Office of Surface Mining

Annual Evaluation Summary Report

for the

Regulatory and Abandoned Mined Land Programs

Administered by the Land Reclamation Program

of

Missouri

for

Evaluation Year 1998

(October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998)

November 1998

I. Introduction 1

II. Overview of the Coal Mining Industry 2

III. Overview of Public Participation in the Program 3

IV. Major Accomplishments/Issues/Innovations 3

V. Success in Achieving the Purposes of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 6

A. Off-site Impacts 6

B. Reclamation Success 7

• Customer Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

VI. OSM Assistance 8

VII. General Oversight Topic Reviews 8

Appendix A: Tabular Summaries of Data Pertaining to Mining, Reclamation and Program Administration A-1

Appendix B: State Comments on Report B-1

1998 MISSOURI 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 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 Missouri Land Reclamation Program (LRP) and the effectiveness of the Missouri 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 implemented a new oversight policy during the 1996 evaluation period. 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 continues to encourage public participation as part of the revised oversight strategy. Besides the primary focus of evaluating end results, the oversight guidance makes clear OSM's responsibility to conduct inspections to monitor the State's effectiveness in ensuring compliance with SMCRA's environmental protection standards.

During the 1996 evaluation period, OSM refocused oversight to emphasize off-site impacts and final reclamation. This new oversight focus was phased in during the evaluation year, while issues identified in prior evaluation years continued to be addressed. The revised oversight strategy required OSM and Missouri to modify their respective roles and interactions so that the new policy could be successfully implemented. The two organizations cooperatively developed a Missouri specific negotiated performance agreement which documented the annual oversight evaluation program.

The new oversight guidance reemphasized that oversight is a continuous and ongoing process. To further the idea of continuous oversight, this annual report is structured to report on OSM and Missouri's progress in conducting evaluations and completing oversight activities, and on their accomplishments at the end of the evaluation period. Background information and finding 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

AMD Acid Mine Drainage

AMLIS Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System

BTU British Thermal Unit

LRP Land Reclamation Program

MCRCC Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center

OSM Office of Surface Mining

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

TIPS Technical Information Processing Systems

U.S. United States

II. Overview of Coal Mining Industry

Missouri's coal ranges from lignite to high volatile A bituminous. The demonstrated coal reserve base is estimated to be 6 billion tons, or 1.26 percent of the United States (U.S.) coal reserves. The coal-bearing areas cover about 23,000 square miles, or 33 percent of the State. Twelve of the 20 coal seams have been actively mined. The coal has a high heat value averaging 22 million British Thermal Units (BTU) per short ton. The sulphur content of 95 percent of these reserves is relatively high, greater than 2.5 pounds of sulphur per million BTU and averaging four percent by weight. Economics limit production to beds greater than 28 inches thick. Coal production is confined to the western and north-central areas of the State.

Missouri was the first State west of the Mississippi River to produce coal commercially. Coal deposits were first mined in the late 1840's. Most of the early coal mines in the State were underground. Surface mining began in the mid-1930's and since the 1960's has accounted for virtually all the coal produced in the State. Missouri's coal production has been declining since a peak of nearly 7 million tons in 1984. A sharp decline occurred in 1993 to 627,774 tons, down from the 1992 production level of 2,908,012 tons. This reduction resulted from the State's largest operator ceasing production in early 1993. Missouri's 1997 production declined significantly from a 1996 production of 775,882 tons (Table 1). The decline is a result of changes in the Midwestern coal market. Coal production in 1998 is expected to slightly exceed the 1997 tonnage figure. Missouri coal helps to supply the Midwestern coal market for blending with western coal. The current primary use of the coal is for power generation.

Approximately 67,000 acres were affected by coal mining in 48 Missouri counties before enactment of the SMCRA. The resulting hazardous conditions recorded in OSM's Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS) reveal the following: 90,941 feet of dangerous highwalls; 585 acres of dangerous piles and embankments; 634 acres of surface subsidence; 144 vertical openings; and 62 incidents of polluted water that adversely affects public health, safety, or welfare. No deaths associated with Abandoned Mine Land (AML) hazards were reported during this evaluation period.

III. Overview of Public Participation in the Program

Historically, the State has rarely held special public meetings for the sole purpose of gathering input from industry and local citizens on the State regulatory processes. During the 1995 evaluation year, OSM and Missouri jointly held two informal public meetings to solicit comments on the effectiveness of the State's regulatory and AML programs and answer questions about OSM's oversight process. There was minimal participation from industry and local landowners. The landowners voiced concerns with not having their land returned to them in a timely manner and industry shared concerns that permit and bond release applications were not being processed in a timely manner. While no public meetings were held during evaluation years 1996 or 1997, the Performance Agreements for those years were sensitive in addressing the concerns voiced during the 1995 public meeting.

As part of a Citizen's Outreach Initiative, OSM held a public meeting during March 1998, in Moberly, Missouri. The primary focus of the meeting was to solicit public input regarding the AML program as part of OSM's preparation of budget submittals to Congress. All attendees were encouraged to discuss any concerns they might have about Missouri's AML and Regulatory programs. Due to an overnight snow storm, industry and citizen participation was very limited. Those attending the meeting voiced concern for expediting the bond release application process, and they supported increased funding of the AML program. OSM's 1998 and 1999 Performance Agreements contain the bond release process as a component for evaluation.

Missouri considers the bi-monthly Land Reclamation Commission meetings the principal forum for participation from industry, landowners, citizen groups, and other interested parties.

IV. Major Accomplishments/Issues/Innovations

The State, in cooperation with the MCRCC, developed and submitted two acid mine drainage (AMD) cleanup projects for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative. Missouri received $22,130 in funding to begin work in the Upper Cedar Creek watershed. Cedar Creek is a scenic Ozark-style stream that winds 44 miles through the countryside east of Columbia, Missouri, meeting the Missouri River upstream of Jefferson City, Missouri's capitol. The stream has been severely polluted by AMD for over 30 years. It has averaged one major fish kill every 16 to 18 months, with other sections of the stream determined to be biologically sterile.

Cedar Creek has been the subject of extended AML project funding. While reclamation has resulted in significant restoration of many segments of the stream, the upper watershed of the stream continues to be affected by AMD and significant sediment loading. Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative funds will be used to develop and implement strategies to correct remaining problems.

A cooperative evaluation of the Tebo Creek AML Reclamation Project has been completed. Missouri was cooperating with the Biological Resources Division and the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, to evaluate the restoration of the total stream environment within and downstream of the Tebo Creek site. The monitoring program has been completed but the analysis and distribution of the data is not complete. Tebo Creek is a significant tributary of Harry S. Truman Reservoir, managed for flood control and recreation by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Completion and success of the reclamation project is expected to eliminate one of the worst acid mine drainage sources in Missouri. Interim results of the cooperative biological assessment indicate both flora and fauna are reestablishing in the previously sterile stream. Additional funding for a total stream and wetlands assessment is being sought through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Funding may also be available through the 1999 Clean Streams Initiative. If approved, the funds would be utilized for reclamation and reclamation assessments. The man-made wetlands are currently well established and are functioning as diverse ecosystems. Missouri planted native grasses, for soil stabilization, on 15 acres over the Tebo site.

Missouri continues to design and construct AML reclamation projects in an efficient and environmentally sound manner, and in accordance with project approval documents. Missouri is a minimum program State, receiving only $1.5 million annually to operate its program. Projects are monitored and maintained to achieve long term stability, and eventual release from State management. Missouri continues to carry out its AML Reclamation Success Management process, initiated during the 1996 evaluation year. In this process, the reclamation project goals are stated up-front in the environmental assessment. The process also provides new mechanisms for evaluating project design changes against previously defined goals of the project. This process is a significant aid in assuring that reclamation projects achieve long term success and stability.

Missouri continues to maintain an up to date and effective AML Reclamation Plan. The project ranking and selection process was chosen as an area for review. Missouri did not select any new projects for design start because all construction funds were committed.

The State continues to maintain its part in AMLIS. Funded and completed project data is entered at appropriate times. New problem sites are entered into the database as they are identified. Missouri maintains internal systems to track contract obligations and expenditures, public inquiries, and project ranking and selection data.

Missouri abated health and safety problems by closing one open portal, sealing 38 vertical mine shafts, reclaiming 6,650 feet of dangerous highwall, and 201 acres of dangerous embankments. Since program approval, Missouri has reclaimed 111 vertical mine shafts, 26 portals, and 59,312 feet of dangerous highwalls.

On July 1, 1998, the State assumed the AML Emergency Program. All applicable protocols and procedures have been reviewed and approved.

The State continues to experience bond forfeitures on an annual basis. This year, Missouri revoked the permits of four companies and declared the bonds forfeited. Missouri is currently negotiating with the sureties for reclamation in lieu of forfeiture. The total disturbed acreage is more than 2,000 acres and composed of three inspectable units.

Bond forfeiture reclamation was completed on Yates, Bill's Coal Company, Central West, the Midwestern Mining & Reclamation Company/AmEarth Corporation, and Universal Coal and Energy's Renick Mine. The contracts provided for the reclamation of a coal processing facility, a railroad load-out site, correction of acid mine drainage problems, grading of spoil piles, open pits, establishment of surface water controls, and for revegetating the areas. Maintenance is being conducted on most of the areas for minor repairs. The design work on the Midwestern Mining & Reclamation Company/AmEarth Corporation, was Missouri's first attempt at total in-house project design.

OSM and the LRP conducted a joint tour of several bond forfeiture reclamation projects and a potential forfeiture site during April 1998. Management of both agencies met and discussed the accomplishments and discrepancies of the reclamation observed in the field. As one consequence of the meeting, the LRP and OSM are committed to evaluating forfeiture projects before, during, and after the construction phase, using a joint team method. The team will focus on determining if applicable performance standards have been met in relation to the approved reclamation plan. All field reviews will be conducted prior to the State proposing liability release before the Missouri Land Reclamation Commission. An in-depth workplan is being developed for Missouri to review and provide comments on.

Historically, Missouri has experienced a significant backlog of bond release applications. In order to reduce the backlog, the State negotiated a contract with a consulting firm to help with file reviews associated with bond release applications. In addition, a joint State/OSM Total Quality Management Team was formed to evaluate Missouri's inspection and bond release process and identify ways to streamline it. The Team completed its review and concluded that the inspection staff must change its methodology in evaluating and documenting performance standards related to bond releases, industry must be better informed of what is required in submitting an appropriate bond release package, and that industry must take more responsibility in evaluating the field conditions against the approved reclamation plans prior to submitting any request for release of bond(s). The recommendations were forwarded to the Director of the Missouri Land Reclamation Program.

The Director of the LRP reviewed and approved the Team's findings. The industry and public were consulted for input into the bond release process and on recommendations that were submitted to the Director. Final guidelines were agreed upon by all parties. The guidelines are being submitted before the Missouri Land Reclamation Commission for final approval. Implementation of the current guidelines should effectively address the majority of the concerns voiced by industry and the public at the public meetings. One of the recent observations made by OSM and Missouri is that several recent bond release applications filed by industry do not follow the guidelines agreed upon by all parties. Until industry follows the guidelines they endorsed and aided in developing, the bond release process will be hindered.

The 1997 and 1998 Performance Agreements included an unresolved issue from previous review periods. A significant downward trend in the State's ability to cite all observed violations was previously identified. This review period found the State improving and progressing toward final resolution of the issue. OSM and Missouri have met and developed an implementation strategy that will resolve the issue during the 1999 evaluation year. Failure to resolve this issue could result in environmental harm, delayed reclamation, and an increase in reclamation liability to the State.

OSM conducted a topic review on Missouri's use of alternative enforcement to obtain environmental compliance during EY97. The findings indicate that environmental problems identified in the consent agreements are not being addressed by the operator in a timely fashion. This further suggests, that the use of consent agreements may not be an effective tool for obtaining operator compliance. An EY98 review of this topic could not be adequately conducted because no additional consent agreements or settlement agreements were finalized during the review period. The State and OSM have met and discussed last years findings and potential ramifications. The topic is included in the 1999 Performance Agreement for evaluation during EY99.

During the first six months of 1997, OSM sent Missouri two 732 letters indicating the State program needed to be amended. The State provided a schedule for proposed rulemaking. Missouri has been unable to meet the milestones identified in the proposed schedule. OSM discussed the status of the program amendments with Missouri, and a new schedule for completing internal reviews and submission of amendments to OSM is being drafted.

V. Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA

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

A. Off-site Impacts

During EY98, the LRP conducted 337 inspections on 37 inspectable units and OSM conducted 41 inspections on 41 individual permits, including inspections on a limited number of abandoned sites. All OSM and State inspections evaluated the sites for off-site impacts. During five of the inspections, five violations were observed that resulted in five off-site impacts. The impacts were hydrologic and encroachment in nature, and related to land and water resources (Table 4). No significant environmental damage resulted from the off-site impacts.

The number of inspections represents the majority of the inspectable units in Missouri, including a limited number of abandoned sites. Based on the number of mine sites reviewed, the data suggests that only a small number of off-site impacts exist in the Missouri coal fields. OSM believes the State program is effective in protecting the public and environment from off-site impacts resulting from surface coal mining and reclamation operations.

B. Reclamation Success

OSM conducted one joint bond release inspection. The release was for Phases I, II, and III. In addition, OSM reviewed the hydrology and revegetation productivity data applicable to all Phase III releases approved by Missouri during the 1998 evaluation period.

The field review found that all applicable performance standards had been met on the areas requested for release. OSM's review of the hydrology and productivity data found no discrepancies that would prevent the approval of the bond release request.

As of September 30, 1997, Missouri had 13,767 acres of mined land that had not received Phase III release. During the 1998 evaluation period, Missouri approved bond releases on 2,602 disturbed acres, of which 411 were for Phase III release. This represents a final liability release of approximately 3.0 percent of the total number of mined acres existing at the end of 1997 (Table 5).

Based on the sample inspection and the file reviews, OSM believes the State program is requiring bond release performance standards to be met before the approval of the bond release. Missouri's adherence to all applicable performance standards ensures successful reclamation.

• Customer Service

During this evaluation period, Missouri received two written citizen complaints. The State provided written responses to the complainants. In both instances, Missouri addressed the citizen's concerns in a timely and forthright manner.

The LRP responds to public inquiries about the AML program in a timely manner. State management monitors public inquiries and responses with a computerized tracking system. Missouri received and responded to 14 citizen inquiries.

VI. OSM Assistance

The MCRCC is available to provide support to the State through its Technology Development and Transfer Program. This program provides direct technical assistance in project design and analysis, permitting assistance, development of technical guidelines, and other technical training and support. The Technical Information Processing Systems (TIPS) provides hardware, software, training and systems support, development and facilitation of electronic permitting initiatives, electronic data exchanges, and the dissemination of the newest computer technology. TIPS also includes the development and coordination of interactive forums, workshops and technology outreach programs.

During the review period, OSM provided Missouri with the following assistance:

MCRCC provided staff in evaluating the bond amounts on each Phase I mine site for the State's April 1998 bond fund study.

MCRCC conducted training on AMLIS in July 1998.

The OSM trained selected staff members in using Auto/CAD and Advanced GPS computer programs.

Supplemental training of LRP inspection staff in the fundamentals of inspection and enforcement procedures was provided by OSM staff.

MCRCC supplied staff to assist in the conversion of the State's databases into Microsoft Access.

OSM supplied staff for a permit review on the blasting information. Due to the loss of technical personnel, the State did not have a trained individual to complete the review.

Staff and money were provided to upgrade the State's TIPS workstation. Missouri was also provided software and hardware to support its electronic permitting initiatives. Further assistance is needed on the State's WAN/LAN connection, so staff can use the Hummingbird software to access TIPS from their desktops.

VII. General Oversight Topic Reviews

The following oversight topics were reviewed during the 1998 evaluation period. The detailed finding reports are available at the MCRCC in Alton, Illinois.

Alternative Enforcement

This review topic was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the State program in using consent agreements to obtain environmental compliance.

Citizen's Complaints

The review topic was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the State program in addressing the public's rights and participation as it relates to the review topic.

Identification and Citation of Violations

This review topic was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the State program in identifying and citing observed violations.

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 Missouri. They also summarize funding provided by OSM and Missouri 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 Missouri's performance is available for review in the evaluation files maintained by the MCRCC Office in Alton, Illinois.

^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.

TABLE 3

TABLE 4

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

TABLE 6

TABLE 7

TABLE 8

TABLE 9

APPENDIX B: State Comments on Report

Missouri responded verbally to OSM that they had no changes to suggest and the report could be finalized.