 | 0 |
| IF&M wp | 50 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 49 | 1 |
| IF&M #3 | 101 | 0 | 101 | 44 | 100 | 1 |
| IF&M #4 | 145 | 85 | 60 | 0 | 59 | 1 |
| IF&M #5 | 283 | 219 | 64 | 0 | 63 | 1 |
| JUDE #3 | 80 | 3 | 77 | 8 | 76 | 1 |
| JUDE #4 | 120 | 20 | 100 | 0 | 99 | 1 |
| JUDE #5 | 33 | 3 | 30 | 0 | 29 | 1 |
| STAR #2 | 92 | 5 | 87 | 0 | 86 | 1 |
| STAR #3 | 80 | 55 | 25 | 11 | 24 | 1 |
| STAR #4 | 180 | 1 | 179 | 162 | 178 | 1 |
| STAR #5 | 234 | 69 | 165 | 0 | 163 | 2 |
| STAR #6 | 110 | 0 | 110 | 0 | 109 | 1 |
| STAR #7 | 371 | 314 | 57 | 0 | 56 | 1 |
| STAR #10 | 517 | 221 | 296 | 0 | 279 | 17 |
| STAR #11 | 728 | 550 | 178 | 0 | 177 | 1 |
| STAR #12 | 233 | 136 | 97 | 0 | 96 | 1 |
| STAR #14 | 340 | 339 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| SUP #1 | 1770 | 1300 | 470 | 0 | 450 | 20 |
| SUP #2 | 1416 | 1316 | 100 | 0 | 60 | 40 |
| TOTALS | 8608 | 5319 | 3289 | 413 | 2971 | 318 |
| Percent of total permit area disturbed | 38% | |||||
| Percent of total permit area released | 5% | |||||
| Percent of total permit area unreclaimed | 4% | |||||
| Percent of total disturbed area unreclaimed | 10% | |||||
TABLE 7
|
STATE BOND FORFEITURE ACTIVITY (Permanent Program Permits) | ||||
| Sites | Dollars | Acres | ||
| Bonds forfeited as of October 1, 1997A | 5 | $247,789 | 1,690 | |
| Bonds forfeited during EY 1998 | 0 | $0 | 0 | |
| Forfeited bonds collected as October1, 1997A | 5 | $247,789 | 1,690 | |
| Forfeited bonds collected during EY 1998 | 0 | $0 | 0 | |
| Forfeiture sites reclaimed during EY 1998 | 1 | $200,000 | B | 30c |
| Forfeiture sites repermitted during EY 1998 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Forfeiture sites unreclaimed as of EY 1998 | 5 | 1,690 | ||
| Excess reclamation costs recovered from permittee | 0 | $0 | 0 | |
| Excess forfeiture proceeds returned to permittee | 0 | $0 | 0 | |
|
A Includes data only for those forfeiture sites not fully reclaimed as of this date. B Cost of reclamation, excluding general administrative expenses. C The site was reclaimed, but the contract was not closed out by the end of the evaluation period. | ||||
TABLE 8
|
STATE REGULATORY PROGRAM STAFFING (Full-time equivalents at end of evaluation year) | |
|
Function |
EY 1998 |
| Regulatory program | |
| Permit review | 2.09 |
| Inspection | 1.16 |
| Other (administrative, fiscal, personnel, etc.) | 1.4 |
TABLE 9
|
REGULATORY FUNDS GRANTED TO STATE BY OSM (Millions of dollars) | ||
|
Type of grant |
Federal Funds Awarded |
Federal funding as a
percentage of total
program
costs |
| Administration and enforcement | $0.15 | 50% |
| Small operator assistance | $0 | 0% |
| Totals | $0.15 | |
TABLE 10
| ABANDONED MINE LAND RECLAMATION
NEEDS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS SINCE PROGRAM APPROVAL | |||||||
|
Problem nature |
Unit |
Coal-related problems | Noncoal-related problems | ||||
| Abatement status |
Total |
Abatement status | |||||
| Unfunded | Funded | Completed | Funded | Completed | |||
| Priority 1 & 2 (Protection of public health, safety, and general welfare) | |||||||
| Clogged streams | Miles | 10.3 | 1.1 | 5.6 | 17.0 | ||
| Clogged stream lands | Acres | 1,358.5 | 65.0 | 500.0 | 1,923.5 | ||
| Dangerous highwalls | Lin. Feet | 47,764.0 | 500.0 | 51,240.0 | 99,504.0 | ||
| Dangerous impoundments | Count | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 6.0 | ||
| Dangerous piles & embankments | Acres | 565.5 | 0.0 | 811.9 | 1,377.4 | ||
| Dangerous slides | Acres | 42.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 42.0 | ||
| Gases: hazardous/explosive | Count | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Underground mine fires | Acres | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Hazardous equip. & facilities | Count | 5.0 | 0.0 | 4.0 | 9.0 | ||
| Hazardous water bodies | Count | 23.0 | 0.0 | 21.0 | 44.0 | ||
| Industrial/residential waste | Acres | 47.5 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 57.5 | ||
| Portals | Count | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Polluted water: agric. & indust. | Count | 12.0 | 0.0 | 12.0 | 24.0 | ||
| Polluted water: human consumption | Count | 5.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 7.0 | ||
| Subsidence | Acres | 23.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 25.0 | ||
| Surface burning | Acres | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Vertical opening | Count | 5.0 | 0.0 | 13.0 | 18.0 | ||
| Priority 3 (Environmental restoration) | |||||||
| Spoil areas | Acres | 1,449.3 | 3.0 | 439.5 | 1,891.8 | ||
| Benches | Acres | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||