Page
Part I. Purpose of This Agreement 1
Part II. Shared Program Goals 1
Part III. Evaluation Plan 2
Part IV. Resolving Issues 4
Part V. Joint Database of State Program Information 5
Part VI. Assistance 5
Part VII. Signatures 6
Attachment A Shared Goals of Ohio and OSM 7
Attachment B Oversight Activities 8
Attachment C Oversight Inspections 10
Attachment D Pending Regulatory Issues 12
Attachment E Ohio Program Conditions and Requirements 14
Attachment F OSM Assistance Activities 15
Part I. Purpose of This Agreement
The purpose of this performance agreement between the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) and the Division of Mines and Reclamation, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (Ohio), is to:
1) Foster a shared commitment to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) through the Ohio State regulatory and Abandoned Mined Land (AML) reclamation programs by identifying shared goals and working as partners to accomplish those goals;
2) Discuss and address issues in a manner that produces clear descriptions of those issues and mutually agreeable solutions;
3) Identify solutions to problems that allow for incremental problem-solving to meet both short-term and long-term goals;
4) Focus joint problem-solving on the main goal of making improvements, rather than on solidifying differences of opinion;
5) Develop an atmosphere of shared resources and ideas to enhance our problem-solving ability in the context of a State/Federal partnership; and
6) Ensure that both parties understand each other's goals and responsibilities for the coming Evaluation Year.
OSM will make this performance agreement a part of the Evaluation File maintained for public review of our oversight efforts.
Part II. Shared Goals
Ohio and OSM have established shared goals. These shared goals, the actions that OSM and Ohio will take to meet these goals, and the status of these actions are listed in Attachment A. OSM, with Ohio's assistance, will update Attachment A as necessary to reflect changes in the status of the joint actions. (Note: Both Ohio and OSM have established other goals to fulfill their own individual program needs.)
Part III. Evaluation Plan
A. Introduction
OSM's Directive REG-8 establishes the framework within which OSM conducts oversight of State programs. This agreement reflects the flexibility and latitude provided by this Directive.
The Oversight and Inspection Office in the Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center (ARCC) in Pittsburgh, which includes the Columbus Area Office, will conduct OSM's oversight of the Ohio Program.
Through this agreement, OSM and Ohio have identified the basic concept of oversight and assistance to the Ohio Program. The identified oversight and assistance in the attachments to the agreement reflect Ohio's and OSM's view of the highest priority areas for review and areas that need assistance.
This agreement is supplemented by Attachments A through F. These attachments describe the specific oversight focus areas, OSM inspections, pending issues and status from past oversight, program conditions, and assistance efforts. The basic terms of this agreement will apply to future years to eliminate the need to develop a new agreement each year. The attachments will be updated annually to reflect changes in status and new oversight and assistance areas.
OSM and Ohio may modify this agreement as issues are resolved, as new issues arise, or as work priorities change.
B. Continuous Oversight
OSM will conduct oversight of the Ohio programs as an ongoing process throughout the year. This process will involve analysis of Ohio inspection findings, program data, grant reports, Ohio internal control reports, and other information routinely provided by or available to Ohio. OSM's oversight will stress prevention, detection, and prompt correction of any problems noted. The oversight inspection criteria for OSM's planned oversight inspections are included as Attachment C.
C. Special Oversight Studies
In addition to continuous oversight, OSM may conduct special in-depth studies of selected areas of Ohio's program each year. These oversight studies will emphasize overall "on-the-ground" success of reclamation and how effectively the Ohio program is meeting the goals of SMCRA. Oversight studies will also recognize any innovative ways Ohio approaches managerial efficiency, problem resolution, or environmental protection, and will recognize any areas of outstanding implementation of Ohio's approved program.
The selected oversight topic areas are shown in Attachment B. OSM will update Attachment B as necessary to reflect the current status of oversight studies and any changes that occur.
Before beginning oversight identified in Attachment B, OSM will develop, in consultation with a designated Ohio contact person, written outlines that will describe the anticipated scope, methodology, time period, population size, sampling scheme, and sample size of the proposed review. These reviews need not rely exclusively on random sampling. The review outlines will also describe any assistance that Ohio or other branches of OSM will provide during the course of the study. OSM will provide a minimum of ten working days for Ohio to review and comment on each draft review outline.
D. Public Participation
a. Public Outreach
Section 102(I) of SMCRA stresses the importance of involving all parties in the development and enforcement of State and Federal programs. OSM and Ohio currently have a public outreach program that includes:
Ohio:
DMR newsletter and Tech Topics
Public rulemaking notice mailing list
Statute/rule subscription service
Periodic mailings to the mining industry and consultants on topics of interest
Council of Unreclaimed Strip Mined Land biennial reports
Various publications such as the Wildlife Manual
Educational materials such as "Let's See Trees" video, poster, and display
Staff participation in "Partnering in Environmental Education"
Annual AML public outreach meetings held throughout the State
DMR website
Meeting with groups and individuals who express an interest in mining activities
OSM:
Evaluation and Administrative Record public files
Monthly newsletter
Federal Register notice mailing list
Public comment periods announced in the Federal Register
Annual oversight/evaluation reports
OSM Home Page on Internet
Meeting with groups and individuals who express an interest in mining activities
Ohio and OSM agree to continue to evaluate and improve this outreach program.
OSM Directive REG-8 requires that OSM develop an outreach program that solicits public comments regarding OSM's oversight process, recommendations for review topics within the Ohio program, and suggestions for improvements to future annual evaluation reports.
As a part of outreach, OSM and Ohio agree to periodically meet with industry and environmental special interest groups to discuss areas of interest and to seek input from such groups. OSM/Ohio will seek input from those individuals and groups who have specifically expressed interest in the mining and AML programs.
Ohio may use input from such meetings as an indication of the public's perception of its performance and to obtain input on perceived problem areas.
E. Measurement of On-the-Ground Reclamation Success
OSM's approach to oversight, developed in conjunction with States and directed by OSM Directive REG-8, specifies two measurements for evaluating and reporting the success of a State Program in achieving the environmental performance standards (on-the-ground success) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). These two measurements are the number of mined acres meeting the performance standards for each phase of bond release, and the number and extent of off-site impacts caused by mining and reclamation. To evaluate and report on these measurements, Ohio and OSM cooperatively developed the needed data and the evaluation methods in 1996. Ohio and OSM may review and revise these methods for future evaluation of these areas as necessary.
Part IV. Resolving Issues
A. Issue Resolution Methods
Ohio and OSM will strive to resolve issues, in a cooperative manner, as those issues arise. OSM and Ohio may use any of the following mechanisms to resolve issues:
Discussions at meetings of OSM and Ohio staff;
Joint data collection and evaluation to determine the actual extent and/or causes of perceived problems;
Creation of joint problem-solving teams comprised of staff from both offices;
Joint solicitation of third-party assistance to clarify or arbitrate perceived problems;
Discussion at specially scheduled meetings between Ohio and OSM officials; and/or
Joint OSM-Ohio preparation of written plans with steps agreed upon by both parties to resolve problems.
B. Issues Pending Resolution
The issues presently pending resolution and their status are listed in Attachment D. With Ohio's assistance, OSM will update these attachments as necessary to reflect the current status of the issues.
Part V. Joint Database of State Program Information
Ohio and OSM will continue to work on the establishment of a joint database system with a goal of eliminating most, if not all, of the duplication of effort in handling of hard copy information. Ohio and OSM will jointly plan and create this database. Ohio will have the primary responsibility for maintaining and updating the database. The existence of this database will maximize consistency between Ohio and OSM data; reduce duplication of files and documents; and reduce the paperwork required of the industry and handled by both Ohio and OSM. The development of this shared database system is now underway in the permitting and bonding areas through joint Ohio/OSM efforts.
Database development will be directed at providing information that will enable Ohio and OSM to report on the size, impact, and results of mining and reclamation in Ohio, plus the day-to-day program activity. Until the joint database is developed so that OSM can access and retrieve information, Ohio will provide to or assist OSM in obtaining information relative to the State Program to enable OSM to fulfill customer requests and to fulfill annual reporting requirements about the Ohio Program. Such information is needed to characterize the size, scope, and level of activity of the Ohio Program. Ohio will provide the information or make it available to OSM upon request and on an annual basis at the end of each evaluation year. Information includes general inspection, enforcement, permitting, and other information that Ohio has provided in the past.
Part VI. Assistance
Ohio and OSM will provide training and assistance to each other as needs and capabilities develop. Specific assistance topics are identified in Attachment F.
Part VII. Signatures
Representing the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines and Reclamation, and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, the following parties agree to the purpose, goals, and anticipated actions proposed in this performance agreement:
__signed_____________11/16/98__ __signed_______________11/5/98__
Lisa J. Morris Date George Rieger Date
Chief Program Manager
Ohio Division of Mines and Reclamation Oversight & Inspection Office
Office of Surface Mining
1) Ensure long-term solvency of the Ohio Alternative Bonding System by implementing the Improvement and Monitoring Plan for the alternative bonding system.
2) Further the joint efforts now underway to protect the hydrologic balance both on and off-site by addressing the findings from past OSM evaluation reports; by designing and implementing inspection, evaluation, and permitting procedures for preventing acid mine drainage; and by fully participating in OSM's Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative.
3) Evaluate and use methods that measure on-the-ground results and impacts as one method to assess the effectiveness of Ohio's programs in fulfilling the purposes of SMCRA.
4) Continue to develop and improve Ohio's automated data processing and reporting capabilities.
5) Perform joint reviews and problem-solving to ensure that Ohio program requirements are met and are performed in an effective and efficient manner.
6) Provide prompt and effective response to concerns raised by the public and provide an effective outreach program to coal field citizens, industry, and interest groups.
7) Remove barriers and provide incentives to remining to achieve environmental gains through the remining of abandoned mined lands.
8) Continue to develop and verify an inventory of post-SMCRA sites that currently produce or have a high risk of producing acid mine drainage after reclamation.
Attachment B. Oversight Activities
Annual and/or On-going Studies from EY 98 -
OSM lead person is Dan Schrum. OSM inspectors will continue to contact Ohio inspectors to schedule inspections on sites for evaluating bond releases. OSM will develop a report on reclamation success. The report will include data collected by OSM on approved bond releases, contemporaneous reclamation, remining, land use, and hydrologic impacts.
OSM lead person is Mark Balaj. Data to address this national measurement will be collected on all OSM inspections, as well as from State inspection and enforcement and citizen complaint data. OSM will develop a report on the number and degree of off-site impacts.
OSM lead persons are Max Luehrs and Steffan Koratich who will be conducting the study of these areas under the outline developed during EY 98. Ohio contact is Terry VanOfferen.
OSM lead persons are Dave Agnor and Pat Murdock who will follow the outline developed in EY 98. Ohio contact is Bill Sterling.
This is an on-going effort of the Ohio/OSM AMD Team. To increase the degree of attention on this topic, the Team will define the criteria and objective of the inventory and identify a percentage of sites to field-verify during EY 99. Field verification will be conducted either jointly or individually, using procedures developed by the Team.
OSM will continue to conduct a number of program monitoring inspections as described in Attachment C. OSM inspectors will continue to contact Ohio inspectors to provide opportunity for joint inspections.
New Studies Planned During EY 99 and EY 2000 in order of priority -
OSM lead persons and Ohio contacts will be identified at a later time.
OSM lead persons and Ohio contacts will be identified at a later time.
OSM lead person will be identified at a later time. Ohio contact is Mike Mann.
OSM will communicate with the appropriate Ohio contact when developing the evaluation methodology. In most cases, OSM will provide a draft study outline to Ohio for comment prior to the start of the evaluation, unless there is no change from the methodology used in the past.
Attachment C. Oversight Inspections
The general oversight inspection concept will be to direct inspection resources to problem identification, resolution, and assistance. OSM will evaluate compliance with applicable performance standards during on-site inspections and ensure that any problems are properly addressed as required by the Ohio Program and SMCRA. However, OSM and Ohio recognize that identified problems may have several potential resolutions that achieve successful protection and restoration of the environment. The oversight inspection theme is to work with all parties to identify and solve problems that have prevented or may prevent the achievement of environmental performance standards.
In oversight evaluations and inspection reports, on-the-ground impacts will be analyzed to determine the extent of impact and to identify and address the underlying cause of these impacts.
OSM will notify appropriate Ohio managers of individual inspection findings that may be symptomatic of programmatic problems, or of isolated incidents of which they should be aware. OSM will continue to notify Ohio inspectors to provide the opportunity for joint inspections.
Inspection Type and Criteria:
OSM's annual inspection activities for EY 99 and EY 2000 will include:
Approximately 50 bond release inspections are planned to evaluate on-the-ground success through achievement of performance standards at the time of bond release, including any identifiable impacts to the hydrologic system. Similar information as identified above will also be collected on these inspections
An estimated 15 follow-up inspections necessary to address past issues identified on prior inspections.
An estimated 25 site visits associated with special oversight studies identified in Attachment B.
An estimated 20 - 30 site visits with the OSM/Ohio AMD Team to verify sites with post-reclamation AMD discharges.
Approximately 20 (estimated) AML site inspections to verify compliance with programmatic goals, contractual requirements, and NEPA considerations
Attachment D. Pending Regulatory Issues Identified during Past Evaluation Years (Status as of October 1, 1998)
The following is a list of unresolved issues identified by OSM special studies conducted during previous evaluation years and identified in previous Annual Evaluation Reports. If OSM and Ohio have already taken or agreed to follow-up actions and due dates, those actions and dates are listed in parentheses. OSM and Ohio will use the mechanisms discussed in Part IV.A to resolve these issues during the Evaluation Year.
A. Continuous obligation to ensure bond fund solvency. (Status: Ohio has committed to provide information before the end of 1998 for OSM's review that will report the progress in improving Ohio's completion of bond forfeiture reclamation and monitoring of this program area. OSM will review the information and determine whether this program condition can be removed.)
B. Hydrology Oversight Review for Geologic and Hydrologic Data; Surface and Ground Water Monitoring; Handling of Toxic Wastes; and Sediment Pond Design, Construction, and Maintenance (EY 93)
1. Ohio does not have a process to consistently evaluate baseline data, resulting in the acceptance of incorrect data.
a. Completion and implementation date for the PPD on QAQC on hydrologic sampling and field marking of monitoring points. (Status: A quality improvement team has provided several recommendations for addressing several issues with hydrologic data, QAQC, monitoring points, etc. Ohio has accepted and is implementing the team's recommendations which address the issue raised by the past OSM study. OSM and Ohio will continue to monitor implementation.)
b. Timetable for transferring the data from the Inforex system into the dBase compatible format and the development of a process for using the historic data to determine when field sampling is needed to validate application data. (Status: Ohio has completed development of a hydrology data base. Implementation will occur during the next few months.)
2. Ohio's method of establishing seasonal variation is not adequate.
a. Completion date for incorporating changes for determining the seasonal variation in quantity and quality of water for each monitoring point. (Status: Ohio has identified a team including DMR, OSM, industry, and others to develop recommendations. The team is currently developing proposals for consideration by DMR.)
3. Ohio is approving plans that contain only a general description of the segregation and isolation of toxic materials, not specific details.
a. Completion date for developing guidelines for reviewing and approving disposal plans for toxic-producing materials and ensuring that applicant has identified sufficient quantity and equipment for placing the isolating material. (Status: This matter has been reassigned to the Manager of the Permitting and Hydrology Section to develop. He will provide draft guidelines to OSM for review.)
4. Ohio does not adequately review design criteria for sedimentation ponds. Ohio approves designs based on inadequate design parameters for storm runoff, ground cover and condition, and the physical characteristics of the watershed draining into the ponds. These deficiencies resulted in construction of undersized ponds with a high likelihood of effluent violations at the design storm event.
a. Methodology and time schedule for implementing a revised process for reviewing sediment pond designs to address the individual findings. (Status: Due to other priorities and the theoretical nature of this issue, Ohio and OSM have agreed to postpone further work on this issue at this time. Both agencies hope to continue to pursue this issue at a later time.)
C. OSM identified in 1996 that Ohio does not have a process for considering hydrologic impacts at the time of bond release. Ohio agreed to develop guidelines that will provide a process for such an evaluation for inspection staff. In 1997, OSM identified that Ohio has a large number of outstanding water supply complaints. (Status: DMR has provided some guidelines to the inspection staff for considering hydrologic impacts at the time of bond release, but overall implementation may not be occurring. Ohio has hired two field hydrologists and has developed a hydrology data base that will help inspectors make better determinations on the impacts to groundwater at the time of bond release. The two field hydrologists will also be responsible for addressing water supply complaints.)
D. Ohio agreed to develop guidelines for the inspection staff to address landslides and necessary actions to permanently repair recurring slide areas. (Status: Ohio has drafted some guidelines and received comments on the draft. The North Team Manager is working on revising the draft.)
Attachment E. Ohio Program Conditions and Requirements
(Status as of January 7, 1999)
A. 30 CFR Part 733 Actions
OSM has issued no Part 733 actions to Ohio.
B. 30 CFR Part 732 Actions
One Part 732 issue in Ohio concerns the Ohio Alternative Bonding System (ABS). On October 1, 1991, OSM notified Ohio that it must revise the Ohio program so that the ABS will have sufficient funds to complete the reclamation plans for any areas in default at any time. An actuarial analysis of Ohio's Alternative Bonding System (ABS) as of December 31, 1992, found that Ohio's ABS is solvent if certain assumptions are fulfilled. In February 1994, Ohio reported that its ABS continues to have a $1.5 million deficit. On June 30, 1995, Ohio and OSM updated an Improvement and Monitoring Plan for the Ohio ABS. Carrying out this plan will resolve the deficiencies noted in the October 1, 1991, Part 732 letter. Ohio is currently developing a proposal to address the 732 issue and remove the program condition.
C. Program Conditions
Ohio has one program condition remaining at 30 CFR 935.11 from OSM's 1982 approval of the Ohio permanent regulatory program. Ohio must demonstrate that its Alternative Bonding System (ABS) will assure timely reclamation at the sites of all operations for which bond has been forfeited. As discussed above, OSM issued a Part 732 letter to Ohio on this issue on October 1, 1991. Ohio has committed to provide information to OSM before the end of 1998 to demonstrate that its ABS does ensure timely reclamation.
Ohio and OSM will participate on the following problem-solving teams:
Remining Task Force - to remove barriers that prevent remining and seek incentives to encourage more remining.
AMD/ACSI Team - to continue to implement the AMD/ACSI agreement and to develop guidelines concerning permitting and inspection of toxic material handling plans.
ADP/database development - to develop a joint data base that reports both on programmatic activity and mining and reclamation activities.
Development of stability guidelines - help in Ohio's development of guidelines for the inspection staff to use to ensure stability of unstable areas.
Temporary inactive status - assist Ohio develop better guidelines for staff and industry concerning mines that have been in temporary inactive status for extended periods of time.
Assist in developing policy for addressing public roads that are part of a mining operation.
Improve both DMR's and OSM's outreach efforts, including periodic meetings with industry, citizen groups, individuals; and develop better ways to provide service to the public.
Permitting Work Group - continue to follow through on the 1998 recommendations of the group.
Seasonal Variations Work Group - continue to develop recommendations for pre-mining hydrologic sampling that will provide seasonal variations.
ARP Quality Improvement Team - continue to participate on this Ohio team to improve the process for reviewing, approving, and tracking ARP's.