Annual Evaluation Summary Report
of
Utah
for
Evaluation Year 1998
(October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998)
January 1999
UTAH PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAM FOR 1998
Left to Right
Front Row: Ranvir Singh (Office of Surface Mining (OSM)), James Fulton (OSM, Team Coach), Mary Ann Wright (Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM), Team Coach), Pamela Grubaugh-Littig (DOGM)
Middle Row: Michael Rosenthal (OSM), Dennis Winterringer (OSM), Sharon Falvey (DOGM), Ronald Sassaman (OSM)
Back Row: Joseph Helfrich (DOGM), Kenneth Wyatt (DOGM), Henry Austin (OSM), Daron Haddock (DOGM), Randall Harden (DOGM)
I. Introduction
II. Overview of the Utah coal mining industry
III. Overview of the public participation opportunities in the oversight process and Utah program
A. Oversight process
B. Utah program
IV. Accomplishments, issues, and innovations
A. Accomplishments
1. Surface and ground water protection
Water monitoring data analyses
Cumulative hydrologic impact assessments (CHIA's)
2. Bonding practices
B. Issues
1. Utah interagency water quality agreement
2. Highwall elimination and retention as a part of approximately original contour (AOC) restoration
3. Permitting of coal mine access and haul roads
4. Applicant/Violator System (AVS)
C. Innovations
V. Success in achieving the purposes of SMCRA
A. Offsite impacts
B. Reclamation success
VI. OSM assistance
VII. Oversight topic reviews
Appendix. Tabular summary of core data characterizing the program
I. Introduction
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) created the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (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 Utah Program and the effectiveness of the Utah program in meeting the applicable purposes of SMCRA as specified in section 102. This report covers the period of October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998. Detailed background information and comprehensive reports for the program elements evaluated during the period are available for review and copying at the OSM Denver Field Division office.
II. Overview of the Utah Coal Mining Industry
Coal is found beneath approximately 18 percent of the state of Utah, but only 4 percent is considered minable at this time. The demonstrated coal reserve base is about 6.4 billion tons, which is 1.3 percent of the national reserve base. Most of Utah's coal resources are held by the Federal government and Indian tribes.
The coal fields are divided into the Northern, Central, Eastern, and Southwestern Utah Coal Regions. The most productive region is the Central Utah Coal Region, which includes the Book Cliffs, Wasatch Plateau, and Emery Coal Fields. There are vast, substantially undeveloped coal fields in the Southwestern Utah Coal Region.
Most of the coal is bituminous and is of Cretaceous age. The Btu value is high compared to most other western States. Sulfur content ranges from medium to low in the more important coal fields.
Coal production steadily increased from the early 1970's and peaked in 1996 at almost 29 million tons. Production in 1997 declined to approximately 26 million tons (table 1). The majority of the coal production is produced by underground mining operations, which mostly mine seams exceeding 8 feet in thickness.
Currently, there are 28 permitted operations (table 2) that have thus far disturbed 2,529 acres (table 2). Utah considers each of these operations to be an inspectable unit. Of these 28 operations, 27 are active or temporarily inactive, 1 is inactive, and none are abandoned (table 2). Of the 27 active or temporarily inactive operations, 9 are underground mines that use the longwall mining method, 13 are underground mines that use the room-and-pillar mining method (1 of these mines has a permitted loadout facility at the minesite, and 1 other is a surface mine extracting coal from a coal mine waste pond), 1 is a surface mining operation extracting coal from an underground mine refuse pile, and 4 are loadout facilities (1 of these facilities also has a surface mining operation extracting coal from a coal mine waste pond).
Utah's coal industry has a significant impact on the local economies where mining occurs. According to the Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, Demographic and Economic Analysis Section, coal mining in 1997 employed 2,315 persons in the State. In the three counties where most of the coal mining occurs, all types of mining employed 2442 persons (1141 in Carbon County; 956 in Emery County; and 345 in Sevier County).
The climate of the Central Utah Coal Region is characterized by hot, dry summers and cold, relatively moist winters. Normal precipitation varies from 6 inches in the lower valleys to more than 40 inches on some high plateaus. The growing season ranges from 5 months in some valleys to only 2 ½ months in mountainous regions. These extreme climatic conditions make reclamation a challenge.
III. Overview of the Public Participation Opportunities in the Oversight Process and Utah Program
A. Oversight Process
On April 16, 1998, the OSM/Utah oversight team participated in a Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM) stakeholder's meeting. Thirty-five persons attended this meeting, which served as a forum for interested public and private parties to learn about and provide input on DOGM activities for coal, oil and gas, and other mineral regulatory programs.
The team described a multi-year agreement between OSM and DOGM on how program evaluations will be conducted. (A copy of this agreement is on the OSM Internet homepage at www.osmre.gov/pautah.) It also identified the following five topics that the team intended to review this evaluation year: surface and ground water protection, bonding practices, highwall elimination and retention as a part of approximate original contour restoration, permitting of coal mine access and haul roads, and customer service with respect to the Applicant/Violator System.
The team offered copies of the 1997 annual evaluation report to anyone who was interested in obtaining a paper copy and identified the location on the DOGM Internet homepage where the report is accessible (www.nr.state.ut.us/ogm/osmrpt97). (The report is also accessible on the OSM Internet homepage at www.osmre.gov/report97).
The team did not receive any oral or written comments in response to its request for comments on the oversight process, recommendations for additional review topics, and suggestions for improvements for future annual evaluation reports.
B. Utah Program
In Castle Dale, Utah, on November 13, 1997, the Hydrology Outreach Committee held a forum entitled "Multiple Uses of Water in Emery and Carbon Counties" that was attended by 175 persons. The Committee describes itself as "a consortium of local, State and Federal government, consultants and industry representatives examining the interrelationships of water and mining, and promoting cooperation among water users." OSM, in connection with the 20th anniversary observance of the enactment of SMCRA, took the opportunity to give the Emery County Public Lands Council a Grassroots Organization award. OSM lauded the Council's work on water issues in the Huntington Canyon area in the western portion of Utah's Wasatch Plateau coalfield and cited the "the Council's importance as a venue for citizens to work in partnership with federal and State agencies."
In St. George, Utah, on March 10 and 11, 1998, the Hydrology Outreach Committee had a booth at the Water User's Conference. The Committee displayed information and answered questions on hydrology topics in the Emery County area.
In Price, Utah, on March 19, 1998, DOGM participated in a conference entitled "Utah Coal Conference for Government and Industry". Of the 73 persons that attended, 36 were governmental employees, 26 were from the coal industry, and 10 were consultants.
IV. Accomplishments, Issues, and Innovations
A. Accomplishments
In their evaluation of two topics in evaluation year 1998, OSM and DOGM identified the following accomplishments. Because DOGM is successfully implementing the parts of its OSM-approved program relating to these topics, OSM and DOGM will not be further examining them in evaluation year 1999.
1. Surface and Ground Water Protection
Water monitoring data analyses. During evaluation years 1996 and 1997, OSM and DOGM analyzed water monitoring data for one mine in response to allegations by water user associations that the mine was adversely impacting water resources outside of the permit area. By the end of evaluation year 1997, OSM and DOGM found that flow at one spring was lower than historic observations and recommended that this quantity issue be further examined to better determine if the reduced flows were the result of mining.
In evaluation year 1997, Utah developed Technical Directive Tech-005, which details the State's administrative process for "Review and Interpretation of Water Monitoring Data." The purpose of the directive is to supplement existing procedures and State regulation related to the processing of water monitoring data for both the development of cumulative hydrologic impact assessment findings documents and for the evaluation of water monitoring data gathered during mining.
At approximately the midpoint of evaluation year 1998, the OSM and DOGM team decided that it would discontinue reviewing water quality and quantity data to determine whether impacts to the hydrologic balance were occurring. It made this decision on the bases that (1) it had not identified any significant hydrologic impacts that were attributable to the mine and (2) DOGM had developed a well-defined administrative process in Tech Directive Tech-005 that requires DOGM to continue to review and interpret the mine's water monitoring data and to make decisions on the mine's impacts to the hydrologic balance.
Cumulative hydrologic impact assessments (CHIA's). In evaluation year 1997, OSM and DOGM reviewed DOGM's September 1989 Gentry Mountain CHIA. In the CHIA, DOGM had assessed the cumulative impacts of the aforementioned mine and additional mines adjacent to it. OSM and DOGM found that DOGM had not adequately specified in this CHIA the standards that, if exceeded, would constitute material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.
DOGM began revision of the CHIA in evaluation year 1997 and completed it in September 1998. In the revised CHIA, DOGM evaluated material damage on the basis of the use of the water resource and the water quality standards associated with the use. In so doing, it worked within the framework of State water rights law and State water quality standards. DOGM succeeded in developing a rational set of site-specific material damage standards for the mine.
As a part of an OSM regional review of western State bonding practices, OSM and DOGM evaluated DOGM's bonding practices to determine whether DOGM was inappropriately reducing reclamation performance bonds without going through the formal bond release process. Section 509(e) of SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.15(c) allow bond reductions outside the formal bond release process only in those instances where the acreage to be affected decreases or where the permittee's method of operation or other circumstances reduces the estimated cost for the regulatory authority to reclaim the bonded area. OSM and DOGM reviewed all of the bond adjustments that DOGM made for a 9-month period and found that Utah was appropriately reducing bonds.
B. Issues
In their evaluation of four topics, OSM and DOGM identified the following issues. With one exception (Applicant/Violator System), OSM and DOGM will continue their evaluation of the following topics in evaluation year 1999.
1. Utah Interagency Water Quality Agreement
As the result of their review of citizen complaints during evaluation year 1996, OSM and DOGM concluded that communication on water quality problems at coal mines could be improved between DOGM and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting authority. During evaluation year 1997, OSM and DOGM further concluded that the October 16, 1990, memorandum of understanding (MOU) between DOGM and DEQ does not promote effective communication for enforcing water quality standards at coal mines because:
the MOU lacks a provision that requires DEQ to inform DOGM when DEQ becomes aware of a violation of the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit or of the water quality standards at 40 CFR Part 434, and
although DOGM continues to cite water quality violations, the MOU lacks specificity as to which agency is responsible for issuing violation notices when reports and inspections justify such actions.
During evaluation year 1998, DOGM transmitted proposed MOU revisions to DEQ.
2. Highwall Elimination and Retention As a Part of Approximate Original Contour (AOC) Restoration
During evaluation year 1997, DOGM expended considerable effort to prepare a detailed inventory of the 97 highwalls in the State. The inventory serves as a useful compendium of information on reclamation requirements and plans for each of the highwalls. In using the highwalls inventory, OSM and DOGM identified deficiencies in highwall reclamation plans in one-fifth of the mine permits.
In evaluation year 1998, DOGM developed a prioritized schedule for the permittees to submit proposed permit revisions to correct the deficiencies and for DOGM to review the proposals. The permit revision due dates ranged from August 1998 to February 2000. By letters dated March 3 and 5, 1998, DOGM notified each of the permittees of the permit revision submission deadlines.
OSM and DOGM agreed that they would (1) track the permit revision submission dates and DOGM permit revisions review dates to determine whether the schedule was being adhered to and (2) to review the revised permits to verify that the permit deficiencies where being resolved in accordance with the requirements of the Utah regulatory program.
3. Permitting of Coal Mine Access and Haul Roads
On July 3, 1995, DOGM sent to OSM a letter which included policy statements on the permitting of public roads. OSM agreed with the policy clarification and terminated a proceeding under 30 CFR Part 733 to substitute Federal enforcement for that part of the State program concerning the permitting of coal mine access and haul roads.
In its policy letter, DOGM indicated that an access or haul road may not be required to be permitted if (1) it was properly acquired by the governmental entity (not deeded to avoid regulation), (2) it is maintained with public funds or in exchange for taxes or fees, (3) it was constructed in a manner similar to other public roads of the same classification, and (4) impacts from mining are not significant under the definition of "affected area" and "surface coal mining operations."
During evaluation year 1997, OSM and DOGM reviewed a permit that DOGM had issued during that year to determine whether DOGM was implementing its July 3, 1995, permitting policy. OSM and DOGM concluded that DOGM did not comply with the policy because, in deciding not to require a road to be permitted, DOGM did not make written findings on the last three criteria cited above.
In evaluation year 1998, DOGM wrote for this permit the findings for the three criteria. For an additional permit that it issued and another permit application that it was processing, DOGM wrote findings for all four criteria.
4. Applicant/Violator System (AVS)
Section 510(c) of SMCRA requires a regulatory authority such as DOGM to not issue a permit if any surface coal mining operation owned or controlled by a permit applicant is in violation of SMCRA or any other environmental law in connection with a surface coal mining operation. The only exception to this requirement is if the permit applicant submits proof that such violation has been corrected or is in the process of being corrected. As a means of tracking such violations, OSM developed the computerized AVS.
In an evaluation of DOGM's effectiveness in providing customer service, OSM and DOGM reviewed DOGM's use of AVS. In so doing, OSM and DOGM enlisted the assistance of OSM's Lexington, Kentucky AVS office, which is responsible for maintaining the system.
Under a March 21, 1991, MOU between OSM and DOGM, DOGM agreed (1) to enter into AVS permit, violation, and ownership and control information for its permittees and (2) to use AVS in making decisions on whether to issue permits. In additional memoranda and guidance documents, OSM's AVS office set specific data entry standards (timeliness, information accuracy, and information completeness) and procedures to follow in querying AVS and obtaining the OSM AVS office's manual authorization prior to a regulatory authority issuing a permit.
In their evaluation, OSM and DOGM found that DOGM accurately entered violation and permit information into AVS but that in two instances DOGM did not enter violation information into AVS within the time frames set forth in the OSM AVS memoranda and guidance documents. They also found that in four of six instances DOGM followed the permit issuance procedures but that in two instances DOGM queried AVS but did not receive the OSM AVS office's manual authorization prior to issuing the permits.
These shortcomings were minor in that DOGM did not issue any permits that it should not have. They were the result of Utah's relative unfamiliarity with the system, which was a consequence of its infrequent need to use it. OSM and DOGM evaluators recommended that DOGM remind its AVS users of the MOU, memoranda, and guideline standards.
C. Innovations
For the third consecutive year, persons from OSM and DOGM continued to work as a team to evaluate and assist DOGM in the administration, implementation, and maintenance of the approved Utah regulatory program. During the evaluation year, the team consisted of 12 program and permitting specialists, scientists, and managers from OSM and DOGM. On March 11 and 12, 1998, the team participated in a team building and training exercise that was led by a human resources consultant. The team clarified its goals and functions and renewed its commitment to effectively work together to improve the Utah regulatory program.
DOGM developed a computerized water quantity and quality database, which is accessible on the Internet at http://hlunix.hl.state.ut.us/cgi-bin/appx-ogm.cgi to anyone who has an interest in the data for a specific mine. Targeted users include such groups as concerned citizens, mine permittees, State and Federal agencies, DOGM staff, and OSM. DOGM is developing an electronic permitting system that will among other things allow mine permittees to electronically submit surface and ground water sampling data for the database. DOGM's electronic access to the water data facilitates its review of permits, preparation of CHIA's, and evaluation of citizen water complaints. The computerized system enables citizens to quickly and easily access water quality and quantity data for the mines they are concerned about.
The electronic permitting system will allow mining companies to electronically retrieve formats for permit applications, to submit permit applications, and to access permit application and permit information such as DOGM technical analyses, probable hydrologic consequences analyses, and CHIA's.
V. Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA
To further the concept of reporting end results and measuring Utah's success in achieving the purposes of SMCRA, OSM and DOGM conducted evaluations whose purpose was to measure the number and extent of offsite impacts, the number of acres that have been mined and reclaimed and meet the bond release requirements for the various phases of reclamation, and DOGM's effectiveness of customer service. Individual topic reports, which provide additional details on how OSM and DOGM conducted the evaluations and took the measurements, are available in the OSM Denver Field Division office.
A. Offsite Impacts
Table 4 shows the number and type of offsite impacts that OSM and DOGM documented as having occurred during the evaluation year.
For minesites or facilities where DOGM had not forfeited reclamation performance bonds, OSM and DOGM found six separate incidents where mines or facilities caused offsite impacts. One of these incidents resulted in impacts to more than one type of resource (i.e., one incident caused hydrologic impacts to land and water resources). Therefore, table 4 (top half) shows a total of seven impacts. Of these seven impacts, five were impacts to hydrology resources. All of these hydrology impacts were minor in degree. Although five of the seven were impacts to hydrology resources, there is no pattern that suggests a deficiency in the way that Utah is implementing the hydrologic protection provisions of its regulatory program.
These seven impacts occurred at five different mines or facilities. Therefore, for evaluation year 1998, 82 percent of the permitted operations (23 of 28 permitted operations) were free of offsite impacts. This is a lower percentage than evaluation year 1997 when OSM and DOGM found that 87 percent of the permitted operations (26 of 30) were free of offsite impacts. There probably is no significance to this lower percentage for evaluation year 1998 because there was only one more mine or facility that had offsite impacts in evaluation year 1998 than in evaluation year 1997 (five versus four).
The low total number of observed offsite impacts at nonforfeiture sites is an indication that Utah is effective there in preventing offsite impacts to water, people, land, and man-made structures.
OSM and DOGM compiled this offsite information for nonforfeiture sites from 344 on-the-ground observations they made. These observations included 5 OSM and DOGM joint, complete inspections; 130 DOGM complete inspections; and 209 DOGM partial inspections. In addition to these on-the-ground observations, OSM conducted nonfield reviews of the topics of surface and ground water protection and roads permitting with the intent of determining whether offsite impacts were occurring. As discussed in section IV.A.1 above, OSM and DOGM did not identify any significant offsite impacts to surface and ground water resources that were caused by the mine they evaluated. As discussed in section IV.B.3 above, OSM and DOGM continue to discuss roads permitting for three mines. During these ongoing discussions, OSM and DOGM did not assess whether these roads were causing offsite impacts.
OSM and DOGM are not aware of any offsite impacts that occurred at bond forfeiture sites (bottom half of table 4), although they did not conduct any on-the-ground evaluations to confirm this. OSM and DOGM intend to conduct such evaluations at bond forfeiture sites during evaluation year 1999.
B. Reclamation Success
The measure of reclamation success that OSM and DOGM used in evaluation year 1998 was permanent program disturbed acreage that had received bond release. Historically, the amount of bond release acreage in Utah has been very low due to the following two factors.
Of Utah's 28 permitted operations, 23 are underground mines (table 2). Most of these underground mining operations are long-lived, and the surface disturbances for them are relatively small and remain active during the entire life of the mining operations because of their continued use as surface facilities.
The 10-year minimum bond liability period and extreme climatic conditions make revegetation difficult.
Table 5 shows the acreage released partially (phases I and II) or totally (phase III) from bond during the evaluation year. Of the 2,605 acres of total disturbance that had not yet received final (phase III) bond release at the beginning of the evaluation year, DOGM did not grant any phase I or II bond releases, but it did grant phase III bond releases for 123 acres of permanent regulatory program disturbances and terminated jurisdiction on 40 acres of initial regulatory program disturbances.
During the 17 years since OSM originally approved Utah's program, six phase III bond releases have occurred. Four of these six releases occurred during evaluation year 1998. To celebrate the bond releases at two of these minesites, DOGM on June 16, 1998, led an afternoon tour of one of them and participated in an evening bond release ceremony that was attended by one of the landowners, industry, OSM, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service. DOGM received favorable publicity about the mine tour and successful minesite reclamation in a Salt Lake Tribune newspaper article.
In addition to this analysis of bond release acreage, OSM and DOGM, as described in section IV.B.2, also assessed reclamation success in its evaluation of highwall reclamation. In evaluation year 1997, OSM and DOGM found that, with respect to approximate original contour restoration, minesite reclamation on a portion of one mine, and possibly two others, will not be entirely successful because highwalls and cut-slopes created there after May 3, 1978, will not be completely eliminated. Also, as described in section IV.B.2, approximately one-fifth of the permits have reclamation plan deficiencies concerning highwall reclamation. Until the permittees revise their permits to resolve these deficiencies, OSM and DOGM will not be able to fully assess the degree of success of highwall reclamation in the State.
As described in section IV.B.2, OSM and DOGM evaluated DOGM's bonding practices to determine whether it was inappropriately reducing reclamation performance bonds without going through the formal bond release process. Certain bond reductions would be inappropriate if a State did not include landowner and public notification of proposed bond reductions, which are provided for in the formal bond release process. OSM and DOGM found that DOGM was not engaging in this type of inappropriate activity.
As discussed in section IV.B.1, OSM and DOGM found as a result of their citizen complaint evaluations that a water quality MOU between DOGM and Utah DEQ did not promote effective communication on water quality enforcement. Ultimately, this ineffective communication could lead to disservice of two of DOGM's primary customers: citizens who may be affected by water quality noncompliances and mining companies that are responsible for resolving noncompliances. DOGM has initiated with Utah DEQ discussions that should yield MOU revisions which will have positive impacts for customer service.
As described in section IV.B.4, OSM and DOGM evaluated DOGM's use of AVS. Minor, easily correctable lapses in using the computerized system did not lead to DOGM issuing any permits that it should not have. As a result, there are no negative impacts to any citizens that may have had concerns about the permits. Likewise, there were no negative impacts to mining companies that would have been affected if permits would have had to be temporarily rescinded.
VI. OSM Assistance
For the 1-year grant period starting July 1, 1998, OSM funded the Utah program in the amount of $1.50 million (table 8). Through a Federal lands cooperative agreement, OSM reimburses DOGM for permitting, inspection, and other activities that it performs for mines on Federal lands. Because most of the mines in Utah occur on Federal lands, the percentage of total program costs for which OSM provided funding was high (85.5 percent, table 8).
In September 1998, OSM augmented this grant money with an additional $20,000. DOGM will use this money to hire a hydrogeology consultant to conduct a spring diminution study at the mine discussed in section IV.A.1. DOGM, the U.S. Forest Service, one of the mining companies, and local water user organizations are also providing funding for this project.
In evaluation year 1997, OSM entered into a memorandum of agreement with DOGM that gave DOGM $6960 to buy computer hardware and software for the water quantity and quality database and the electronic permitting system that are discussed in section IV.C. In evaluation year 1998, OSM gave DOGM an additional $15,171 for these projects.
OSM made available to DOGM the services of a human resources consultant who is under contract to OSM. In July 1998, the consultant provided DOGM with 2 days of training on teamwork. The cost to OSM for these services was $4717.
Under its Technical Training Program and Technology Transfer Program, OSM offers free of charge a variety of courses, workshops, and forums to State and Tribal employees. During the evaluation year, six DOGM employees attended the following Technical Training Program courses: Spoil Handling and Disposal, Surface and Ground Water Hydrology, Evidence Preparation and Testimony, Soils and Revegetation, and Applied Engineering Principles. During the evaluation year, 18 DOGM employees attended the following Technology Transfer Program workshop and forums: Statistical Sampling for Baseline Studies, Bond Release and Monitoring Studies Workshop; Topics in Statistical Analysis for Environmental Monitoring Associated with the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act; Advanced Statistical Methods for Bond Release in Arid and Semi-Arid Regions; and Interactive Forum on Approaching Bond Release: Applied Statistics for Reclamation and Surface Mining Applications in the Arid, Semi-Arid West.
VII. Oversight Topic Reviews
In the time period from October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998, OSM and DOGM evaluated the following topics: surface and ground water protection, bonding practices, interagency water quality MOU, highwall elimination and retention as a part of AOC restoration, permitting of coal mine access and haul roads, and use of AVS. Written reports for all of these topics are available for review in the OSM Denver Field Division office.
Appendix. Tabular Summary of Core Data Characterizing the Utah Program
The following tables present data pertinent to mining operations and State and Federal regulatory activities within Utah. They also summarize Utah staffing and OSM funding. Unless otherwise specified, the reporting period for the data contained in all tables is October 1, 1997, to September 30, 1998.
|
COAL PRODUCTIONA (Millions of short tons) | |||
|
Period |
Surface mines |
Underground mines |
Total |
| 1995
1996 1997 |
0.43
0.85 0.61 |
25.73
28.09 25.79 |
26.16
28.94 26.40 |
ACoal 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 |
Number and status of permits |
Insp. UnitC |
Disturbed acreage | ||||||||||||
|
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 LANDSA | REGULATORY AUTHORITY: UTAH | ||||||||||||||
| Surface mines | _ | 1 | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | 1 | _ | _ | 202 | 202 | |||
| Underground mines | _ | 5 | _ | 1 | _ | _ | _ | 6 | _ | _ | 106 | 106 | |||
| Other facilities | _ | 2 | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | 2 | _ | _ | 516 | 516 | |||
| Subtotals | _ | 8 | _ | 1 | _ | _ | _ | 9 | _ | _ | 824 | 824 | |||
| FEDERAL LANDSB | REGULATORY AUTHORITY: UTAH | ||||||||||||||
| Surface mines | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | |||
| Underground mines | _ | 17 | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | 17 | _ | _ | 1624 | 1624 | |||
| Other facilities | _ | 2 | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | 2 | _ | _ | 81 | 81 | |||
| Subtotals | _ | 19 | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | 19 | _ | _ | 1705 | 1705 | |||
| ALL LANDS | |||||||||||||||
| Surface mines | _ | 1 | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | 1 | _ | _ | 202 | 202 | |||
| Underground mines | _ | 22 | _ | 1 | _ | _ | _ | 23 | _ | _ | 1730 | 1730 | |||
| Other facilities | _ | 4 | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | 4 | _ | _ | 597 | 597 | |||
| Totals | _ | 27 | _ | 1 | _ | _ | _ | 28 | _ | _ | 2529 | 2529 | |||
| Average number of permits per inspectable unit (excluding exploration sites)
Average number of acres per inspectable unit (excluding exploration sites) 87 |
1
|
||||||||||||||
| Number of exploration permits on State and private lands:
Number of exploration notices on State and private lands: |
3
0 |
On Federal lands:
On Federal lands: |
0
3 |
D
D | |||||||||||
| IP: Initial regulatory program sites.
PP: Permanent regulatory program sites. | |||||||||||||||
| A Mines or facilities where entire disturbed area occurs on State and/or private lands.
B Mines or facilities where at least a portion of the disturbed area occurs on Federal lands. C Inspectable Units includes multiple permits that have been grouped together as one unit for inspection frequency purposes by some State programs. | |||||||||||||||
|
UTAH 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 | 2 | 1 | 30 | 2 | 1 | 30 | ||||||
| Renewals | 3 | 2 | 243 | 3 | 2 | 243 | ||||||
| Amendments | 1 | 1 | 0B | 1 | 1 | 0B | ||||||
| Incidental boundary revisions | 2 | 0 | 490 | 2 | 0 | 490 | ||||||
| Revisions (exclusive of incidental boundary revisions) | 63 | 55 | 63 | 55 | ||||||||
| Transfers, sales and assignments of permit rights | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| Small operator assistance | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| Exploration permits | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| Exploration noticesC | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | ||||||||
| Totals | 80 | 65 | 763 | 80 | 65 | 763 | ||||||
| Number of midterm permit reviews completed that are not reported as revisions 6
A Includes only the number of acres of proposed surface disturbance. B Amendments (significant permit revisions) added 320 acres to permitted acreage but none to disturbed surface acreage (i.e., all proposed disturbance was underground). C 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 |
3 |
3 |
|||||||||||
| Encroachment | |||||||||||||
| Other |
1 |
||||||||||||
| Total |
4 |
3 |
|||||||||||
|
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 | |||||||||||||
TABLE 5
|
ANNUAL STATE MINING AND RECLAMATION RESULTS | ||
|
|
|
|
| Approximate original contour restored | 0 | |
|
|
Topsoil or approved alternative replaced
Surface stabilized Vegetation established |
0 |
|
|
Postmining land use/productivity restored
Vegetation successfully and permanently established Groundwater recharge, quality, and quantity restored Surface water quality and quantity restored |
123A, B |
| Acres | ||
| Total number of bonded acres at end of last evaluation year (September 30, 1997)C |
2605 | |
| Total number of bonded acres at the end of this evaluation year (September 30, 1998)C |
2529 | |
| Number of acres at the end of this evaluation year that are bonded for remining |
0.00 | |
| Number of acres where bond was forfeited during this evaluation year |
0.00 | |
| A The acreage receiving bond release was low owing to (1) most of the operations being long-lived underground mines with relatively
small surface disturbances that remain active during the entire life of the mining operations and (2) a 10-year minimum bond liability
period and extreme climatic conditions that make revegetation difficult.
B Not included in this total is 40 acres of initial regulatory program disturbance on which DOGM terminated jurisdiction. C Bonded acreage in this category is that disturbed acreage that had not received a phase III bond release. | ||
TABLE 6
|
STATE BOND FORFEITURE ACTIVITY (Permanent Program Permits) | ||||
| Sites | Dollars | Acres | ||
| Bonds forfeited as of September 30, 1997A | 1 | 1,888,000 | 289B | |
| Bonds forfeited during EY 1998 | 0 | |||
| Forfeited bonds collected as September 30, 1997A | 1 | 1,888,000 | 289B | |
| Forfeited bonds collected during EY 1998 | 0 | |||
| Forfeiture sites reclaimed during EY 1998 | 0 | C | ||
| Forfeiture sites repermitted during EY 1998 | 0 | |||
| Forfeiture sites unreclaimed as of September 30, 1998 | 1 | 289B | ||
| 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 Disturbed acres. C Cost of reclamation, excluding general administrative expenses. | ||||
|
UTAH STAFFING (Full-time equivalents at end of evaluation year) | |
|
Function |
EY 1998 |
| Regulatory Program
|
|
| Permit review | 15.0 |
| Inspection | 6.0 |
| Program administration | 3.0 |
|
Total |
24.0 |
|
FUNDS GRANTED TO UTAH BY OSM (Millions of dollars) | ||
|
Type of grant |
Federal funds awarded |
Federal funding
as a percentage of total program costs |
| Administration and
enforcement |
1.50 | 85.5 |
| Small operator
assistance |
0.00 | 0.0 |
| 1.50 | ||