Surface Coal Mining
Characteristics of Mining in Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and West Virginia Gao ID: GAO-10-21 December 9, 2009Surface coal mining in the mountainous areas of Appalachia--often called "mountaintop mining"--generates controversy, in part because of its scale and the post-mining appearance of the land. Yet there is limited public access to information on the size, location, and life span of these operations, or on how the land can be expected to look afterward. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to report on the characteristics of (1) surface coal mining and (2) reclaimed lands that were disturbed by surface coal mining in the mountainous, eastern part of Kentucky and in West Virginia, where most such mining occurs. Federal and state law requires mining operators to obtain permits before mining. Among other things, the permits identify the acres under open permit (the acres subject to mining associated with a permit that has not been closed) and how the land will be reclaimed--including the post-mining land use, whether the approximate original contour (AOC) of the land will be restored, and the extent to which excess earth, rock, and other materials (known as "spoil") are placed in nearby valleys. For this study, GAO relied on electronic databases of mining permits maintained by Kentucky and West Virginia. This report makes no recommendations. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior and the two state mining agencies generally agreed with our findings
Surface coal mining in Kentucky and West Virginia had the following important characteristics, based on permits issued from January 1990 through July 2008: (1) The number of acres under open permit increased by an average annual rate of 2.2 percent in Kentucky and 1.7 percent in West Virginia; (2) the number of acres under open permit became more geographically concentrated; (3) the length of time that permits were open varied from less than a year to more than 18 years; (4) in West Virginia, 28 contiguously permitted areas contained nearly half of the permitted acres, as of July 2008. Reclaimed lands had the following important characteristics, based on permits issued from January 2000 through July 2008: (1) The most common type of post-mining land use in Kentucky was fish and wildlife habitat and, in West Virginia, it was forestlandl; (2) most permits required operators to reclaim the land to AOC, but there were some exceptions (called variances). Most of the variances were for lands where there was insufficient spoil to restore AOC because the land had been previously mined but not reclaimed; (3) Kentucky and West Virginia collectively approved nearly 2,000 fills to store at least 4.9 billion cubic yards of excess spoil in nearby valleys.
GAO-10-21, Surface Coal Mining: Characteristics of Mining in Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and West Virginia
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-21
entitled 'Surface Coal Mining: Characteristics of Mining in Mountainous
Areas of Kentucky and West Virginia' which was released on December 9,
2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
December 2009:
Surface Coal Mining:
Characteristics of Mining in Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and West
Virginia:
GAO-10-21:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-21, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Surface coal mining in the mountainous areas of Appalachia”often
called ’mountaintop mining“”generates controversy, in part because of
its scale and the post-mining appearance of the land. Yet there is
limited public access to information on the size, location, and life
span of these operations, or on how the land can be expected to look
afterward. GAO was asked to report on the characteristics of (1)
surface coal mining and (2) reclaimed lands that were disturbed by
surface coal mining in the mountainous, eastern part of Kentucky and in
West Virginia, where most such mining occurs.
Federal and state law requires mining operators to obtain permits
before mining. Among other things, the permits identify the acres under
open permit (the acres subject to mining associated with a permit that
has not been closed) and how the land will be reclaimed”including the
post-mining land use, whether the approximate original contour (AOC) of
the land will be restored, and the extent to which excess earth, rock,
and other materials (known as ’spoil“) are placed in nearby valleys.
For this study, GAO relied on electronic databases of mining permits
maintained by Kentucky and West Virginia. This report makes no
recommendations. In commenting on a draft of this report, the
Department of the Interior and the two state mining agencies generally
agreed with our findings.
What GAO Found:
Surface coal mining in Kentucky and West Virginia had the following
important characteristics, based on permits issued from January 1990
through July 2008:
* The number of acres under open permit increased by an average annual
rate of 2.2 percent in Kentucky and 1.7 percent in West Virginia.
* The number of acres under open permit became more geographically
concentrated.
* The length of time that permits were open varied from less than a
year to more than 18 years.
* In West Virginia, 28 contiguously permitted areas contained nearly
half of the permitted acres, as of July 2008.
Reclaimed lands had the following important characteristics, based on
permits issued from January 2000 through July 2008:
* The most common type of post-mining land use in Kentucky was fish and
wildlife habitat and, in West Virginia, it was forestland.
* Most permits required operators to reclaim the land to AOC, but there
were some exceptions (called variances). Most of the variances were for
lands where there was insufficient spoil to restore AOC because the
land had been previously mined but not reclaimed.
* Kentucky and West Virginia collectively approved nearly 2,000 fills
to store at least 4.9 billion cubic yards of excess spoil in nearby
valleys.
Figure: A West Virginia site showing the bare soil of active mining and
the greener land that is being reclaimed:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
View GAO-10-21 or key components. For more information, contact Robin
Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Characteristics of Surface Coal Mining in Mountainous Areas in Kentucky
and West Virginia:
Characteristics of Reclaimed Lands That Were Disturbed by Surface Coal
Mining in Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and West Virginia:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix III: Comments from the Kentucky Department for Natural
Resources:
Appendix IV: Comments from the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Coal Production from Surface Mines in Select States and
Regions, 2008:
Table 2: The 10 Counties in Kentucky with the Largest Number of Open
Acres in July 2008 and the Number of Open Acres in Those Counties in
1990:
Table 3: The 10 Counties in West Virginia with the Largest Number of
Open Acres in July 2008 and the Number of Open Acres in Those Counties
in 1990:
Figures:
Figure 1: Contour, Auger, and Highwall Mining:
Figure 2: Area Mining on a Mountaintop:
Figure 3: Acres in Kentucky Associated with Issued, Released, or
Forfeited Permits, by Year the Permit Was Issued, Released, or
Forfeited, 1970-July 2008:
Figure 4: Cumulative Number of Acres in Kentucky Associated with Open,
Released, and Forfeited Permits, 1970-July 2008:
Figure 5: Acres in West Virginia Associated with Issued, Released, or
Forfeited Permits, by Year the Permit Was Issued, Released, or
Forfeited, 1961-July 2008:
Figure 6: Cumulative Number of Acres in West Virginia Associated with
Open, Released, and Forfeited Permits, 1961-July 2008:
Figure 7: Acres in Kentucky under Open Permit as a Percentage of All
Acres under Open Permit in the 10 Counties with the Largest Number of
Open Acres in July 2008:
Figure 8: Acres in West Virginia under Open Permit as a Percentage of
all Acres under Open Permit in the 10 Counties with the Largest Number
of Open Acres in July 2008:
Figure 9: Average Length of Time Kentucky Permits Issued Since 1990
Were Open, by Size and Status, as of July 2008:
Figure 10: Average Length of Time West Virginia Permits Issued Since
1990 Were Open by Size and Status, as of July 2008:
Figure 11: The 559 Permitted Areas in West Virginia, as of July 2008:
Figure 12: The 28 largest Permitted Areas in West Virginia:
Figure 13: PMLU Types Approved in Kentucky, 1970-2008:
Figure 14: PMLU Types Approved in West Virginia, 1970-2008:
Figure 15: Pre-Mining Land Use Types Identified in Kentucky, 1970-2008:
Figure 16: Pre-Mining Land Use Types Identified in West Virginia, 1970-
2008:
Figure 17: An Illustration of a Reclaimed Site Meeting the AOC
Requirement, Compared with the Original, Pre-Mining Contour:
Figure 18: Number of Permits in Kentucky Issued to Be Reclaimed to AOC,
Compared with Permits Issued with AOC Variances, 1970-2008:
Figure 19: Number of Permits in West Virginia Issued to Be Reclaimed to
AOC, Compared with Permits Issued with AOC Variances, 1970-2008:
Figure 20: A Reclaimed, Surface-Mined Site with an AOC Variance in West
Virginia:
Figure 21: Types of AOC Variances Approved in Kentucky, 1970-2008:
Figure 22: Types of AOC Variances Approved in West Virginia, 1970-2008:
Figure 23: A Terraced Fill on a Reclaimed Site in West Virginia:
Figure 24: Fills Approved in Kentucky, 1970-2008:
Figure 25: Storage Volume of Fills Approved in Kentucky, 1970-2008:
Figure 26: Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970-2008:
Figure 27: Storage Volume of Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970-
2008:
Figure 28: Length of Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970-2008:
Abbreviations:
AOC: approximate original contour:
EIA: Energy Information Administration:
ERIS: Environmental Resources Information System:
OSM: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement:
PMLU: post-mining land use:
SMCRA: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977:
SMIS: Surface Mining Information System:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 9, 2009:
The Honorable Norm D. Dicks:
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael K. Simpson:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jeff Bingaman:
Chairman:
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:
United States Senate:
Surface mining for coal in the mountainous areas of Appalachia--often
referred to as mountaintop mining--generates controversy due to the
scale of mining operations and concern about the post-mining appearance
of reclaimed lands, among other issues. Mountaintop mining operations
can involve thousands of acres and take a decade or more to complete.
During this time, the land is cleared of forests and other vegetation,
and explosives or other techniques are used to break up the earth,
rock, and other materials (known as "spoil"). The spoil is then removed
to expose the underlying coal seams and allow for its extraction.
[Footnote 1] Once the coal has been extracted, some or most of the
spoil is placed back on top of the mined-out area. Excess spoil is
often placed in adjacent valleys. The area is then prepared for its
post-mining land use.
Surface mining is an important source of coal production in Appalachia,
accounting for about 40 percent of the coal produced in the region in
2008, the most recent data available.[Footnote 2] In 2008, Kentucky and
West Virginia accounted for about 76 percent of the coal produced from
surface mines in Appalachia, producing about 120 million tons, making
them the third-and second-largest surface coal-producing states in the
nation.[Footnote 3] Almost all surface mining in Appalachia occurs on
private land.
Surface mining of coal is regulated by the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), which created the Department of the
Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
to implement and enforce the act. SMCRA allows an individual state to
develop its own program to implement SMCRA if that program is in
accordance with federal law and is approved by OSM. OSM is charged with
enforcing states' adherence to their approved programs or implementing
a federal program in accordance with SMCRA if the state fails to
submit, implement, or enforce its own program. OSM has approved
programs for 24 states, including Kentucky and West Virginia in 1982
and 1981, respectively.
Despite the public scrutiny that surface mining in mountainous areas
has received, the public is limited in its ability to access
information on the scope of these operations--their size, location, and
how long they have been in operation--and on what the mountain can be
expected to look like after mining operations have ceased and the land
has been reclaimed. Although this information is available to the
public, the public cannot readily aggregate these data over time to
perform trend analyses, which is a key component to understanding the
characteristics of surface mining in these states since mining
operations can last a decade or more. In response to your request, this
report provides information on the characteristics, over time, of (1)
surface coal mining in mountainous areas in Kentucky and West Virginia
and (2) reclaimed lands disturbed by surface coal mining in mountainous
areas in Kentucky and West Virginia.
This report focuses on surface coal mining in the mountainous areas of
Kentucky and West Virginia because these are the states in which the
majority of mountaintop mining that is the source of controversy in
Appalachia occurs. These areas accounted for about 73 percent of
Appalachia's surface coal production in 2008. For Kentucky, we included
in our analysis surface mining permits in the mountainous, eastern part
of the state, which accounted for most of the state's surface coal
production. We excluded permits in the flatter, western part of
Kentucky, which accounted for about 9 percent of Kentucky's surface
coal production in 2008. We included surface mining permits from all of
West Virginia in our analysis. To address our objectives, we relied
extensively on the two states' electronic databases, which contain
select information from the states' surface mining permit files. The
permit files provide detail on mining operations that are not contained
in these databases. The Kentucky database is called the Surface Mining
Information System (SMIS). The West Virginia database is called the
Environmental Resources Information System (ERIS). Through extensive
discussion with state officials familiar with these electronic
databases, and our analysis of the information from the databases, we
determined that specific data elements are sufficiently reliable within
certain time frames. Specifically, due to limits on data reliability
and to be consistent between the states, we are reporting on the
characteristics of surface mining in Kentucky and West Virginia from
January 1990 through July 2008 and on the characteristics of reclaimed
lands that were disturbed by surface mining from January 2000 through
July 2008, except for Kentucky's data on variances, for which we are
reporting from January 2002 through July 2008. However, SMIS and ERIS
also contain data on these characteristics for prior years, in some
cases dating to 1961. For some of these years, for some data elements,
we determined that the data is reliable; in other instances, we
identified specific data limitations. Although the general public has
access to data from all years--the surface mining permit files in
Kentucky and West Virginia are public documents--the data are readily
accessible to the public by electronically accessing SMIS and ERIS. We
include data from all years in many of the graphics in our report in
order to provide a comprehensive overview of the data in SMIS and ERIS
that clearly identifies the years for which there are data limitations
and what those data limitations are. We believe that presenting data
from the earlier years--and its limitations--decreases the likelihood
of misuse or misinterpretation because the limitations on the data are
not disclosed on the Web sites from which the public accesses SMIS and
ERIS. Additionally, for West Virginia, we combined data from ERIS with
electronic geospatial files of permit boundaries from the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection to determine which permitted
areas were adjacent to each other. From this information, we identified
the largest, contiguously permitted areas in West Virginia. We had
insufficient data to identify contiguously permitted areas in Kentucky.
We also reviewed relevant federal and state laws, regulations, and
policy guidance on surface coal mining and reclamation; visited several
active mining operations and reclaimed sites in the two states; and met
with officials from OSM, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, and the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources. A more
detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in
appendix I. We conducted our work from March 2008 to December 2009 in
accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to
meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work.
We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions
in this report.
Background:
This section provides background on surface coal mining techniques used
in Kentucky and West Virginia, coal production data, and SMCRA's
requirements for coal mining operations.
Surface Coal Mining Methods Used in Kentucky and West Virginia:
A number of different surface mining methods are used to mine coal in
Appalachia--including in Kentucky and West Virginia. The method used
depends largely on the geology, terrain, and the accessibility of the
underlying coal seam. Three of the most commonly used methods are
contour mining, auger/highwall mining, and area mining. What is
conventionally referred to as mountaintop mining is typically mining
using one or more of these methods in mountainous areas.
Contour mining is typically used where coal seams are exposed in
outcrops on hillsides and mountainsides. A cut is first made in the
hillside above a coal seam to remove the overburden--the dirt and rock
above a coal seam. This further exposes the coal seam and creates a
flat area, called a bench, and a highwall--a cliff of exposed rock left
after a surface mining operation has cut into the landscape. The mine
is then enlarged by successive cuts that follow the coal seam around
the side of the hill. The mining extends into the hill to the point
where the overburden is too thick to make further exposure of the coal
seam economic. The overburden--which is called spoil once it has been
removed--can be placed back on top of the mined-out area. Any excess
spoil that is not replaced because of stability or other reasons is
placed in nearby valleys and hollows. Additionally, auger mining often
is used at this stage to maximize the amount of coal recovered. Auger
mining involves drilling into an exposed coal seam at the highwall,
from the bench--much like a carpenter drills through wood. If coal seam
characteristics permit, a "highwall miner" may be used in place of an
auger. A highwall miner typically uses rotary cutting heads to extract
the coal from the exposed coal seam. Both methods are secondary methods
that permit the recovery of additional coal that would not be
economically recovered through surface or underground mining. Figure 1
depicts contour, auger, and highwall mining.
Figure 1: Contour, Auger, and Highwall Mining:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Depicted on the illustration are the following:
Original contour;
Overburden;
Highwall;
Coal seam;
Bench;
Auger and highwall mining.
Source: GAO depiction of an OSM figure.
[End of figure]
To recover additional coal that cannot be recovered through contour and
auger mining, some or all of a mountaintop can be area mined. To
provide a flat surface for the operation of equipment, a first cut is
made parallel to the top of the ridge after vegetation and topsoil have
been removed. The overburden is loosened by blasting and removed. Once
the coal seam is uncovered, the coal can be removed. As with contour
mining, the overburden can be placed back on top of the mined-out area
or in nearby valleys and hollows. Figure 2 depicts area mining on a
mountaintop.
Figure 2: Area Mining on a Mountaintop:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Depicted on the illustration are the following:
Original contour;
Overburden;
Highwall;
Coal seam;
Bench;
Spoil.
Source: GAO depiction of an OSM figure.
[End of figure]
Surface Coal Production in Kentucky and West Virginia:
In 2008, Kentucky and West Virginia accounted for about 76 percent of
the coal produced from surface mines in Appalachia and are the states
with the third-and second-largest surface coal production totals in the
country, respectively. Wyoming is the largest. See table 1.
Table 1: Coal Production from Surface Mines in Select States and
Regions, 2008:
State/region: All U.S. surface mines;
Production (thousands of short tons): 813,322;
Percentage of production of total U.S. surface mines: 100%.
State/region: Appalachia (including eastern Kentucky and West
Virginia);
Production (thousands of short tons): 157,705;
Percentage of production of total U.S. surface mines: 19.4.
State/region: Kentucky (east and west);
Production (thousands of short tons): 50,849;
Percentage of production of total U.S. surface mines: 6.3.
State/region: Kentucky (east only);
Production (thousands of short tons): 46,116;
Percentage of production of total U.S. surface mines: 5.7.
State/region: West Virginia;
Production (thousands of short tons): 69,409;
Percentage of production of total U.S. surface mines: 8.5.
State/region: Wyoming;
Production (thousands of short tons): 464,143;
Percentage of production of total U.S. surface mines: 57.1%.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration
(EIA).
Note: EIA defines Appalachia for purposes of compiling data on coal
production to include Alabama, eastern Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
[End of table]
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Requirements for Regulating
Coal Mining Operations:
SMCRA and its implementing rules set national standards for regulating
the surface impact from both surface and underground mines. States with
their own programs are to set standards in accordance with federal
standards, and the requirements of Kentucky and West Virginia are
generally similar to federal requirements.[Footnote 4] In some
instances, the wording of Kentucky and West Virginia's state
requirements is identical to the federal requirements. OSM oversight
focuses on assuring that state regulating agencies comply with the
requirements of the approved state program. SMCRA requires OSM to make
such inspections as are necessary to evaluate how well state programs
are administered.
Under approved state programs, state regulatory agencies review and
approve surface mining permits. The permitting process requires
operators to submit detailed plans that describe the extent of the
proposed mining operations and how reclamation will be achieved.
[Footnote 5] For example, operators must identify the area to be
permitted, provide technical descriptions of how mining operations will
be conducted, and describe how the land will be reclaimed. In
reclaiming the land, operators generally must backfill, compact, and
grade the mined-out area and eliminate all highwalls[Footnote 6], spoil
piles, and depressions. Operators are also required to comply with
standards that govern, among other things, the post-mining use(s) for
which the reclaimed land will be prepared, the final contour of the
reclaimed land, and how spoil that is not deposited back onto the mined-
out area will be handled.
To help ensure that operators comply with regulatory requirements and
permit provisions, including a site's reclamation plan, SMCRA requires
operators to post a bond (or bonds). States are also authorized to set
up an alternative system if it will achieve the same objectives and
purposes as the bonding requirements of SMCRA. For example, West
Virginia imposes a tax on coal production, the proceeds of which are
used to reclaim forfeited sites instead of requiring a bond reflecting
the full projected cost of site reclamation. Once a state bond release
specialist determines that all reclamation standards identified in the
permit have been met, the bond is "released," meaning the money put up
for bond is returned to the operator. Once the bond has been released,
state jurisdiction over the mining operation ceases. If an operator
fails to comply with applicable provisions, it may forfeit the bond, in
which case the state becomes responsible for reclaiming the land to the
reclamation standards found in the operator's permit.
When a permit is issued, it is considered an open permit until the bond
associated with it is completely released or forfeited, at which time
it is considered a closed permit. Permits are not actively mined during
the entire period that the permit is open. For example, mining might
not have begun, or the land could be in the process of being reclaimed
prior to bond release. In this report, the acres associated with issued
permits (whether open or closed) are sometimes referred to as "issued
acres" for the purposes of brevity and readability. Similarly, the
acres associated with open permits are sometimes referred to as "acres
under open permit" or "open acres." If a permit is closed because the
bond associated with it was completely released, the permit is referred
to as a "released permit," and the acres associated with the released
permit are sometimes referred to as "released acres." If the permit is
closed because the bond was forfeited, the permit is referred to as a
"forfeited permit," and the acres associated with the permit are
sometimes referred to as "forfeited acres."
Characteristics of Surface Coal Mining in Mountainous Areas in Kentucky
and West Virginia:
Based on data provided to us by Kentucky and West Virginia, we are
reporting on three characteristics in surface mining in the mountainous
areas of these two states. We identified a fourth characteristic in
West Virginia using electronic geospatial files of permit boundaries
provided to us by the state. These data were not available from
Kentucky. In summary:
* First, the number of acres under open permit increased because the
number of acres issued grew faster than the number of acres released or
forfeited. The average annual growth rate from January 1990 through
July 2008 was about 2.2 percent in Kentucky and 1.7 percent in West
Virginia.
* Second, acres under open permit have become more concentrated in
specific counties since 1990. About 44 percent of the acres under open
permit in Kentucky, as of July 2008, were located in three counties--
Pike County, Perry County, and Knott County. In 1990, the three
counties with the most acres under open permit accounted for only 28
percent of the total. Similarly, in West Virginia, as of July 2008,
Boone County, Logan County, and Mingo County accounted for about 48
percent of all acres under open permit at that time, compared with 33
percent for the three counties with the most acres under open permit in
1990.
* Third, the length of time that permits were open varied. In Kentucky,
for permits issued since 1990, the length of time a permit was open--
from issuance to release--ranged from less than 1 year to more than 18
years and averaged about 7-1/2 years. In West Virginia, the length of
time from issuance to release ranged from less than 1 year to almost 17
years and averaged about 8-1/2 years. Moreover, both states have a
substantial number of permits that were issued since 1990 that were
still open as of July 2008. The average length of time these permits
were open was nearly 5 years in Kentucky and more than 8-1/2 years in
West Virginia.
* Fourth, nearly half of the permitted acres in West Virginia are
concentrated in 28 contiguously permitted areas. We identified these
areas using available electronic geospatial files of West Virginia
permit boundaries for permits that were open in July 2008 or that were
released or forfeited since 1990. These 28 contiguously permitted areas
account for 178,600 acres, or about 47 percent of all the acreage that
is either currently open or that was released or forfeited since 1990.
The largest of these contiguously permitted areas is 21,700 acres and
is made up of 37 permits. About 89 percent of the acreage in the 28
contiguously permitted areas is under open permit as of July 2008.
Both states' databases provide data on acres under open permit and
related data for years prior to 1990. However, for some of these
earlier years, the data understates or overstates mining activity.
Because of these data limitations, and to be consistent between the
states, we base our analysis on data from January 1990 through July
2008. We present the results of this analysis in the text of this
section of the report. However, we include data from the earlier years
in some of the figures in this section and identify the data
limitations for these years in order to provide a comprehensive
overview of the data in the states' databases that clearly identify the
years for which there are data limitations and what those data
limitations are. We believe that presenting data from the earlier
years--and its limitations--decreases the likelihood for misuse or
misinterpretation because the data is publicly available, but its
limitations are not disclosed on the Web sites from which the public
can access the data. Data from the earlier years should not be relied
upon to convey a representative picture of past mining characteristics
or decisions.
Acres Under Open Permit Have Increased in Kentucky and West Virginia:
The two states' databases show that the number of acres associated with
open permits has increased from 1990 through 2008. Kentucky provided us
with data on the number of permits and their associated acres that were
issued, released, and forfeited from 1970 through July 2008. However,
data from the 1980s double counts some issued and released permits (and
associated acreage). A Kentucky state official told us that all permits
open in the mid-1980s were reissued to comply with revisions to state
regulations. However, the number of reissued permits and their
associated acres cannot be distinguished from other permits that were
issued during that time frame. A state official knowledgeable about the
reissuing effort told us that it was completed by 1990 and that
subsequent data should therefore generally be considered reliable.
Additionally, data from the 1970s undercounts some permits (and
associated acreage) because not all permits of that era are included in
the SMIS database. Figure 3 shows the number of acres for which permits
were issued, released, and forfeited by year, and includes the spike in
permitted acres that resulted not from new mining but from the permit
reissuing effort in the 1980s.
Figure 3: Acres in Kentucky Associated with Issued, Released, or
Forfeited Permits, by Year the Permit Was Issued, Released, or
Forfeited, 1970-July 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph and subgraph]
Data undercounts issued, released, and forfeited acres in the 1970s and
double counts some acres in the 1980s.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1970;
Acres released: 0;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres issued: 246.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1971;
Acres released: 0;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres issued: 1,139.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1972;
Acres released: 0;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres issued: 14.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1973;
Acres released: 0;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres issued: 993.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1974;
Acres released: 0;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres issued: 2,157.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1975;
Acres released: 0;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres issued: 2,467.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1976;
Acres released: 0;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres issued: 2,122.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1977;
Acres released: 0;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres issued: 6,374.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1978;
Acres released: 27;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres issued: 8,857.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1979;
Acres released: 425;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres issued: 10,826.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1980;
Acres released: 879;
Acres forfeited: 3;
Acres issued: 14,995.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1981;
Acres released: 964;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres issued: 3,621.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1982;
Acres released: 3,916;
Acres forfeited: 94;
Acres issued: 40,792.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1983;
Acres released: 6,235;
Acres forfeited: 309;
Acres issued: 14,808.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1984;
Acres released: 12,811;
Acres forfeited: 868;
Acres issued: 93,689.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1985;
Acres released: 7,182;
Acres forfeited: 643;
Acres issued: 37,320.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1986;
Acres released: 8,160;
Acres forfeited: 806;
Acres issued: 29,983.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1987;
Acres released: 7,257;
Acres forfeited: 2,524;
Acres issued: 34,852.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1988;
Acres released: 8,723;
Acres forfeited: 1,454;
Acres issued: 31,577.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1989;
Acres released: 5,916;
Acres forfeited: 9,215;
Acres issued: 21,158.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1990;
Acres released: 5,232;
Acres forfeited: 2,481;
Acres issued: 20,678.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1991;
Acres released: 7,056;
Acres forfeited: 1,779;
Acres issued: 25,509.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1992;
Acres released: 8,753;
Acres forfeited: 1,008;
Acres issued: 24,393.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1993;
Acres released: 11,430;
Acres forfeited: 1,560;
Acres issued: 21,568.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1994;
Acres released: 12,903;
Acres forfeited: 1,196;
Acres issued: 15,045.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1995;
Acres released: 18,025;
Acres forfeited: 2,251;
Acres issued: 24,932.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1996;
Acres released: 24,090;
Acres forfeited: 0,874;
Acres issued: 22,010.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1997;
Acres released: 28,392;
Acres forfeited: 798;
Acres issued: 25,102.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1998;
Acres released: 21,912;
Acres forfeited: 348;
Acres issued: 24,668.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1999;
Acres released: 21,847;
Acres forfeited: 196;
Acres issued: 33,583.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2000;
Acres released: 16,875;
Acres forfeited: 512;
Acres issued: 13,995.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2001;
Acres released: 15,601;
Acres forfeited: 809;
Acres issued: 21,169.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2002;
Acres released: 11,867;
Acres forfeited: 554;
Acres issued: 19,474;
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2003;
Acres released: 10,229;
Acres forfeited: 597;
Acres issued: 18,390.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2004;
Acres released: 11,614;
Acres forfeited: 905;
Acres issued: 16,794.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2005;
Acres released: 11,103
Acres forfeited: 0,333
Acres issued: 19,029
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2006;
Acres released: 7,466;
Acres forfeited: 372;
Acres issued: 28,695.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2007;
Acres released: 8,865;
Acres forfeited: 1,916;
Acres issued: 23,380.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2008;
Acres released: 5,461;
Acres forfeited: 2,006;
Acres issued: 22,276.
Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky‘s SMIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts acres associated with permits issued, released, or
forfeited in the 1970s because not all permits of that era are included
in the SMIS database. Data double counts some acres associated with
permits issued or released in the 1980s because of state administrative
actions to reissue previously issued permits.
Acres issued also includes changes in the size of existing permits that
occurred during the year.
[End of figure]
From January 1990 through July 2008, the number of acres under open
permit in Kentucky grew from 292,400 acres to 420,900 acres--an average
annual increase of about 2.2 percent. The difference between the number
of acres for which permits have been issued and the number of acres
that have been released or forfeited is the number of acres under open
permit. From 1990 through July 2008, the number of acres associated
with issued permits grew from 378,800 acres to 778,800 acres, and the
number of acres associated with released and forfeited permits grew
from 86,400 acres to 357,900 acres.[Footnote 7] Figure 4 illustrates
the growth in acres associated with issued permits relative to acres
associated with released or forfeited permits.
Figure 4: Cumulative Number of Acres in Kentucky Associated with Open,
Released, and Forfeited Permits, 1970-July 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph and subgraph]
Data undercounts open, released, and forfeited acres in the 1970s and
double counts some acres in the 1980s.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1970;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0;
Acres under open permit: 246.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1971;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0;
Acres under open permit: 1,385.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1972;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0;
Acres under open permit: 1,525.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1973;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0;
Acres under open permit: 2,518.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1974;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0;
Acres under open permit: 4,675.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1975;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0;
Acres under open permit: 7,142.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1976;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0;
Acres under open permit: 9,264.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1977;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0;
Acres under open permit: 15,638.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1978;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 27;
Acres under open permit: 24,468.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1979;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 452;
Acres under open permit: 34,870.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1980;
Forfeited acres: 3;
Released acres: 1,331;
Acres under open permit: 48,685.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1981;
Forfeited acres: 3;
Released acres: 2,295;
Acres under open permit: 51,343.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1982;
Forfeited acres: 394;
Released acres: 6,211;
Acres under open permit: 88,124.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1983;
Forfeited acres: 703;
Released acres: 12,446;
Acres under open permit: 96,388.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1984;
Forfeited acres: 1,571;
Released acres: 25,257;
Acres under open permit: 176,398.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1985;
Forfeited acres: 2,214;
Released acres: 32,439;
Acres under open permit: 205,892.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1986;
Forfeited acres: 3,020;
Released acres: 40,599;
Acres under open permit: 226,909.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1987;
Forfeited acres: 5,544;
Released acres: 47,856;
Acres under open permit: 251,979.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1988;
Forfeited acres: 6,998;
Released acres: 56,579;
Acres under open permit: 273,379.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1989;
Forfeited acres: 16,213;
Released acres: 62,495;
Acres under open permit: 279,407.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1990;
Forfeited acres: 18,694;
Released acres: 67,727;
Acres under open permit: 292,373.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1991;
Forfeited acres: 20,473;
Released acres: 4,783;
Acres under open permit: 309,046.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1992;
Forfeited acres: 21,481;
Released acres: 83,536;
Acres under open permit: 323,677.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1993;
Forfeited acres: 23,041;
Released acres: 94,966;
Acres under open permit: 332,255.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1994;
Forfeited acres: 24,237;
Released acres: 107,869;
Acres under open permit: 333,200.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1995;
Forfeited acres: 26,488;
Released acres: 125,894;
Acres under open permit: 337,857.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1996;
Forfeited acres: 27,362;
Released acres: 149,984;
Acres under open permit: 334,903.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1997;
Forfeited acres: 28,160;
Released acres: 178,376;
Acres under open permit: 330,815.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1998;
Forfeited acres: 28,508;
Released acres: 200,288;
Acres under open permit: 333,224.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1999;
Forfeited acres: 28,704;
Released acres: 222,135;
Acres under open permit: 344,764.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2000;
Forfeited acres: 29,216;
Released acres: 239,010;
Acres under open permit: 341,371.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2001;
Forfeited acres: 30,025;
Released acres: 254,611;
Acres under open permit: 346,131.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2002;
Forfeited acres: 30,579;
Released acres: 266,478;
Acres under open permit: 353,183.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2003;
Forfeited acres: 31,176;
Released acres: 276,707;
Acres under open permit: 360,747.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2004;
Forfeited acres: 32,081;
Released acres: 288,321;
Acres under open permit: 365,022.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2005;
Forfeited acres: 32,414;
Released acres: 299,424;
Acres under open permit: 372,616.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2006;
Forfeited acres: 32,786;
Released acres: 306,890;
Acres under open permit: 393,473.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2007;
Forfeited acres: 34,702;
Released acres: 315,755;
Acres under open permit: 406,072.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2008;
Forfeited acres: 36,708;
Released acres: 321,216;
Acres under open permit: 420,882.
Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky‘s SMIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts acres associated with permits issued, released, or
forfeited in the 1970s because not all permits of that era are included
in the SMIS database. Data double counts some acres associated with
permits issued or released in the 1980s because of state administrative
actions to reissue previously issued permits.
[End of figure]
West Virginia provided us with data on the number and size of permits
that were issued from January 1984 through July 2008 and on permits
that were already open in 1984. These data are presented in figure 5.
One official told us that, when the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection upgraded its computer system, it didn't
systematically update electronic permit files that were closed prior to
1984. As figure 5 shows, there is very little data on the number of
acres released and forfeited prior to 1984.[Footnote 8]
Figure 5: Acres in West Virginia Associated with Issued, Released, or
Forfeited Permits, by Year the Permit Was Issued, Released, or
Forfeited, 1961-July 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph and subgraph]
Data undercounts issued, released, and forfeited acres prior to 1984.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1961;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 5.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1962;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 0.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1963;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 6.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1964;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 0.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1965;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 6.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1966;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 0.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1967;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 293.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1968;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 360.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1969;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 6;
Acres issued: 330.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1970;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 2,793.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1971;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 30;
Acres issued: 1,970.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1972;
Acres forfeited: 2;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 2,815.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1973;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 3,126.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1974;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 37;
Acres issued: 6,939.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1975;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 6,956.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1976;
Acres forfeited: 0;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 12,307.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1977;
Acres forfeited: 902;
Acres released: 5;
Acres issued: 11,721.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1978;
Acres forfeited: 72;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 13,663.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1979;
Acres forfeited: 570;
Acres released: 1;
Acres issued: 11,220.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1980;
Acres forfeited: 340;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 13,805.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1981;
Acres forfeited: 658;
Acres released: 0;
Acres issued: 15,830.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1982;
Acres forfeited: 921;
Acres released: 52;
Acres issued: 17,530.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1983;
Acres forfeited: 202;
Acres released: 400;
Acres issued: 14,593.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1984;
Acres forfeited: 746;
Acres released: 9,352;
Acres issued: 10,061.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1985;
Acres forfeited: 1,323;
Acres released: 7,853;
Acres issued: 16,495.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1986;
Acres forfeited: 593;
Acres released: 8,567;
Acres issued: 19,256.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1987;
Acres forfeited: 1,520;
Acres released: 8,718;
Acres issued: 12,352.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1988;
Acres forfeited: 563;
Acres released: 5,256;
Acres issued: 18,779.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1989;
Acres forfeited: 1,971;
Acres released: 4,157;
Acres issued: 21,592.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1990;
Acres forfeited: 1,480;
Acres released: 4,296;
Acres issued: 8,889.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1991;
Acres forfeited: 2,627;
Acres released: 4,270;
Acres issued: 11,515.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1992;
Acres forfeited: 5,233;
Acres released: 5,161;
Acres issued: 12,034.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1993;
Acres forfeited: 3,625;
Acres released: 4,393;
Acres issued: 8,728.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1994;
Acres forfeited: 4,104;
Acres released: 4,729;
Acres issued: 11,597.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1995;
Acres forfeited: 1,086;
Acres released: 6,542;
Acres issued: 12,831.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1996;
Acres forfeited: 709;
Acres released: 7,969;
Acres issued: 15,604.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1997;
Acres forfeited: 1,104;
Acres released: 5,485;
Acres issued: 17,451.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1998;
Acres forfeited: 1,305;
Acres released: 9,664;
Acres issued: 7,625.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1999;
Acres forfeited: 848;
Acres released: 9,278;
Acres issued: 4,969.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2000;
Acres forfeited: 3,633;
Acres released: 8,548;
Acres issued: 8,455.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2001;
Acres forfeited: 3,876;
Acres released: 5,343;
Acres issued: 13,094.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2002;
Acres forfeited: 124;
Acres released: 4,743;
Acres issued: 6,013.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2003;
Acres forfeited: 870;
Acres released: 3,976;
Acres issued: 20,896.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2004;
Acres forfeited: 1,748;
Acres released: 3,680;
Acres issued: 12,291.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2005;
Acres forfeited: 625;
Acres released: 1,727;
Acres issued: 3,643.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2006;
Acres forfeited: 1,535;
Acres released: 1,858;
Acres issued: 9,768.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2007;
Acres forfeited: 842;
Acres released: 3,326;
Acres issued: 8,303.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2008;
Acres forfeited: 604;
Acres released: 4,902;
Acres issued: 6,685.
Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia‘s ERIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts acres associated with permits issued, released, or
forfeited prior to 1984 because permits closed prior to 1984 are not
included in ERIS.
Acres issued also includes changes in the size of existing permits that
occurred during the year.
[End of figure]
According to ERIS data, from January 1990 through July 2008, the number
of acres under open permit in West Virginia grew from 183,700 acres to
245,200 acres--an average annual increase of about 1.7 percent. The
difference between the number of acres for which permits have been
issued, and the number of acres that have been released or forfeited,
is the number of acres under open permit. From 1990 through July 2008,
the number of acres associated with issued permits grew from 243,700
acres to 435,200 acres, and the number of acres associated with
released and forfeited permits grew from 60,000 acres to 190,000 acres.
Figure 6 illustrates the growth in acres associated with issued permits
relative to acres associated with released or forfeited permits.
Figure 6: Cumulative Number of Acres in West Virginia Associated with
Open, Released, and Forfeited Permits, 1961-July 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph and subgraph]
Data undercounts open, released, and forfeited acres in the 1970s and
double counts some acres in the 1980s.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1961;
Acres under open permit: 5;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1962;
Acres under open permit: 5;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1963;
Acres under open permit: 11;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0;
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1964;
Acres under open permit: 11;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0;
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1965;
Acres under open permit: 17;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1966;
Acres under open permit: 17;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1967;
Acres under open permit: 310;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1968;
Acres under open permit: 671;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 0.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1969;
Acres under open permit: 995;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 69.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1970;
Acres under open permit: 3,789;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 69.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1971;
Acres under open permit: 5,728;
Forfeited acres: 0;
Released acres: 37.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1972;
Acres under open permit: 8,524;
Forfeited acres: 2;
Released acres: 37.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1973;
Acres under open permit: 11,650;
Forfeited acres: 2;
Released acres: 37.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1974;
Acres under open permit: 18,553;
Forfeited acres: 2;
Released acres: 74.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1975;
Acres under open permit: 25,510;
Forfeited acres: 2;
Released acres: 74.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1976;
Acres under open permit: 37,817;
Forfeited acres: 2;
Released acres: 74.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1977;
Acres under open permit: 49,399;
Forfeited acres: 110;
Released acres: 124.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1978;
Acres under open permit: 62,990;
Forfeited acres: 182;
Released acres: 124.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1979;
Acres under open permit: 73,5399
Forfeited acres: 0,75324
Released acres: 0,22443
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1980;
Acres under open permit: 87,005;
Forfeited acres: 1,093;
Released acres: 224.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1981;
Acres under open permit: 102,177
Forfeited acres: 1,752;
Released acres: 224.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1982;
Acres under open permit: 118,733
Forfeited acres: 2,67396
Released acres: 0,27668
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1983;
Acres under open permit: 132,724;
Forfeited acres: 2,876;
Released acres: 0,677
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1984;
Acres under open permit: 132,686;
Forfeited acres: 3,622;
Released acres: 10,029.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1985;
Acres under open permit: 140,005;
Forfeited acres: 4,946;
Released acres: 17,883.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1986;
Acres under open permit: 150,100;
Forfeited acres: 5,540;
Released acres: 26,450.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1987;
Acres under open permit: 152,214;
Forfeited acres: 7,060;
Released acres: 35,169.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1988;
Acres under open permit: 165,173;
Forfeited acres: 7,624;
Released acres: 40,425.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1989;
Acres under open permit: 180,636;
Forfeited acres: 9,595;
Released acres: 44,583.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1990;
Acres under open permit: 183,748;
Forfeited acres: 11,075;
Released acres: 48,879.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1991;
Acres under open permit: 188,365;
Forfeited acres: 13,703;
Released acres: 53,150;
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1992;
Acres under open permit: 190,004;
Forfeited acres: 18,937;
Released acres: 58,311.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1993;
Acres under open permit: 190,714;
Forfeited acres: 22,562;
Released acres: 62,705.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1994;
Acres under open permit: 193,477;
Forfeited acres: 26,667;
Released acres: 67,435.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1995;
Acres under open permit: 198,680;
Forfeited acres: 27,754;
Released acres: 73,977.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1996;
Acres under open permit: 205,605;
Forfeited acres: 28,463;
Released acres: 81,946.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1997;
Acres under open permit: 216,467;
Forfeited acres: 29,5678;
Released acres: 87,4323.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1998;
Acres under open permit: 213,123;
Forfeited acres: 30,872;
Released acres: 97,096.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1999;
Acres under open permit: 207,966;
Forfeited acres: 31,721;
Released acres: 106,375.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2000;
Acres under open permit: 204,239;
Forfeited acres: 35,354;
Released acres: 114,924.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2001;
Acres under open permit: 208,114;
Forfeited acres: 39,231;
Released acres: 120,267.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2002;
Acres under open permit: 209,259;
Forfeited acres: 39,356;
Released acres: 125,010.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2003;
Acres under open permit: 225,309;
Forfeited acres: 40,226;
Released acres: 128,987.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2004;
Acres under open permit: 232,172;
Forfeited acres: 41,974;
Released acres: 132,667.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2005
Acres under open permit: 233,463;
Forfeited acres: 42,600.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2006;
Acres under open permit: 239,838;
Forfeited acres: 44,135;
Released acres: 136,253.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2007;
Acres under open permit: 243,973;
Forfeited acres: 44,978;
Released acres: 139,579.
Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2008;
Acres under open permit: 245,151;
Forfeited acres: 45,582;
Released acres: 144,481.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts acres associated with permits issued, released, or
forfeited prior to 1984 because permits closed prior to 1984 are not
included in ERIS.
[End of figure]
Not all acres that are permitted are disturbed--that is, cleared of
vegetation as part of the mining operation. Typically, areas are
disturbed when they are mined for coal, used for roads, or to
temporarily or permanently store spoil. Sometimes operators will leave
relatively large portions of a permitted area undisturbed if, for
example, market conditions do not support mining an area where it is
relatively expensive to extract the coal. A Kentucky official said that
SMIS does not contain data on disturbed acres and that he and other
officials he spoke with do not believe they can provide a sufficiently
accurate estimate. A West Virginia official said that data from ERIS on
disturbed acres is not reliable. However, he estimated that about 25
percent of permitted acres are never disturbed.
Mining in Kentucky and West Virginia Has Become More Geographically
Concentrated:
According to the two states' databases, mining activity in the
mountainous areas of Kentucky is concentrated in the southeastern part
of the state, while mining in West Virginia is concentrated in the
southwestern part of the state. In both states, mining has become more
concentrated over the last 19 years, according to data provided by
state agencies. In Kentucky, the 420,900 acres that were under open
permit, as of July 2008, in the mountainous, eastern portion of the
state constitute about 1.6 percent of the state's total land mass.
[Footnote 9] However, as figure 7 indicates, about 44 percent (186,600
acres) of the 420,900 acres under open permit in mountainous areas are
located in three counties: Pike, Perry, and Knott.[Footnote 10]
Collectively, the open acres account for 20 percent of these counties'
total land mass.
Figure 7: Acres in Kentucky under Open Permit as a Percentage of All
Acres under Open Permit in the 10 Counties with the Largest Number of
Open Acres in July 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of Kentucky with inset of counties in
Eastern Kentucky]
Bell: 6%;
Breathitt: 6%;
Floyd: 4%;
Harlan: 9%;
Knott: 10%;
Leslie: 5%;
Letcher: 7%;
Martin: 8%;
Perry: 12%;
Pike: 23%.
Sources: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky‘s SMIS database; Map
Resources (map).
[End of figure]
In 1990, the acreage under open permit in Kentucky was less
concentrated in individual counties than it was in 2008. As table 2
shows, the three counties with the greatest acreage under open permit
in 1990--Pike, Martin, and Breathitt--accounted for about 28 percent
(82,400 acres) of the 292,400 acres under open permit. Collectively,
these open acres accounted for about 8 percent of the total area of the
three counties. Table 2 also shows the 10 counties in Kentucky with the
most acres under open permit in 2008 and the number of acres under open
permit in 1990 for those same counties.
Table 2: The 10 Counties in Kentucky with the Largest Number of Open
Acres in July 2008 and the Number of Open Acres in Those Counties in
1990:
County: Pike;
Size of county (acres): 504,858;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 96,300;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
Kentucky: 23%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 27,500;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in Kentucky: 9%.
County: Perry;
Size of county (acres): 219,290;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 50,100;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
Kentucky: 12%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 25,000;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in Kentucky: 9%.
County: Knott;
Size of county (acres): 225,926;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 40,200;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
Kentucky: 10%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 17,300;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in Kentucky: 6%.
County: Harlan;
Size of county (acres): 299,501;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 37,700;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
Kentucky: 9%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 16,100;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in Kentucky: 6%.
County: Martin;
Size of county (acres): 147,718;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 34,300;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
Kentucky: 8%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 29,000;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in Kentucky: 10%.
County: Letcher;
Size of county (acres): 217,037;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 28,100;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
Kentucky: 7%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 11,800;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in Kentucky: 4%.
County: Breathitt;
Size of county (acres): 316,986;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 26,000;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
Kentucky: 6%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 25,900;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in Kentucky: 9%.
County: Bell;
Size of county (acres): 231,264;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 25,800;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
Kentucky: 6%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 20,600;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in Kentucky: 7%.
County: Leslie;
Size of county (acres): 258,790;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 21,700;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
Kentucky: 5%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 12,400;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in Kentucky: 4%.
County: Floyd;
Size of county (acres): 253,094;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 15,600;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
Kentucky: 4%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 16,500;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in Kentucky: 6%.
County: All other counties;
Size of county (acres): 23,187,309;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 45,000;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
Kentucky: 11%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 90,300;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in Kentucky: 31%.
County: Total;
Size of county (acres): 25,861,773;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 420,900;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
Kentucky: 100%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 292,400;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in Kentucky: 100%.
Sources: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky's SMIS database and the
U.S. Census Bureau.
Note: Columns may not add to the total because of rounding.
[End of table]
In West Virginia, the 245,200 acres that were under open permit, as of
July 2008, constitute 1.6 percent of the state's total land mass, the
same percentage as in Kentucky. As figure 8 indicates, about 48 percent
(118,600 acres) of the 245,200 acres are located in three counties:
Boone, Logan, and Mingo. Collectively, the open acres account for about
13 percent of these counties' total land mass.
Figure 8: Acres in West Virginia under Open Permit as a Percentage of
all Acres under Open Permit in the 10 Counties with the Largest Number
of Open Acres in July 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of West Virginia with inset may of
counties in southwestern West Virginia]
Clay: 4%;
Fayette: 6%;
Kanawha: 10%;
Logan: 15%;
McDowell: 4%;
Mingo: 13%;
Nicholas: 7%;
Raleigh: 4%;
Wyoming: 4%.
Sources: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia‘s ERIS database; Map
Resources (map).
[End of figure]
In 1990, the acreage under open permit was less concentrated in
individual counties than it was in 2008. As table 3 shows, the three
counties with the greatest amount of acreage under open permit in 1990--
Logan, Boone, and Nicholas--accounted for 33 percent (61,000 acres) of
the 183,700 acres under open permit in 1990. Collectively, these open
acres accounted for about 6 percent of the total area of these
counties. Similar to table 2, this table shows the 10 counties in West
Virginia with the most acres under open permit in 2008 and the number
of acres under open permit in 1990 for those same counties.
Table 3: The 10 Counties in West Virginia with the Largest Number of
Open Acres in July 2008 and the Number of Open Acres in Those Counties
in 1990:
County: Boone;
Size of county (acres): 322,035;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 48,000;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
West Virginia: 20%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 20,400;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in West Virginia: 11%.
County: Logan;
Size of county (acres): 291,590;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 37,800;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
West Virginia: 15%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 21,500;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in West Virginia: 12%.
County: Mingo;
Size of county (acres): 271,130;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 32,900;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
West Virginia: 13%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 16,900;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in West Virginia: 9%.
County: Kanawha;
Size of county (acres): 583,034;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 25,000;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
West Virginia: 10%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 18,900;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in West Virginia: 10%.
County: Fayette;
Size of county (acres): 427,750;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 16,400;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
West Virginia: 7%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 13,800;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in West Virginia: 8%.
County: Nicholas;
Size of county (acres): 418,816;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 15,900;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
West Virginia: 6%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 19,100;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in West Virginia: 10%.
County: Raleigh;
Size of county (acres): 389,978;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 11,000;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
West Virginia: 4%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 2,200;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in West Virginia: 1%.
County: Wyoming;
Size of county (acres): 321,165;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 10,900;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
West Virginia: 4v;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 4,100;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in West Virginia: 2%.
County: Clay;
Size of county (acres): 220,045;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 8,900;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
West Virginia: 4%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 2,400;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in West Virginia: 1%.
County: McDowell;
Size of county (acres): 342,336;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 8,600;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
West Virginia: 4%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 6,200;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in West Virginia: 3v.
County: All other counties;
Size of county (acres): 11,919,168;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 29,800;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
West Virginia: 12%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 58,200;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in West Virginia: 32%.
County: Total;
Size of county (acres): 15,507,046;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 245,200;
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in
West Virginia: 100%;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 183,700;
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres
in West Virginia: 100%.
Sources: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia's ERIS database and
the U.S. Census Bureau.
Note: Columns may not add to the total because of rounding.
[End of table]
The Length of Time That Permits Were Open in Kentucky and West Virginia
Varies:
The two states' databases show that the length of time that permits
were open varied. In Kentucky, of the 1,075 permits issued since 1990,
362 were subsequently released, as of July 2008. The length of time
these permits were open ranged from less than 1 year to more than 18
years and averaged about 7-1/2 years. However, 680 of the permits
issued since 1990 were still open, as of July 2008, and the average
length of time these permits were open was about 7 years. Additionally,
33 of the permits issued since 1990 have been forfeited. As figure 9
shows, the length of time that permits were open did not vary
substantially by their size or status--open, released, or forfeited--
with one exception.[Footnote 11]
Figure 9: Average Length of Time Kentucky Permits Issued Since 1990
Were Open, by Size and Status, as of July 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Size of permit: 3,000 plus acres;
Open permit: 9.8 years.
Size of permit: 1,000-2,999 acres;
Open permit: 10.0 years;
Released permit: 10.7 years;
Forfeited permit: 17.2 years.
Size of permit: 500-999 acres;
Open permit: 8.2 years;
Released permit: 9.8 years;
Forfeited permit: 8.0 years.
Size of permit: 100-499 acres;
Open permit: 6.6 years;
Released permit: 8.8 years;
Forfeited permit: 7.6 years.
Size of permit: Less than 100 acres;
Open permit: 5.4 years;
Released permit: 6.2 years;
Forfeited permit: 5.3 years.
Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky‘s SMIS database.
Notes:
For forfeited acres, the length of time the permit was open is from the
issue date to the forfeiture date; additional reclamation work occurs
after forfeiture.
There is only one forfeited permit between 1,000 and 2,999 acres in
size.
[End of figure]
The situation is similar in West Virginia. Of the 637 permits issued
since 1990, 171 were subsequently released, as of July 2008. The length
of time these permits were open ranged from less than a year to almost
17 years and averaged about 8-1/2 years. However, 397 of the permits
issued since 1990 were still open, as of July 2008, and the average
length of time these permits were open was about 8-1/2 years.
Additionally, 69 of the permits issued since 1990 have been forfeited.
As figure 10 shows, the length of time that permits were open did not
vary substantially by their size. There is greater variation by status--
open, released, or forfeited.
Figure 10: Average Length of Time West Virginia Permits Issued Since
1990 Were Open by Size and Status, as of July 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Size of permit: 1,000-2,999 plus acres;
Open permit: 8.9 years.
Size of permit: 500-999 acres;
Open permit: 9.1 years;
Released permit: 11 years;
Forfeited permit: 0 years.
Size of permit: 100-499 acres;
Open permit: 8.6 years;
Released permit: 9.6 years;
Forfeited permit: 5.3 years.
Size of permit: Less than 100 acres;
Open permit: 8.0 years;
Released permit: 8.0 years;
Forfeited permit: 5.9 years.
Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia‘s ERIS database.
Note: For forfeited acres, the length of time the permit was open is
from the issue date to the forfeiture date; additional reclamation work
occurs after forfeiture.
[End of figure]
Many Permitted Acres in West Virginia Are Concentrated in a Few Large,
Contiguously Permitted Areas:
We obtained from the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection Web site all available electronic geospatial files of permit
boundaries. For permits that were open, as of July 2008, or released or
forfeited since 1990, the permits with permit boundary files are
associated with 317,600 acres--or 83 percent of the 381,000 acres
associated with all open permits and permits released or forfeited
since 1990.[Footnote 12] Using the permit boundary files, we determined
that there were 559 separate, permitted areas. We defined these as
areas that were covered by either (1) a single permit that was not
contiguous with any other permit or (2) two or more contiguous permits.
The larger areas tended to consist of contiguous permits. Figure 11
shows 559 permitted areas in West Virginia, as of July 2008.
Figure 11: The 559 Permitted Areas in West Virginia, as of July 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of West Virginia depicting 559 permitted
areas]
Sources: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia‘s ERIS database and
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection GIS data; Map Info
(map).
[End of figure]
A few of the contiguously permitted areas are much larger than most of
the other permitted areas. The largest 5 percent of permitted areas--28
areas of the 559 we identified--are groups of contiguous permits and
cover 178,600 acres, or 47 percent of the 381,000 acres associated with
open permits or permits released or forfeited since 1990. Additionally,
we found that about 89 percent (159,200 acres) of the 178,600 acres
that constitute these 28 permitted areas were under open permit. This
contrasts with the 139,000 acres that make up the remaining 531
permitted areas, which have 85,000 acres (61 percent) under open
permit. Figure 12 shows open and closed (released and forfeited)
permits for these 28 permitted areas.
Figure 12: The 28 largest Permitted Areas in West Virginia:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of West Virginia depicting The 28 largest
permitted areas]
Both open permits and closed permits are depicted in counties in
southwestern West Virginia.
Sources: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia‘s ERIS database and
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection GIS data; Map Info
(map).
[End of figure]
Characteristics of Reclaimed Lands That Were Disturbed by Surface Coal
Mining in Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and West Virginia:
In summary, the states' data for permits issued from January 2000
through July 2008 provides information on three important
characteristics of land reclaimed after being disturbed by surface
mining: the approved post-mining land use (PMLU), the extent to which
the land is restored to its original contour, and the number and size
of fills created from excess spoil. First, fish and wildlife habitat
and forestland were the most common types of PMLU approved in Kentucky
and West Virginia, respectively. Forestland was the most common type of
land use prior to mining in both states. Second, while most operations
have been issued permits in recent years requiring them to reclaim the
land to its approximate original contour (AOC), some were granted
exceptions, referred to as AOC variances.[Footnote 13] Specifically, 76
percent (294 permits) of the 388 permits issued in Kentucky from
January 2002 through July 2008 were required to reclaim the land to
AOC. In West Virginia, 85 percent (181 permits) of the 212 permits
issued from January 2000 through July 2008 were required to be
reclaimed to AOC. Most of the AOC variances granted were "remining"
variances, meaning that the variance was granted because the land had
been previously mined but not reclaimed, leaving insufficient spoil to
restore AOC. Finally, Kentucky and West Virginia collectively approved
nearly 2,000 fills to be placed in nearby valleys and hollows, with a
storage volume of at least 4.85 billion cubic yards of excess spoil, on
permits issued from January 2000 through July 2008.
Both states' databases provide data on pre-mining land uses and PMLUs,
AOC variances, and fills for permits issued in years prior to 2000.
However, for many of these years, the data understates or overstates
mining activity and, consequently, characteristics of reclaimed lands.
Because of these data limitations, and to be consistent between the two
states, we base our analysis on data from January 2000 through July
2008, with the exception of AOC variances in Kentucky, where the data
is complete only for permits issued starting in 2002. We present the
results of this analysis in the text of this section of the report.
However, we include data from the earlier years in the figures of this
section and identify the data limitations associated with these years
in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the data in the states'
databases, and we clearly identify the data limitations and the years
to which they apply. We believe that presenting data from the earlier
years--and its limitations--decreases the likelihood for misuse or
misinterpretation because the data is publicly available, but its
limitations are not disclosed on the Web sites from which the public
can access the data. Data from the earlier years should not be relied
upon to convey a representative picture of past mining characteristics
or decisions.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Forestland Were the Most Common Post-
Mining Land Uses Approved, While Forestland Was the Most Common Land
Use Prior to Mining:
During the permitting process, operators designate one or more types of
PMLU, although the approved PMLU(s) may later be changed through a
permit revision. If an operator does not plan to return an area to its
pre-mining land use, the operator must propose an alternative PMLU for
approval. State approval of an alternative PMLU requires consultation
with the landowner.[Footnote 14] In general, the PMLU must be either a
use the land could have supported before any mining, or a "higher or
better" use.[Footnote 15] Under SMCRA, once mining has been completed,
operators are required to reclaim all disturbed lands in a timely
manner to a condition capable of supporting the approved PMLU(s).
[Footnote 16] However, once the bond has been released, state
jurisdiction over the mining operation ceases, and landowners can use
the land at their own discretion following bond release. Additionally,
even in cases where the PMLU(s) is fully implemented after bond
release, some land use types, such as forestland, can take years--even
decades--to achieve their intended appearance and productivity.
The two states' data show that, for permits issued from January 2000
through July 2008, the most common PMLU type approved was fish and
wildlife habitat in Kentucky and forestland in West Virginia. Our
analysis of the data revealed that both states' databases improved over
time in the percentage of permits that captured information on PMLU
types and, by 1995 and 1998, respectively, the data indicates that all
new permits issued had at least one PMLU type approved in Kentucky and
West Virginia.
Specifically, in Kentucky, of the 481 permits issued from January 2000
through July 2008, 216 permits were approved for fish and wildlife
habitat as a PMLU, followed by 209 permits approved for hay or
pastureland, and 109 permits approved for forestland.[Footnote 17]
Fifty-nine permits issued during that time were approved for other PMLU
types, including 22 residential, 19 industrial, and 12 commercial.
[Footnote 18] Figure 13 shows these data, including the number of
permits that did not identify a PMLU type.
Figure 13: PMLU Types Approved in Kentucky, 1970-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Data undercounts the number of PMLU types approved on permits issued
prior to 1995, and data from some permits was double counted in the
1980s.
Year permit issued: 1970;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
Forestland: 0;
All other PMLU types: 0;
No PMLU type identified: 5.
Year permit issued: 1971;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
Forestland: 1;
All other PMLU types: 0;
No PMLU type identified: 4.
Year permit issued: 1972;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 1;
Forestland: 0;
All other PMLU types: 0;
No PMLU type identified: 3.
Year permit issued: 1973;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
Forestland: 3;
All other PMLU types: 0;
No PMLU type identified: 13.
Year permit issued: 1974;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 1;
Forestland: 3;
All other PMLU types: 0;
No PMLU type identified: 31.
Year permit issued: 1975;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
Forestland: 6;
All other PMLU types: 0;
No PMLU type identified: 30.
Year permit issued: 1976;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 3;
Forestland: 8;
All other PMLU types: 3;
No PMLU type identified: 31.
Year permit issued: 1977;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 18;
Forestland: 49;
All other PMLU types: 10;
No PMLU type identified: 45.
Year permit issued: 1978;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 38;
Forestland: 58;
All other PMLU types: 6;
No PMLU type identified: 81.
Year permit issued: 1979;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 3;
Hay or pastureland: 17;
Forestland: 60;
All other PMLU types: 22;
No PMLU type identified: 158.
Year permit issued: 1980;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 4;
Hay or pastureland: 21;
All other PMLU types: 10;
No PMLU type identified: 65.
Year permit issued: 1981;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 1;
Hay or pastureland: 8;
Forestland: 38;
All other PMLU types: 6;
No PMLU type identified: 70.
Year permit issued: 1982;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 12;
Hay or pastureland: 177;
Forestland: 345;
All other PMLU types: 103;
No PMLU type identified: 168.
Year permit issued: 1983;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 10;
Hay or pastureland: 52;
Forestland: 67;
All other PMLU types: 23;
No PMLU type identified: 529.
Year permit issued: 1984;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 52;
Hay or pastureland: 294;
Forestland: 255;
All other PMLU types: 134;
No PMLU type identified: 755.
Year permit issued: 1985;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 18;
Hay or pastureland: 162;
Forestland: 117;
All other PMLU types: 72;
No PMLU type identified: 296.
Year permit issued: 1986;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 16;
Hay or pastureland: 109;
Forestland: 83;
All other PMLU types: 41;
No PMLU type identified: 95.
Year permit issued: 1987;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 26;
Hay or pastureland: 108;
Forestland: 63;
All other PMLU types: 45;
No PMLU type identified: 19.
Year permit issued: 1988;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 30;
Hay or pastureland: 85;
Forestland: 56;
All other PMLU types: 30;
No PMLU type identified: 8.
Year permit issued: 1989;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 30;
Hay or pastureland: 59;
Forestland: 34;
All other PMLU types: 18;
No PMLU type identified: 4.
Year permit issued: 1990;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 36;
Hay or pastureland: 39;
Forestland: 33;
All other PMLU types: 6;
No PMLU type identified: 2.
Year permit issued: 1991;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 41;
Hay or pastureland: 38;
Forestland: 28;
All other PMLU types: 7;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 1992;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 39;
Hay or pastureland: 18;
Forestland: 16;
All other PMLU types: 12;
No PMLU type identified: 2.
Year permit issued: 1993;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 46;
Hay or pastureland: 28;
Forestland: 13;
All other PMLU types: 6;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 1994;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 30;
Hay or pastureland: 20;
Forestland: 11;
All other PMLU types: 4;
No PMLU type identified: 1.
Year permit issued: 1995;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 33;
Hay or pastureland: 19;
Forestland: 6;
All other PMLU types: 2;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 1996;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 33;
Hay or pastureland: 26;
Forestland: 8;
All other PMLU types: 3;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 1997;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 33;
Hay or pastureland: 23;
Forestland: 15;
All other PMLU types: 4;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 1998;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 29;
Hay or pastureland: 26;
Forestland: 14;
All other PMLU types: 5;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 1999;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 23;
Hay or pastureland: 26;
Forestland: 14;
All other PMLU types: 9;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2000;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 17;
Hay or pastureland: 15;
Forestland: 7;
All other PMLU types: 3;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2001;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 22;
Hay or pastureland: 31;
Forestland: 11;
All other PMLU types: 11;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2002;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 27;
Hay or pastureland: 32;
Forestland: 11;
All other PMLU types: 8;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2003;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 20;
Hay or pastureland: 23;
Forestland: 11;
All other PMLU types: 10;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2004;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 28;
Hay or pastureland: 22;
Forestland: 11;
All other PMLU types: 7;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2005;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 32;
Hay or pastureland: 20;
Forestland: 14;
All other PMLU types: 7;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2006;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 29;
Hay or pastureland: 27;
Forestland: 17;
All other PMLU types: 7;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2007;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 27;
Hay or pastureland: 23;
Forestland: 15;
All other PMLU types: 4;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2008;
Fish and wildlife habitat: 14;
Hay or pastureland: 16;
Forestland: 12;
All other PMLU types: 2;
No PMLU type identified: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky‘s SMIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts the number of PMLU types approved prior to 1995
because this data element was not consistently recorded in the SMIS
database for permits issued prior to that time, and because not all
permits issued in the 1970s are included in SMIS. Data double counts
the number of PMLU types approved for some permits issued in the 1980s
because of state administrative actions to reissue previously issued
permits.
The total number of PMLUs approved might exceed the total number of
permits issued because operators can designate more than one PMLU type.
In addition, the data reflects the approved PMLU type and does not
necessarily represent the actual land use after the permit has closed.
[End of figure]
In West Virginia, of the 212 permits issued from January 2000 through
July 2008, 141 permits were approved for forestland as a PMLU, followed
by 46 permits approved for fish and wildlife habitat/recreation and 34
permits approved for hay or pastureland.[Footnote 19] Sixty permits
issued during this time were approved for other PMLU types, including
23 for commercial forestry or woodland, and 12 for industrial/
commercial.[Footnote 20] Figure 14 shows these data, including the
number of permits that did not identify a PMLU type.
Figure 14: PMLU Types Approved in West Virginia, 1970-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Data undercounts the number of PMLU types approved on permits issued
prior to 1998.
Year permit issued: 1970;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 1;
Forestland: 0;
All other PMLU types: 1;
No PMLU type identified: 18.
Year permit issued: 1971;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
Forestland: 2;
All other PMLU types: 0;
No PMLU type identified: 16.
Year permit issued: 1972;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
Forestland: 1;
All other PMLU types: 0;
No PMLU type identified: 21.
Year permit issued: 1973;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 0.
Hay or pastureland: 1;
Forestland: 1;
All other PMLU types: 0;
No PMLU type identified: 22.
Year permit issued: 1974;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2;
Hay or pastureland: 2;
Forestland: 2;
All other PMLU types: 0;
No PMLU type identified: 63.
Year permit issued: 1975;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2;
Hay or pastureland: 2;
Forestland: 1;
All other PMLU types: 0;
No PMLU type identified: 93.
Year permit issued: 1976;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 5;
Hay or pastureland: 4;
Forestland: 10;
All other PMLU types: 6;
No PMLU type identified: 102.
Year permit issued: 1977;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 7;
Hay or pastureland: 3;
Forestland: 3;
All other PMLU types: 3;
No PMLU type identified: 115.
Year permit issued: 1978;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2;
Hay or pastureland: 4;
Forestland: 6;
All other PMLU types: 3;
No PMLU type identified: 113.
Year permit issued: 1979;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 5;
Hay or pastureland: 8;
Forestland: 7;
All other PMLU types: 4;
No PMLU type identified: 83.
Year permit issued: 1980;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 11;
Hay or pastureland: 13;
Forestland: 12;
All other PMLU types: 8;
No PMLU type identified: 91.
Year permit issued: 1981;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 9;
Hay or pastureland: 5;
Forestland: 13;
All other PMLU types: 6;
No PMLU type identified: 117.
Year permit issued: 1982;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 10;
Hay or pastureland: 13;
Forestland: 17;
All other PMLU types: 7;
No PMLU type identified: 127.
Year permit issued: 1983;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 9;
Hay or pastureland: 7;
Forestland: 12;
All other PMLU types: 3;
No PMLU type identified: 138.
Year permit issued: 1984;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 10;
Hay or pastureland: 13;
Forestland: 11;
All other PMLU types: 1;
No PMLU type identified: 80.
Year permit issued: 1985;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 24;
Hay or pastureland: 9;
Forestland: 11;
All other PMLU types: 6;
No PMLU type identified: 90.
Year permit issued: 1986;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 21;
Hay or pastureland: 16;
Forestland: 13;
All other PMLU types: 8;
No PMLU type identified: 85.
Year permit issued: 1987;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 25;
Hay or pastureland: 20;
Forestland: 9;
All other PMLU types: 6;
No PMLU type identified: 83.
Year permit issued: 1988;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 26;
Hay or pastureland: 27;
Forestland: 15;
All other PMLU types: 4;
No PMLU type identified: 69.
Year permit issued: 1989;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 31;
Hay or pastureland: 33;
Forestland: 27;
All other PMLU types: 6;
No PMLU type identified: 52.
Year permit issued: 1990;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 11;
Hay or pastureland: 13;
Forestland: 10;
All other PMLU types: 1;
No PMLU type identified: 25.
Year permit issued: 1991;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 23;
Hay or pastureland: 19;
Forestland: 15;
All other PMLU types: 6;
No PMLU type identified: 12.
Year permit issued: 1992;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 26;
Hay or pastureland: 15;
Forestland: 15;
All other PMLU types: 12;
No PMLU type identified: 14.
Year permit issued: 1993;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 19;
Hay or pastureland: 8;
Forestland: 11;
All other PMLU types: 6;
No PMLU type identified: 9.
Year permit issued: 1994;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 16;
Hay or pastureland: 14;
Forestland: 12;
All other PMLU types: 10;
No PMLU type identified: 4.
Year permit issued: 1995;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 15;
Hay or pastureland: 9;
Forestland: 12;
All other PMLU types: 10;
No PMLU type identified: 1.
Year permit issued: 1996;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 20;
Hay or pastureland: 11;
Forestland: 16;
All other PMLU types: 8;
No PMLU type identified: 3.
Year permit issued: 1997;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 19;
Hay or pastureland: 10;
Forestland: 19;
All other PMLU types: 14;
No PMLU type identified: 5.
Year permit issued: 1998;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 6;
Hay or pastureland: 9;
Forestland: 9;
All other PMLU types: 3.
Year permit issued: 1999;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 6;
Hay or pastureland: 5;
Forestland: 9;
All other PMLU types: 4.
Year permit issued: 2000;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 3;
Hay or pastureland: 5;
Forestland: 10;
All other PMLU types: 8.
Year permit issued: 2001;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 6;
Hay or pastureland: 3;
Forestland: 23;
All other PMLU types: 14.
Year permit issued: 2002;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 4;
Hay or pastureland: 6;
Forestland: 8;
All other PMLU types: 7.
Year permit issued: 2003;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 8;
Hay or pastureland: 1;
Forestland: 25;
All other PMLU types: 10.
Year permit issued: 2004;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 7;
Hay or pastureland: 2;
Forestland: 19;
All other PMLU types: 3.
Year permit issued: 2005;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2;
Hay or pastureland: 5;
Forestland: 10;
All other PMLU types: 4.
Year permit issued: 2006;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 9;
Hay or pastureland: 5;
Forestland: 21;
All other PMLU types: 7.
Year permit issued: 2007;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 5;
Hay or pastureland: 6;
Forestland: 16;
All other PMLU types: 3.
Year permit issued: 2008;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2;
Hay or pastureland: 1;
Forestland: 9;
All other PMLU types: 4.
Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia‘s ERIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts the number of PMLU types approved prior to 1998
because this data element was not consistently recorded in the ERIS
database for permits issued prior to that time, and because permits
closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS.
The total number of PMLUs approved might exceed the total number of
permits issued because operators can designate more than one PMLU type.
In addition, the data reflects the approved PMLU type and does not
necessarily represent the actual land use after the permit has closed.
[End of figure]
While the state and federal agencies are not required to oversee a
PMLU's implementation once a permit has been released, OSM and several
Appalachian states have recognized that past practices have not always
established healthy, productive forests on reclaimed lands. In June
2008, OSM issued a policy directive to promote reestablishment of
forestland where existing forests had been removed by surface mining.
[Footnote 21] The OSM directive's purpose is to encourage
reforestation, rather than past reclamation practices that led many
operators and landowners to choose agricultural PMLUs that did not
include trees, such as hay or pastureland. According to the directive,
past reclamation practices led to low rates of tree survival and
growth, forest fragmentation, reduced carbon sequestration, loss of
wildlife habitat and forest products, and increased flood potential. To
reverse this trend, the directive encourages the widespread and routine
planting of native, high-value trees that will restore the uses and
ecosystems provided by forests prior to mining. The OSM directive is
part of a broader effort known as the Appalachian Regional
Reforestation Initiative--formed in 2004 by federal and state agencies,
the coal industry, environmental organizations, and others in the
Appalachian region--to promote improved reforestation techniques on
surface-mined lands.
In addition to PMLU types, the states' databases contain information on
the type of land use associated with the permitted area immediately
prior to mining--the pre-mining land use. The most common types of pre-
mining land use identified for permits issued from January 2000 through
July 2008 were the same for both states: forestland and previously
mined but unreclaimed lands. According to OSM, virtually all of the
land that has been surface mined for coal over the past 30 years in
Appalachia was forested before it was originally mined. The states'
data indicate that other types of pre-mining land use--such as
residential, commercial, or cropland--occurred infrequently or not at
all. Our analysis of the data revealed that starting in 1989 in
Kentucky, at least 97 percent of new permits issued identified at least
one pre-mining land use type and starting in 1998 in West Virginia, all
new permits issued identified at least one pre-mining land use type.
Kentucky's data show that, of the 481 permits issued from 2000 through
July 2008, 415 permits had a pre-mining land use of forestland, and 290
were previously mined. (As with PMLU, permits can identify more than
one pre-mining land use type). In addition, 44 permits identified hay
or pastureland, and 43 permits identified other types of pre-mining
land use, including 24 permits with undeveloped land.[Footnote 22] Two
permits did not identify any pre-mining land use type. Figure 15 shows
these data, including the number of permits that did not identify a pre-
mining land use type.
Figure 15: Pre-Mining Land Use Types Identified in Kentucky, 1970-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Data undercounts the number of pre-mining land use types identified on
permits issued prior to 1989, and data from some permits was double
counted in the 1980s.
Year permit issued: 1970;
Forestland: 0;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
All other pre-mining land use types: 0;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 5.
Year permit issued: 1971;
Forestland: 1;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
All other pre-mining land use types: 0;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 4.
Year permit issued: 1972;
Forestland: 1;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
All other pre-mining land use types: 0;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 3.
Year permit issued: 1973;
Forestland: 3;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
All other pre-mining land use types: 0;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 13.
Year permit issued: 1974;
Forestland: 4;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
All other pre-mining land use types: 0;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 31.
Year permit issued: 1975;
Forestland: 6;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
All other pre-mining land use types: 1;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 30.
Year permit issued: 1976;
Forestland: 10;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
All other pre-mining land use types: 1;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 31.
Year permit issued: 1977;
Forestland: 62;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 7;
Hay or pastureland: 1;
All other pre-mining land use types: 2;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 45.
Year permit issued: 1978;
Forestland: 72;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 21;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
All other pre-mining land use types: 9;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 80.
Year permit issued: 1979;
Forestland: 74;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 7;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
All other pre-mining land use types: 15;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 159.
Year permit issued: 1980;
Forestland: 61;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 11;
Hay or pastureland: 1;
All other pre-mining land use types: 7;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 64.
Year permit issued: 1981;
Forestland: 41;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3;
Hay or pastureland: 0;
All other pre-mining land use types: 4;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 70.
Year permit issued: 1982;
Forestland: 475;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 97;
Hay or pastureland: 6;
All other pre-mining land use types: 49;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 168.
Year permit issued: 1983;
Forestland: 104;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 14;
Hay or pastureland: 2;
All other pre-mining land use types: 19;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 529.
Year permit issued: 1984;
Forestland: 499;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 74;
Hay or pastureland: 13;
All other pre-mining land use types: 129;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 757.
Year permit issued: 1985;
Forestland: 254;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 49;
Hay or pastureland: 7;
All other pre-mining land use types: 46;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 293.
Year permit issued: 1986;
Forestland: 170;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 37;
Hay or pastureland: 8;
All other pre-mining land use types: 33;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 91.
Year permit issued: 1987;
Forestland: 139;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 48;
Hay or pastureland: 10;
All other pre-mining land use types: 60;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 17.
Year permit issued: 1988;
Forestland: 121;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 27;
Hay or pastureland: 4;
All other pre-mining land use types: 57;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 9.
Year permit issued: 1989;
Forestland: 88;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 17;
Hay or pastureland: 3;
All other pre-mining land use types: 30;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 3.
Year permit issued: 1990;
Forestland: 81;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 16;
Hay or pastureland: 7;
All other pre-mining land use types: 31;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 1.
Year permit issued: 1991;
Forestland: 76;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 14;
Hay or pastureland: 13;
All other pre-mining land use types: 37;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 1992;
Forestland: 56;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 9;
Hay or pastureland: 13;
All other pre-mining land use types: 23;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 2.
Year permit issued: 1993;
Forestland: 62;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 11;
Hay or pastureland: 39;
All other pre-mining land use types: 14;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 1.
Year permit issued: 1994;
Forestland: 41;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 5;
Hay or pastureland: 29;
All other pre-mining land use types: 8;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 1995;
Forestland: 39;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 5;
Hay or pastureland: 30;
All other pre-mining land use types: 8;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 1996;
Forestland: 52;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 6;
Hay or pastureland: 35;
All other pre-mining land use types: 6;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 1997;
Forestland: 49;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2;
Hay or pastureland: 35;
All other pre-mining land use types: 3;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 1998;
Forestland: 45;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 5;
Hay or pastureland: 33;
All other pre-mining land use types: 4;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 1999;
Forestland: 44;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 5;
Hay or pastureland: 30;
All other pre-mining land use types: 1;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2000;
Forestland: 27;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2;
Hay or pastureland: 17;
All other pre-mining land use types: 3;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2001;
Forestland: 49;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 6;
Hay or pastureland: 35;
All other pre-mining land use types: 8;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 1.
Year permit issued: 2002;
Forestland: 49;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 7;
Hay or pastureland: 42;
All other pre-mining land use types: 9;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2003;
Forestland: 44;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 8;
Hay or pastureland: 26;
All other pre-mining land use types: 5;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2004;
Forestland: 49;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 5;
Hay or pastureland: 37;
All other pre-mining land use types: 5;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2005;
Forestland: 54;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 4;
Hay or pastureland: 36;
All other pre-mining land use types: 5;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2006;
Forestland: 58;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 7;
Hay or pastureland: 40;
All other pre-mining land use types: 2;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2007;
Forestland: 51;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3;
Hay or pastureland: 40;
All other pre-mining land use types: 5;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0.
Year permit issued: 2008;
Forestland: 34;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2;
Hay or pastureland: 17;
All other pre-mining land use types: 1;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky‘s SMIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts the number of pre-mining land use types identified
prior to 1989 because this data element was not consistently recorded
in the SMIS database for permits issued prior to that time, and because
not all permits in the 1970s are included in SMIS. Data double counts
the number of pre-mining land use types identified on some permits
issued in the 1980s because of state administrative actions to reissue
previously issued permits.
The total number of pre-mining land uses identified might exceed the
number of permits issued because operators can identify more than one
pre-mining land use type.
[End of figure]
Over the same period, West Virginia's data show that of the 212 permits
issued, 174 permits had a pre-mining land use of forestland, and 59
were previously mined. Additionally, 43 permits had a pre-mining land
use type of fish and wildlife/recreation, while 45 permits identified
other types of pre-mining land use, including 23 for hay or
pastureland.[Footnote 23] All permits issued since 2000 in West
Virginia identified at least one pre-mining land use type. Figure 16
shows these data, including the number of permits that did not identify
a pre-mining land use type.
Figure 16: Pre-Mining Land Use Types Identified in West Virginia, 1970-
2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Year permit issued: 1970;
Forestland: 1;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 0;
All other pre-mining land use types: 0;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 18.
Year permit issued: 1971;
Forestland: 2;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2;
All other pre-mining land use types: 0;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 16.
Year permit issued: 1972;
Forestland: 1;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 0;
All other pre-mining land use types: 0;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 21.
Year permit issued: 1973;
Forestland: 1;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 1;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 0;
All other pre-mining land use types: 0;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 22.
Year permit issued: 1974;
Forestland: 4;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 1;
All other pre-mining land use types: 1;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 63.
Year permit issued: 1975;
Forestland: 3;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 1;
All other pre-mining land use types: 2;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 93.
Year permit issued: 1976;
Forestland: 15;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 5;
All other pre-mining land use types: 3;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 102.
Year permit issued: 1977;
Forestland: 8;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 5;
All other pre-mining land use types: 1;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 116.
Year permit issued: 1978;
Forestland: 11;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 1;
All other pre-mining land use types: 0;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 113.
Year permit issued: 1979;
Forestland: 9;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 1;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 4;
All other pre-mining land use types: 6;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 83.
Year permit issued: 1980;
Forestland: 21;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 12;
All other pre-mining land use types: 11;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 91.
Year permit issued: 1981;
Forestland: 19;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 7;
All other pre-mining land use types: 5;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 119.
Year permit issued: 1982;
Forestland: 26;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 5;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 7;
All other pre-mining land use types: 12;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 127.
Year permit issued: 1983;
Forestland: 18;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 6;
All other pre-mining land use types: 7;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 138.
Year permit issued: 1984;
Forestland: 18;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 10;
All other pre-mining land use types: 8;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 80.
Year permit issued: 1985;
Forestland: 23;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 24;
All other pre-mining land use types: 4; ;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 90.
Year permit issued: 1986;
Forestland: 28;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 23;
All other pre-mining land use types: 9;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 86.
Year permit issued: 1987;
Forestland: 25;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 21;
All other pre-mining land use types: 12;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 83.
Year permit issued: 1988;
Forestland: 28;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 24;
All other pre-mining land use types: 16;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 70.
Year permit issued: 1989;
Forestland: 45;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 33;
All other pre-mining land use types: 16;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 52.
Year permit issued: 1990;
Forestland: 20;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 9;
All other pre-mining land use types: 7;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 25.
Year permit issued: 1991;
Forestland: 37;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 6;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 16;
All other pre-mining land use types: 16;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 12.
Year permit issued: 1992;
Forestland: 31;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 4;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 19;
All other pre-mining land use types: 12;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 14.
Year permit issued: 1993;
Forestland: 21;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 11;
All other pre-mining land use types: 5;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 10.
Year permit issued: 1994;
Forestland: 28;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 6;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 9;
All other pre-mining land use types: 8;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 4.
Year permit issued: 1995;
Forestland: 22;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 4;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 11;
All other pre-mining land use types: 7;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 1.
Year permit issued: 1996;
Forestland: 31;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 7;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 12;
All other pre-mining land use types: 8;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 3.
Year permit issued: 1997;
Forestland: 32;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 17;
All other pre-mining land use types: 7;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 5.
Year permit issued: 1998;
Forestland: 14;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 1;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 5;
All other pre-mining land use types: 5.
Year permit issued: 1999;
Forestland: 13;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 4;
All other pre-mining land use types: 3.
Year permit issued: 2000;
Forestland: 15;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2;
All other pre-mining land use types: 6.
Year permit issued: 2001;
Forestland: 32;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 6;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 4;
All other pre-mining land use types: 6.
Year permit issued: 2002;
Forestland: 13;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 4;
All other pre-mining land use types: 6.
Year permit issued: 2003;
Forestland: 29;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 9;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 11;
All other pre-mining land use types: 2.
Year permit issued: 2004;
Forestland: 21;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 7;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 8;
All other pre-mining land use types: 1.
Year permit issued: 2005;
Forestland: 12;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 4;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2;
All other pre-mining land use types: 6. ;
Year permit issued: 2006;
Forestland: 23;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 15;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 7;
All other pre-mining land use types: 8.
Year permit issued: 2007;
Forestland: 18;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 11;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 4;
All other pre-mining land use types: 7.
Year permit issued: 2008;
Forestland: 11;
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3;
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 1;
All other pre-mining land use types: 3.
Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia‘s ERIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts the number of pre-mining land use types identified
prior to 1998 because this data element was not consistently recorded
in the ERIS database for permits issued prior to that time, and because
permits closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS.
The total number of pre-mining land uses identified might exceed the
number of permits issued because operators can designate more than one
pre-mining land use type.
[End of figure]
Most Operations Are Required to Reclaim the Land to AOC, but There Are
Exceptions:
SMCRA generally requires surface-mined land to be reclaimed to AOC. The
act defines AOC as closely resembling the general surface configuration
of the land prior to mining and blending into and complementing the
drainage pattern of the surrounding terrain. However, SMCRA does not
require operators to duplicate the original contour or elevation of the
mined area. Furthermore, according to OSM, it is often not physically
possible to do so because of site-specific conditions and performance
standards such as ensuring stability, controlling drainage, and
preventing stream sedimentation. In addition, SMCRA allows exceptions
to the AOC requirement--called AOC variances--under certain
circumstances.
Kentucky and West Virginia issued AOC policy guidance in 2001 and 1999,
respectively, to help implement SMCRA. The states issued this guidance
following special oversight reviews that OSM conducted on how the
states applied standards and approved permits in reference to AOC
requirements.[Footnote 24] In both states' permit applications,
operators provide calculations, maps, and/or cross sections to
illustrate and define the proposed post-mining contour of the permit
area. This proposed contour becomes part of the reclamation plan for
the site, fulfillment of which is a condition for release of the
operator's bond. The OSM reports found, among other things, that some
reclaimed sites where the operator was supposed to return the land to
AOC differed little from sites that had been granted AOC variances.
[Footnote 25] Both states agreed to apply their AOC policies
prospectively for all new permits issued, as well as review all pre-
existing permits and correct deficiencies to the extent practicable.
Kentucky's guidance states that, in general, approximately 80 percent
of spoil volume should be returned to the mined-out area to achieve
AOC, although site-specific flexibility is allowed.[Footnote 26]
Kentucky's guidance also states that the post-mining contour must
closely resemble, but does not need to exactly match the pre-mining
contour, and the post-mining slopes do not necessarily have to be long
and uninterrupted, even if the pre-mining slopes were. West Virginia's
AOC guidance provides a technical model designed to maximize the amount
and height of spoil placed back on the mined-out area and therefore
minimize the amount of excess spoil placed in fills that can impact
streams and terrestrial and aquatic habitats.[Footnote 27] In addition,
the West Virginia model is designed to result in fills being placed as
far upstream as possible. Like Kentucky's guidance, West Virginia's
guidance allows site-specific flexibility for AOC determinations.
Figure 17 illustrates what a reclaimed site could look like in meeting
the AOC requirement, compared with the original, pre-mining contour.
Figure 17: An Illustration of a Reclaimed Site Meeting the AOC
Requirement, Compared with the Original, Pre-Mining Contour:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Depicted on the illustration are the following:
Pre-mining contour;
Post-mining contour;
Coal seams;
Excess spoil.
Source: OSM.
[End of figure]
While the states' databases contain data on some permits issued with
AOC variances as long ago as 1982 in Kentucky and 1976 in West
Virginia, officials in both states stated that the reliability of data
on AOC variances improved starting in 2002 and 2000, respectively.
[Footnote 28] In addition, state officials told us that operators do
not always use the variances they are granted, resulting in some of
those sites being reclaimed to AOC, a fact that may not be reflected in
the data. State officials also told us that an AOC variance may apply
to the entire permitted area, or only a portion, and that a permit may
contain more than one AOC variance. Finally, Kentucky officials told us
that they have not consistently recorded reliable information in their
database on the acres or PMLU types associated specifically with AOC
variances, and West Virginia officials told us they have not recorded
this information to any extent in their database, thus we are unable to
provide that information.
According to Kentucky's and West Virginia's data, most surface coal
mining permits issued in recent years required the land to be reclaimed
to AOC, although both states also granted some permits with AOC
variances. Specifically, 76 percent (or 294 permits) of the 388 permits
that Kentucky issued from January 2002 through July 2008 required the
operator to reclaim the land to AOC. The remaining 24 percent (or 94
permits) contained 99 AOC variances. Figure 18 shows the number of
permits issued to reclaim the land to AOC, compared with permits issued
with AOC variances.
Figure 18: Number of Permits in Kentucky Issued to Be Reclaimed to AOC,
Compared with Permits Issued with AOC Variances, 1970-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Data undercounts permits issued in the 1970s, and some permits were
double counted in the 1980s. In addition, data undercounts permits with
AOC variances issued prior to 2002.
Year permit issued: 1970;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 5.
Year permit issued: 1971;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 5.
Year permit issued: 1972;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 4.
Year permit issued: 1973;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 16.
Year permit issued: 1974;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 35.
Year permit issued: 1975;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 36.
Year permit issued: 1976;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 42.
Year permit issued: 1977;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 111.
Year permit issued: 1978;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 169.
Year permit issued: 1979;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 243.
Year permit issued: 1980;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 134.
Year permit issued: 1981;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 114.
Year permit issued: 1982;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 680;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1.
Year permit issued: 1983;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 644;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 2.
Year permit issued: 1984;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 1,300;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 10.
Year permit issued: 1985;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 566;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4.
Year permit issued: 1986;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 276;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 3.
Year permit issued: 1987;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 176;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4.
Year permit issued: 1988;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 140;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4.
Year permit issued: 1989;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 102.
Year permit issued: 1990;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 85;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5.
Year permit issued: 1991;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 72;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 6.
Year permit issued: 1992;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 55;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 7.
Year permit issued: 1993;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 65;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 6.
Year permit issued: 1994;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 44;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 3.
Year permit issued: 1995;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 42;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5.
Year permit issued: 1996;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 47;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 10.
Year permit issued: 1997;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 45;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 8.
Year permit issued: 1998;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 42;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 9.
Year permit issued: 1999;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 41;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 8.
Year permit issued: 2000;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 27;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4.
Year permit issued: 2001;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 57;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5.
Year permit issued: 2002;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 38;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 19.
Year permit issued: 2003;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 39;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 12.
Year permit issued: 2004;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 41;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 16.
Year permit issued: 2005;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 41;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 18.
Year permit issued: 2006;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 52;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 15.
Year permit issued: 2007;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 51;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 9.
Year permit issued: 2008;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 32;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5.
Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky‘s SMIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts permits issued in the 1970s because not all permits of
that era are included in the SMIS database, and some permits were
double counted in the 1980s because of state administrative actions to
reissue previously issued permits. In addition, data undercounts
permits issued with AOC variances prior to 2002 because this data
element was not consistently recorded in SMIS for permits issued prior
to that time.
A permit may contain more than one AOC variance. In addition, the data
reflects the AOC variances that are approved, not necessarily the
variances implemented.
[End of figure]
In West Virginia, 85 percent (or 181 permits) of the 212 permits issued
from January 2000 through July 2008 required the operator to reclaim
the land to AOC. The remaining 15 percent (or 31 permits) contained 33
AOC variances. Figure 19 shows the number of permits issued to reclaim
the land to AOC, compared with permits issued with AOC variances.
Figure 19: Number of Permits in West Virginia Issued to Be Reclaimed to
AOC, Compared with Permits Issued with AOC Variances, 1970-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Data undercounts permits issued prior to 1984. In addition, data
undercounts permits issued with AOC variances prior to 2000.
Year permit issued: 1970;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 19;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0.
Year permit issued: 1971;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 18;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0.
Year permit issued: 1972;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 22;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0.
Year permit issued: 1973;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 24;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0.
Year permit issued: 1974;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 67;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0.
Year permit issued: 1975;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 97;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0.
Year permit issued: 1976;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 119;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1.
Year permit issued: 1977;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 127;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1.
Year permit issued: 1978;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 125;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1.
Year permit issued: 1979;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 98;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1.
Year permit issued: 1980;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 119;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 3.
Year permit issued: 1981;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 140;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1.
Year permit issued: 1982;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 160;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0.
Year permit issued: 1983;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 162;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0.
Year permit issued: 1984;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 107;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 2.
Year permit issued: 1985;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 125;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5.
Year permit issued: 1986;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 129;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4.
Year permit issued: 1987;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 131;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1.
Year permit issued: 1988;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 120;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4.
Year permit issued: 1989;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 130;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5.
Year permit issued: 1990;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 52;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5.
Year permit issued: 1991;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 52;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 11.
Year permit issued: 1992;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 53;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 12.
Year permit issued: 1993;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 32;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 7.
Year permit issued: 1994;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 38;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 6.
Year permit issued: 1995;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 26;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 7.
Year permit issued: 1996;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 37;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5.
Year permit issued: 1997;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 39;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5.
Year permit issued: 1998;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 19;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 2.
Year permit issued: 1999;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 16;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1.
Year permit issued: 2000;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 14;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4.
Year permit issued: 2001;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 28;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 6.
Year permit issued: 2002;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 18;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1.
Year permit issued: 2003;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 25;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 8.
Year permit issued: 2004;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 23;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 3.
Year permit issued: 2005;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 14;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 2.
Year permit issued: 2006;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 27;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4.
Year permit issued: 2007;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 23;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1.
Year permit issued: 2008;
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 9;
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 2.
Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia‘s ERIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts permits issued prior to 1984 because permits closed
prior to 1984 are not included in the ERIS database. In addition, data
undercounts permits issued with AOC variances prior to 2000 because
this data element was not consistently recorded in ERIS for permits
issued prior to that time.
A permit may contain more than one AOC variance. In addition, the data
reflects the AOC variances that are approved, not necessarily the
variances implemented.
[End of figure]
According to the two states' databases, Kentucky and West Virginia have
approved three different types of AOC variances--remining, mountaintop
removal, and steep slope. Remining AOC variances are used for certain
lands that have been previously mined, but not reclaimed, and for which
the regulatory agency deems there is insufficient spoil to return the
remined land to the shape of the original mountain. A remining AOC
variance simply requires the operator to return as much spoil as
possible to the site. This type of AOC variance also allows the
operator to keep a preexisting highwall intact, so long as it is
stable.
By contrast, the other two types of AOC variances--mountaintop removal
and steep slope--may be approved for specific types of operations on
land in mountainous areas, even though the land could physically be
reclaimed to AOC.[Footnote 29] In these cases, federal and state
regulations allow the operator to reclaim the land without regard to
the AOC requirement if the land will be suitable for certain PMLUs.
According to an OSM policy document on AOC variances issued in June
2000,[Footnote 30] these types of AOC variances present an opportunity
to create relatively flat, flood-free land capable of supporting
residential and industrial development or other valuable land uses in
mountainous Appalachia. However, the OSM policy advises that
mountaintop removal and steep slope AOC variances should be granted
"only in situations where beneficial land uses could compensate for the
adverse effects of not returning the land to AOC." These adverse
effects include increased excess spoil that can result in more and
larger fills placed in adjacent valleys and hollows,[Footnote 31]
compared with operations that comply with the AOC requirement.[Footnote
32] The OSM policy also directs state regulatory agencies to approve
mountaintop removal and steep slope AOC variances only in cases where
the PMLU offers a net benefit to the public or the economy. An example
of a reclaimed site with an AOC variance, used to build the Mount Olive
Correctional Complex in Fayette County, West Virginia, appears in
figure 20.
Figure 20: A Reclaimed, Surface-Mined Site with an AOC Variance in West
Virginia:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
The types of mining operations and PMLU restrictions to which
mountaintop removal and steep slope AOC variances apply are as follows:
[Footnote 33]
* A mountaintop removal operation involves the extraction of an entire
coal seam or seams in the upper part of a mountain, ridge, or hill.
Additionally, the land must be reclaimed to a condition suitable for
agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential, or public facility
(including recreational facilities) uses.
* A steep slope operation is one conducted in an area with a slope
exceeding 20 degrees (or less, if deemed appropriate by the state after
considering soil, climate, and other site characteristics) that does
not involve the removal of the entire mountaintop. Operators of steep
slope AOC variances are restricted to the same PMLUs as for mountaintop
removal variances, except that agricultural land use is not allowed.
To help ensure the land is reclaimed to a condition capable of
supporting the PMLU proposed by the operator, SMCRA and its
implementing regulations also provide specific criteria for granting
mountaintop removal and steep slope AOC variances. For example, for
mountaintop removal AOC variances, the operator must provide assurance
in the permit application that the PMLU will be:
* compatible with adjacent land uses;
* obtainable according to data regarding expected need and market;
* assured of investment in necessary public facilities;
* supported by commitments from public agencies, where appropriate;
* practicable with respect to private financial capability for
completion of the proposed use;
* planned pursuant to a schedule attached to the reclamation plan so as
to integrate the mining operation and reclamation with the PMLU; and:
* designed by a registered engineer in conformance with professional
standards established to ensure the stability, drainage, and
configuration necessary for the intended use of the site.
Kentucky's data indicate that, of the 99 AOC variances contained in 94
permits issued from January 2002 through July 2008, 79 were for
remining, while 5 were for mountaintop removal, and 15 were for steep
slope AOC variances.[Footnote 34] Figure 21 shows the types of AOC
variances approved in Kentucky, by year.
Figure 21: Types of AOC Variances Approved in Kentucky, 1970-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image; Vertical bar graph]
Year permit issued: 1970;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1971;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1972;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1973;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1974;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1975;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1976;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1977;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1978;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1979;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1980;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1981;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1982;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 1983;
Remining: 1;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 1984;
Remining: 7;
Steep slope: 5;
Mountaintop removal: 4.
Year permit issued: 1985;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 4.
Year permit issued: 1986;
Remining: 1;
Steep slope: 3;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1987;
Remining: 2;
Steep slope: 3;
Mountaintop removal: 2.
Year permit issued: 1988;
Remining: 2;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 1989;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1990;
Remining: 2;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 1991;
Remining: 1;
Steep slope: 6;
Mountaintop removal: 3.
Year permit issued: 1992;
Remining: 1;
Steep slope: 5;
Mountaintop removal: 3.
Year permit issued: 1993;
Remining: 2;
Steep slope: 5;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1994;
Remining: 1;
Steep slope: 2;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1995;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 4;
Mountaintop removal: 2.
Year permit issued: 1996;
Remining: 2;
Steep slope: 8;
Mountaintop removal: 4.
Year permit issued: 1997;
Remining: 3;
Steep slope: 4;
Mountaintop removal: 2.
Year permit issued: 1998;
Remining: 5;
Steep slope: 5;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 1999;
Remining: 4;
Steep slope: 4;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 2000;
Remining: 4;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 2001;
Remining: 4;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 2002;
Remining: 15;
Steep slope: 4;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 2003;
Remining: 8;
Steep slope: 4;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 2004;
Remining: 15;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 2005;
Remining: 18;
Steep slope: 2;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 2006;
Remining: 12;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 3.
Year permit issued: 2007;
Remining: 7;
Steep slope: 2;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 2008;
Remining: 4;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky‘s SMIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts the number of AOC variances approved on permits issued
prior to 2002 because this data element was not consistently recorded
in the SMIS database for permits issued prior to that time.
The data reflects the AOC variances that are approved, not necessarily
the variances implemented.
[End of figure]
In West Virginia, of the 33 AOC variances contained in 31 permits
issued from January 2000 through July 2008, 9 were for remining, 18
were for mountaintop removal, and 6 were for steep slope AOC variances.
[Footnote 35] Figure 22 shows the types of AOC variances approved in
West Virginia, by year.
Figure 22: Types of AOC Variances Approved in West Virginia, 1970-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Data undercounts AOC variances approved on permits issued prior to
2002.
Year permit issued: 1970;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1971;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1972;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1973;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1974;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1975;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1976;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 1977;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 1978;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 1979;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 1980;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 3.
Year permit issued: 1981;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 1982;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1983;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 1984;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 2.
Year permit issued: 1985;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 3;
Mountaintop removal: 2.
Year permit issued: 1986;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 3.
Year permit issued: 1987;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 1988;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 4.
Year permit issued: 1989;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 5.
Year permit issued: 1990;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 3;
Mountaintop removal: 3.
Year permit issued: 1991;
Remining: 1;
Steep slope: 7;
Mountaintop removal: 4.
Year permit issued: 1992;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 11;
Mountaintop removal: 3.
Year permit issued: 1993;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 4;
Mountaintop removal: 3.
Year permit issued: 1994;
Remining: 1;
Steep slope: 2;
Mountaintop removal: 4.
Year permit issued: 1995;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 6;
Mountaintop removal: 4.
Year permit issued: 1996;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 2;
Mountaintop removal: 5.
Year permit issued: 1997;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 3;
Mountaintop removal: 4.
Year permit issued: 1998;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 2.
Year permit issued: 1999;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 2000;
Remining: 1;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 3.
Year permit issued: 2001;
Remining: 3;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 3.
Year permit issued: 2002;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 2003;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 7.
Year permit issued: 2004;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 2.
Year permit issued: 2005;
Remining: 2;
Steep slope: 0;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 2006;
Remining: 3;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 0.
Year permit issued: 2007;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Year permit issued: 2008;
Remining: 0;
Steep slope: 1;
Mountaintop removal: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky‘s SMIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts the number of AOC variances approved on permits issued
prior to 2000 because this data element was not consistently recorded
in the ERIS database for permits issued prior to that time, and because
permits closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS.
The data reflects the number of AOC variances that are approved, not
necessarily the number of variances implemented.
[End of figure]
Operators Were Approved to Construct Nearly 2,000 Valley and Hollow
Fills from 2000 to 2008:
As part of the permitting process, operators may be authorized to place
excess spoil in fills in nearby valleys and hollows. OSM, Kentucky, and
West Virginia regulations define these fills as structures consisting
of any material, other than organic material, placed in a valley or the
uppermost reaches of a hollow where either (1) the side slopes,
measured at the steepest point, are greater than 20 degrees or (2) the
average slope of the profile of the valley or hollow, from the bottom
to the top of the fill, is greater than 10 degrees. In the permit
application, operators justify the estimated number and size of these
fills based on the amount of excess spoil they calculate will not be
needed to achieve AOC or, in the case of an AOC variance, to support
the proposed PMLU. The regulations further distinguish between valley
fills and hollow fills, and Kentucky makes use of this distinction in
its database. One official told us that in Kentucky, the difference
between valley fills and hollow fills is that hollow fills tend to be
smaller in size and located higher up in the valley than valley fills.
West Virginia does not make use of this distinction in its database.
According to OSM, the amount of excess spoil generated varies
considerably depending on the nature of the rock and the mining method
used, but the industry average is about 25 percent of material removed.
[Footnote 36] Although fills are not subject to AOC requirements, the
operator must ensure fills are safe and stable,[Footnote 37] compatible
with the surrounding landscape, and suitable for the approved PMLU. In
addition, among other requirements, operators must dispose of the
excess spoil in designated areas within the permit boundaries; minimize
the adverse effects of leaching and surface water runoff from the fill;
and minimize adverse impacts on fish and wildlife to the extent
possible, using the best technology currently available. Excess spoil
that is acid-or toxic-forming must be adequately covered or treated to
control the impacts on surface and groundwater, plant growth, and the
approved PMLU.[Footnote 38] Terraces may be constructed if needed for
stability, for control of erosion, to conserve soil moisture, or to
facilitate the approved PMLU. Figure 23 shows a terraced fill on a
reclaimed site in West Virginia.
Figure 23: A Terraced Fill on a Reclaimed Site in West Virginia:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
The two states' databases indicate operators were collectively approved
to construct nearly 2,000 fills from January 2000 through July 2008 to
store at least 4.85 billion cubic yards of excess spoil. The data
reflects the number and size of fills approved; the states do not keep
electronic data on the number and size of fills that were actually
constructed.[Footnote 39] According to state officials, operators may
forgo constructing an approved fill, or they may construct a smaller
fill than approved, without revising the permit. A permit can contain
one or more fills, but an operator may only be authorized to increase
the number or size of fills through a permit revision. Additionally,
while both states have collected some information on fills in their
databases since the late 1970s, Kentucky officials told us their fill
data is less reliable prior to 2000. West Virginia officials also told
us they did not consistently record information on fills in their
database until the late 1990s.
Kentucky approved 1,488 fills on permits issued from January 2000
through July 2008, of which 94 percent of the fills were classified as
hollow fills, and 6 percent were valley fills. Sixty-six percent (319
permits) of the 481 permits issued during that time approved the
construction of one or more fills. Figure 24 shows the total number of
fills approved, and permits issued with fills, by year.
Figure 24: Fills Approved in Kentucky, 1970-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: combined line and vertical bar graph]
Data undercounts fills approved on permits issued prior to 2000, and
data from some permits was double counted in the 1980s.
Year permit issued: 1970;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1971;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1972;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1973;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1974;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1975;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1976;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1977;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 10;
Permits with fills: 1.
Year permit issued: 1978;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1979;
Valley fills: 3;
Hollow fills: 9;
Permits with fills: 2.
Year permit issued: 1980;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 16;
Permits with fills: 3.
Year permit issued: 1981;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 10;
Permits with fills: 4.
Year permit issued: 1982;
Valley fills: 21;
Hollow fills: 193;
Permits with fills: 48.
Year permit issued: 1983;
Valley fills: 2;
Hollow fills: 168;
Permits with fills: 40.
Year permit issued: 1984;
Valley fills: 27;
Hollow fills: 716;
Permits with fills: 179.
Year permit issued: 1985;
Valley fills: 40;
Hollow fills: 736;
Permits with fills: 176.
Year permit issued: 1986;
Valley fills: 38;
Hollow fills: 449;
Permits with fills: 118.
Year permit issued: 1987;
Valley fills: 19;
Hollow fills: 482;
Permits with fills: 112.
Year permit issued: 1988;
Valley fills: 18;
Hollow fills: 319;
Permits with fills: 90.
Year permit issued: 1989;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 232;
Permits with fills: 64.
Year permit issued: 1990;
Valley fills: 9;
Hollow fills: 205;
Permits with fills: 47.
Year permit issued: 1991;
Valley fills: 40;
Hollow fills: 322;
Permits with fills: 58.
Year permit issued: 1992;
Valley fills: 26;
Hollow fills: 316;
Permits with fills: 50.
Year permit issued: 1993;
Valley fills: 20;
Hollow fills: 311;
Permits with fills: 56.
Year permit issued: 1994;
Valley fills: 6;
Hollow fills: 203;
Permits with fills: 37.
Year permit issued: 1995;
Valley fills: 14;
Hollow fills: 207;
Permits with fills: 37.
Year permit issued: 1996;
Valley fills: 18;
Hollow fills: 280;
Permits with fills: 44.
Year permit issued: 1997;
Valley fills: 41;
Hollow fills: 234;
Permits with fills: 49.
Year permit issued: 1998;
Valley fills: 29;
Hollow fills: 174;
Permits with fills: 38.
Year permit issued: 1999;
Valley fills: 2;
Hollow fills: 239;
Permits with fills: 40.
Year permit issued: 2000;
Valley fills: 1;
Hollow fills: 160;
Permits with fills: 28.
Year permit issued: 2001;
Valley fills: 42;
Hollow fills: 165;
Permits with fills: 43.
Year permit issued: 2002;
Valley fills: 12;
Hollow fills: 175;
Permits with fills: 38.
Year permit issued: 2003;
Valley fills: 19;
Hollow fills: 227;
Permits with fills: 39.
Year permit issued: 2004;
Valley fills: 4;
Hollow fills: 126;
Permits with fills: 32.
Year permit issued: 2005;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 144;
Permits with fills: 38.
Year permit issued: 2006;
Valley fills: 6;
Hollow fills: 158;
Permits with fills: 38.
Year permit issued: 2007;
Valley fills: 0;
Hollow fills: 158;
Permits with fills: 42.
Year permit issued: 2008;
Valley fills: 2;
Hollow fills: 89;
Permits with fills: 21.
Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky‘s SMIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts the number of fills approved prior to 2000 because
this data element was not consistently recorded in the SMIS database
for permits issued prior to that time, and because not all permits
issued in the 1970s are included in SMIS. Data double counts the number
of fills approved for some permits issued in the 1980s because of state
administrative actions to reissue previously issued permits.
The data reflects the number of fills approved, not the actual number
of fills constructed.
[End of figure]
Of the 1,488 fills approved on permits issued from 2000 through July
2008, Kentucky's database contains storage volume information on 1,485
fills. In total, these 1,485 fills were approved to store up to 2.15
billion cubic yards of excess spoil, averaging 1.4 million cubic yards
and ranging from 564 cubic yards to 23.1 million cubic yards per fill.
See figure 25 for the total storage volume approved, by year.
Figure 25: Storage Volume of Fills Approved in Kentucky, 1970-2008
(cubic yards in millions):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Year permit issued: 1970;
Hollow fills: 0;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1971;
Hollow fills: 0;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1972;
Hollow fills: 0;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1973;
Hollow fills: 0;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1974;
Hollow fills: 0;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1975;
Hollow fills: 0;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1976;
Hollow fills: 0;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1977;
Hollow fills: 16.1;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1978;
Hollow fills: 0;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1979;
Hollow fills: 0.9;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1980;
Hollow fills: 19.6;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1981;
Hollow fills: 28.7;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1982;
Hollow fills: 250.7;
Valley fills: 6.4.
Year permit issued: 1983;
Hollow fills: 311.5;
Valley fills: 1.0.
Year permit issued: 1984;
Hollow fills: 1,091.7;
Valley fills: 23.7.
Year permit issued: 1985;
Hollow fills: 691.3;
Valley fills: 89.2.
Year permit issued: 1986;
Hollow fills: 362.6;
Valley fills: 7.6.
Year permit issued: 1987;
Hollow fills: 583.9;
Valley fills: 15.7.
Year permit issued: 1988;
Hollow fills: 554.9;
Valley fills: 14.7.
Year permit issued: 1989;
Hollow fills: 255.7;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1990;
Hollow fills: 430.0;
Valley fills: 4.7.
Year permit issued: 1991;
Hollow fills: 695.7;
Valley fills: 25.8.
Year permit issued: 1992;
Hollow fills: 713.4;
Valley fills: 27.6.
Year permit issued: 1993;
Hollow fills: 424.4;
Valley fills: 25.7.
Year permit issued: 1994;
Hollow fills: 499.2;
Valley fills: 5.1.
Year permit issued: 1995;
Hollow fills: 703.5;
Valley fills: 47.6.
Year permit issued: 1996;
Hollow fills: 476.6;
Valley fills: 20.0.
Year permit issued: 1997;
Hollow fills: 629.9;
Valley fills: 64.0.
Year permit issued: 1998;
Hollow fills: 589.9;
Valley fills: 23.3.
Year permit issued: 1999;
Hollow fills: 336.5;
Valley fills: 4.4.
Year permit issued: 2000;
Hollow fills: 318.9;
Valley fills: 0.4.
Year permit issued: 2001;
Hollow fills: 123.8;
Valley fills: 13.8.
Year permit issued: 2002;
Hollow fills: 304.0;
Valley fills: 2.9.
Year permit issued: 2003;
Hollow fills: 291.5;
Valley fills: 2.8.
Year permit issued: 2004;
Hollow fills: 226.4;
Valley fills: 8.6.
Year permit issued: 2005;
Hollow fills: 212.8;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 2006;
Hollow fills: 351.4;
Valley fills: 0.4.
Year permit issued: 2007;
Hollow fills: 195.5;
Valley fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 2008;
Hollow fills: 96.3;
Valley fills: 1.4.
Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky‘s SMIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts the storage volume of fills approved prior to 2000
because this data element was not consistently recorded in the SMIS
database for permits issued prior to that time, and because not all
permits issued in the 1970s are included in SMIS. Data double counts
the storage volume of fills approved for some permits issued in the
1980s because of state administrative actions to reissue previously
issued permits.
The data reflects the size of fills approved, not the actual size of
fills constructed.
[End of figure]
West Virginia approved the construction of 511 fills on permits issued
from January 2000 through July 2008. Unlike Kentucky, West Virginia
does not make a distinction between valley and hollow fills in its
database. Fifty-five percent (117 permits) of the 212 permits issued
during this time approved the construction of one or more fills. Figure
26 shows the total number of fills approved, and permits issued with
fills, by year.
Figure 26: Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: combination vertical bar and line graph]
Year permit issued: 1970;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1971;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1972;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1973;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1974;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1975;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1976;
Fills: 3;
Permits with fills: 1.
Year permit issued: 1977;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1978;
Fills: 1;
Permits with fills: 1.
Year permit issued: 1979;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1980;
Fills: 4;
Permits with fills: 1.
Year permit issued: 1981;
Fills: 9;
Permits with fills: 2.
Year permit issued: 1982;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1983;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1984;
Fills: 3;
Permits with fills: 1.
Year permit issued: 1985;
Fills: 7;
Permits with fills: 1.
Year permit issued: 1986;
Fills: 7;
Permits with fills: 2.
Year permit issued: 1987;
Fills: 2;
Permits with fills: 1.
Year permit issued: 1988;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1989;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1990;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1991;
Fills: 7;
Permits with fills: 2.
Year permit issued: 1992;
Fills: 13;
Permits with fills: 4.
Year permit issued: 1993;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1994;
Fills: 5;
Permits with fills: 4.
Year permit issued: 1995;
Fills: 0;
Permits with fills: 0.
Year permit issued: 1996;
Fills: 15;
Permits with fills: 5.
Year permit issued: 1997;
Fills: 50;
Permits with fills: 11.
Year permit issued: 1998;
Fills: 20;
Permits with fills: 6.
Year permit issued: 1999;
Fills: 34;
Permits with fills: 8.
Year permit issued: 2000;
Fills: 48;
Permits with fills: 10.
Year permit issued: 2001;
Fills: 102;
Permits with fills: 21.
Year permit issued: 2002;
Fills: 36;
Permits with fills: 9.
Year permit issued: 2003;
Fills: 96;
Permits with fills: 21.
Year permit issued: 2004;
Fills: 104;
Permits with fills: 19.
Year permit issued: 2005;
Fills: 22;
Permits with fills: 6.
Year permit issued: 2006;
Fills: 57;
Permits with fills: 16.
Year permit issued: 2007;
Fills: 26;
Permits with fills: 10.
Year permit issued: 2008;
Fills: 20;
Permits with fills: 5.
Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia‘s ERIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts the number of fills approved prior to 2000 because
this data element was not consistently recorded in the ERIS database
for permits issued prior to that time, and because permits closed prior
to 1984 are not included in ERIS.
The data reflects the number of fills approved, not the actual number
of fills constructed.
[End of figure]
Of the 511 fills approved on permits issued from 2000 to 2008, West
Virginia's database contains storage volume information on 506 fills.
In total, these 506 fills were approved to store up to 2.7 billion
cubic yards of excess spoil, averaging 5.4 million cubic yards and
ranging from 6,932 cubic yards to 123.6 million cubic yards per fill.
See figure 27 for the total storage volume approved, by year.
Figure 27: Storage Volume of Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970-
2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Year permit issued: 1970;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1971;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1972;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1973;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1974;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1975;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1976;
Millions of cubic yards: 22.9.
Year permit issued: 1977;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1978;
Millions of cubic yards: 13.1.
Year permit issued: 1979;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1980;
Millions of cubic yards: 2.6.
Year permit issued: 1981;
Millions of cubic yards: 8.0.
Year permit issued: 1982;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1983;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1984;
Millions of cubic yards: 18.7.
Year permit issued: 1985;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1986;
Millions of cubic yards: 23.2.
Year permit issued: 1987;
Millions of cubic yards: 1.8.
Year permit issued: 1988;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1989;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1990;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1991;
Millions of cubic yards: 39.0.
Year permit issued: 1992;
Millions of cubic yards: 4.9.
Year permit issued: 1993;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1994;
Millions of cubic yards: 4.3.
Year permit issued: 1995;
Millions of cubic yards: 0.
Year permit issued: 1996;
Millions of cubic yards: 63.3.
Year permit issued: 1997;
Millions of cubic yards: 114.3.
Year permit issued: 1998;
Millions of cubic yards: 97.1.
Year permit issued: 1999;
Millions of cubic yards: 15.1.
Year permit issued: 2000;
Millions of cubic yards: 241.6.
Year permit issued: 2001;
Millions of cubic yards: 331.7.
Year permit issued: 2002;
Millions of cubic yards: 101.0.
Year permit issued: 2003;
Millions of cubic yards: 793.8.
Year permit issued: 2004;
Millions of cubic yards: 385.6.
Year permit issued: 2005;
Millions of cubic yards: 131.4.
Year permit issued: 2006;
Millions of cubic yards: 369.4.
Year permit issued: 2007;
Millions of cubic yards: 173.2.
Year permit issued: 2008;
Millions of cubic yards: 181.4.
Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia‘s ERIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercounts the storage volume of fills approved prior to 2000
because this data element was not consistently recorded in the ERIS
database for permits issued prior to that time, and because permits
closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS.
The data reflects the size of fills approved, not the actual size of
fills.
[End of figure]
While both states collect data on the approved storage volume of fills,
West Virginia also collects data on their approved length. Of the 511
fills approved on permits issued from 2000 through July 2008, West
Virginia's database contains length information on 496 fills. In total,
these fills were approved to measure 933,487 feet (nearly 177 miles) in
length. On average, these fills were approved to measure 1,882 feet
(over one-third of a mile) in length and varied from 150 feet to 8,400
feet (up to 1.6 miles) per fill. Figure 28 shows the total fill length
approved, by year.
Figure 28: Length of Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Year permit issued: 1970;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1971;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1972;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1973;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1974;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1975;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1976;
Thousands of feet: 9.4.
Year permit issued: 1977;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1978;
Thousands of feet: 4.6.
Year permit issued: 1979;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1980;
Thousands of feet: 6.0.
Year permit issued: 1981;
Thousands of feet: 6.6.
Year permit issued: 1982;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1983;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1984;
Thousands of feet: 5.4.
Year permit issued: 1985;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1986;
Thousands of feet: 9.5.
Year permit issued: 1987;
Thousands of feet: 2.3.
Year permit issued: 1988;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1989;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1990;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1991;
Thousands of feet: 14.1.
Year permit issued: 1992;
Thousands of feet: 16.9.
Year permit issued: 1993;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1994;
Thousands of feet: 4.5.
Year permit issued: 1995;
Thousands of feet: 0.
Year permit issued: 1996;
Thousands of feet: 33.0.
Year permit issued: 1997;
Thousands of feet: 69.0.
Year permit issued: 1998;
Thousands of feet: 53.9.
Year permit issued: 1999;
Thousands of feet: 56.0.
Year permit issued: 2000;
Thousands of feet: 94.7.
Year permit issued: 2001;
Thousands of feet: 166.2.
Year permit issued: 2002;
Thousands of feet: 51.3.
Year permit issued: 2003;
Thousands of feet: 202.5.
Year permit issued: 2004;
Thousands of feet: 167.2.
Year permit issued: 2005;
Thousands of feet: 41.6.
Year permit issued: 2006;
Thousands of feet: 115.6.
Year permit issued: 2007;
Thousands of feet: 55.3.
Year permit issued: 2008;
Thousands of feet: 39.1.
Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia‘s ERIS database.
Notes:
Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008.
Data undercount the length of fills approved prior to 2000 because this
data element was not consistently recorded in the ERIS database for
permits issued prior to this time and because permits closed prior to
1984 are not included in ERIS.
The data reflect the size of fills approved, not the actual size of
fills.
[End of figure]
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of the
Interior, the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources, and the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection for review and comment.
The agencies generally agreed with our findings. However, all three
agencies raised concerns about including the older data from SMIS and
ERIS in our report, data for which there are known limitations. We
share the agencies' concerns that these data could be misinterpreted or
misused. However, we are including these data in our report, along with
the appropriate caveats, in order to provide a comprehensive overview
of the data in SMIS and ERIS that clearly identifies the years for
which there are data limitations and the nature of those limitations.
We believe that the extensive discussions we had with Kentucky and West
Virginia officials brought to light for the first time, at least in a
comprehensive fashion, the full extent of the data limitations, and
that documenting the results of these discussions is an important
aspect of this study. We believe that presenting the data from the
earlier years--and their limitations--decreases the likelihood of
misuse or misinterpretation because the limitations on the data are not
disclosed on the Web sites from which the public accesses SMIS and
ERIS. Further, we clearly identify the data for which there are
limitations and state that they do not convey a representative picture
of past mining characteristics or decisions. We present comments from
the Department of the Interior, the Kentucky Department for Natural
Resources, and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
in appendixes II, III and IV, respectively. Our responses to the
Department of the Interior and the Kentucky Department for Natural
Resources are included in appendixes II and III, respectively. No
response is warranted for the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection's comments. The Department of the Interior and the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection also provided technical
comments that we incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of the Interior; the Director of the Office
of Surface Mining, Enforcement and Reclamation; the Commissioner of the
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources; and the Secretary for the
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. The report also
is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This appendix details the methods we used to examine the
characteristics, over time, of (1) surface coal mining in mountainous
areas in Kentucky and West Virginia and (2) reclaimed lands that were
disturbed by surface coal mining in mountainous areas in Kentucky and
West Virginia. This report focuses on surface coal mining in the
mountainous areas of Appalachia”often referred to as mountaintop mining”
because of the controversy that mountaintop mining generates. We
focused specifically on surface mining in the mountainous, eastern part
of Kentucky and all of West Virginia because the majority of
mountaintop mining in the Appalachian region occurs in these areas.
[Footnote 40] According to the U.S. Department of Energy‘s Energy
Information Administration (EIA), nearly 73 percent of the surface coal
produced in Appalachia in 2008 came from these areas.
To respond to both objectives, we relied extensively on surface coal
mining data provided by the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources
and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Both of
these departments maintain extensive electronic databases that contain
select information from the states‘ surface mining permit files. The
permit files provide details on mining operations that are not
contained in these databases. Kentucky describes its database, called
the Surface Mining Information System (SMIS), as an extensive computer
database that is used for tracking all permitting and enforcement
actions on coal mining activity in the commonwealth of Kentucky. West
Virginia describes its database, called the Environmental Resources
Information System (ERIS), as a comprehensive information management
system designed to track information about a variety of environmental
regulatory activities.
We worked with state officials to identify available data elements
useful to our analysis and requested extracts containing those elements
from the states‘ databases. Kentucky provided us with data from surface
mining permits issued from 1970 through July 2008, and West Virginia
provided us with data from surface mining permits that were open, as of
1984, or were issued from 1984 through July 2008.
Based on discussions with Kentucky officials, we excluded from our
analysis the following surface mining permits from the SMIS database
extracts:
* surface mining permits for the western portion of the state because
this region is generally not considered mountainous;
* combination permits (permits for both surface and underground mining)
because SMIS does not provide data on the number of acres associated
with each type of mining; and;
* a type of permit that is designed for homeowners and issued for sites
that are 2 acres or smaller because these permits are not industrial in
nature.
Based on discussion with West Virginia officials, we excluded from our
analysis those permits that were closed by the state before the
operator ever utilized the permit.
For both states, we used the following data elements to address our
objectives:
* issued permits, including the permit identification number, the issue
date, the original size of the permit (in acres) and any adjustments to
its size, and the county in which the permitted area lies;
* information on bonds associated with permits, as well as the status
of the bonds and associated dates;
* the pre- and post-mining land uses associated with permits;
* information on approximate original contour variances, if any,
associated with permits; and;
* information on the number and size of fills, if any, associated with
permits.
We performed the following analysis of data from Kentucky‘s SMIS
database. We linked certain permits together under a unified
identification number to more accurately reflect actual mining
activity. Specifically, we linked renumbered permits, which are older
permits that received a new identification number to conform to a new
numbering system. We also linked transferred permits, which are permits
that received a new identification number when they changed ownership.
Despite the different identification numbers, the permits are
essentially the same. Linking these permits prevents overcounting of
the mining and reclamation activities associated with a specific
geographic area. This issue did not arise with West Virginia‘s ERIS
database.
We also took the following steps as part of our analysis of data from
West Virginia‘s ERIS database. First, because ERIS does not identify
the date that a permit‘s status changed from open to either released or
forfeited, we used the most recent date that a corresponding bond was
released or forfeited. This issue did not arise with Kentucky‘s SMIS
database. Second, to identify the largest permitted areas in West
Virginia, we combined ERIS data with electronic geospatial files of
permit boundaries from the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection. We used ERIS data to identify when permits were issued and
whether the permits were open, released, or forfeited, as of July 2008.
We only included permits released or forfeited since January 1990, or
permits that were still open as of July 2008, in this analysis. We
excluded permits that were closed prior to 1990 because few of these
older permits had associated geospatial files, and because the older
permits were less likely to be associated with current mining activity.
We used the electronic geospatial files to identify permitted areas,
which we defined as either single, non-contiguous permits; or groups of
contiguous permits, We then identified the size of the permitted areas
and ranked them to identify the largest 5 percent. We did not perform
this analysis with Kentucky permits because we did not have electronic
geospatial files of their permit boundaries.
To assess the reliability of SMIS and ERIS data, we (1) worked with
state officials familiar with these systems to understand each data
element and determine the time frames for the reliability of each
element, (2) conducted extensive electronic and logic testing of the
SMIS and ERIS data extracts we received, and (3) reviewed the SQL code
for the states‘ system extracts. We determined these data elements to
be sufficiently reliable within certain time frames. Specifically, data
related to characteristics in surface coal mining (for example, permits
issued, released, and forfeited) is sufficiently reliable starting in
1990 for Kentucky and in 1984 for West Virginia. For Kentucky, the
extract provided to us double counts some issued and released permits
(and associated acreage) in the 1980s because of administrative actions
to reissue previously issued permits to comply with revisions to state
regulations. The extract also undercounts some permits (and associated
acreage) issued in the 1970s because not all permits of that era are
included in the SMIS database. In West Virginia, the extract provided
to us does not contain data from permits closed prior to 1984 and thus
undercounts the number of issued and closed permits (and associated
acreage) for prior years. Due to these data limitations, and to be
consistent between the states, we are reporting on the characteristics
of surface mining in Kentucky and West Virginia from January 1990
through July 2008. With respect to characteristics of reclaimed lands”
pre- and post-mining land uses, approximate original contour (AOC)
variances, and fill data”the data are sufficiently reliable by 2000 in
both states, with the exception of AOC variances in Kentucky, which are
sufficiently reliable starting in 2002. Prior to these times, the
states did not always consistently record these data elements in their
databases”they began to consistently record different data elements at
different times. Consequently, both states‘ data undercount these data
elements prior to certain years. Due to these data limitations, and to
be consistent between the states, we are reporting on the
characteristics of reclaimed lands that were disturbed by surface
mining from January 2000 through July 2008, except for Kentucky‘s data
on variances, for which we are reporting from January 2002 through July
2008.
However, in many of the graphics in this report, we include data on
characteristics from all the years for which SMIS and ERIS contain
data, in some cases dating back to 1961. We do this for two reasons.
First, it allows us to include in our report the additional data that
are sufficiently reliable, but that fall outside of our reporting time
frames. Second, although the general public has access to data from all
years”surface mining permit files in Kentucky and West Virginia are
public documents”the data are readily accessible to the public by
electronically accessing SMIS and ERIS. Thus, including the additional
data in the graphics of our report allows us to provide a comprehensive
overview of the data in SMIS and ERIS that clearly identifies the years
for which there are data limitations and what those data limitations
are. We believe that presenting data from the earlier years”and their
limitations”decreases the likelihood of misuse or misinterpretation
because the limitations on the data are not disclosed on the Web sites
from which the public accesses SMIS and ERIS.
In addition to our analysis of Kentucky‘s SMIS database and West
Virginia‘s ERIS database, we took a number of other steps to gain an
understanding of surface coal mining in Appalachia. Specifically, we
reviewed relevant federal and state laws, regulations, and policy
guidance on surface coal mining and reclamation and visited mining
sites”both active and reclaimed”in Kentucky and West Virginia. We also
met with officials from the Department of the Interior‘s Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), including regional
officials from their Charleston, West Virginia, and Lexington,
Kentucky, field offices, as well as officials from the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection, the Kentucky Department for
Natural Resources, and others knowledgeable about coal mining in
Appalachia.
We conducted our work from March 2008 to December 2009 in accordance
with all sections of GAO‘s Quality Assurance Framework that are
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to
meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work.
We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions
in this report.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, DC 20240:
November 10, 2009:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft Government Accountability Office
Report entitled, "Surface Coal Mining ” Characteristics of Mining in
Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and West Virginia" (GAO-10-21).
We appreciate the diligent work of the team that prepared the report
and the large amount of data collected, synthesized, and analyzed. In
general, we believe that this report is an informative and fair
characterization of surface coal mining in eastern Kentucky and
West Virginia. We do have several general and specific comments that,
if addressed, will enhance the quality, clarity, and consistency of
data in the report. Our comments are contained in the enclosure.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please
contact Michael Robinson, Chief of the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement's Appalachian Region Technical Support
Division, at (412) 937-2882.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Wilma A. Lewis:
Assistant Secretary:
Land and Minerals Management:
Enclosure:
[End of letter]
Department of the Interior:
Comments on Draft Report:
Surface Coal Mining: Characteristics of Mining in Mountainous Areas of
Kentucky and West Virginia (GAO-10-21):
General Comments:
1. GAO discusses and displays data in the draft final report that was
collected during earlier years of the SMCRA state programs. Kentucky
and West Virginia regulatory program personnel and OSM staff advised
GAO that the collected data should not be relied upon to convey a
representative picture of past mining characteristics or decisions. DOI
is concerned that the data from the earlier years (pre-1990) could
affect the credibility of the more recent, reliable data presented in
GAO graphs and figures, and, that following publication, the
information may be presented elsewhere as factual, without proper
context or qualification. [See comment 1]
a. In the draft report, GAO gathered the West Virginia information from
the pre1990 ERIS data. GAO may consider examining paper permitting
records for the years prior to 1990 for its accurate tabulation. Should
GAO conclude that the pre-1990 data should remain in the report, we
suggest that the scale used on report charts be consistent for pre- and
post-1990 time periods. The current draft uses a smaller y-axis scale
for the earlier time frame and a larger y-axis scale for the more
recent data. When using the y-axis scale, DOI recommends consistent
presentation of the data. [See comment 2]
b. Prior to 2002, the Kentucky state database (SMIS) includes
inconsistently recorded information on AOC variances. DOI suggests
excluding this data from the GAO charts and narrative. Rather, GAO may
consider reviewing the individual permit files to compile its
statistics, using the data for the period 1983 through 1998 which were
compiled by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
staff from permit files as part of oversight activities in Kentucky in
1999. This data is provided on pages 4 and 5 of this enclosure for
consideration. [See comment 3]
2. The scope of the draft report is intended to characterize surface
coal mining in the mountainous areas of Kentucky and West Virginia.
However, data from all of West Virginia coalfield counties are
included. Most of the northern coal field of West Virginia is located
outside of mountainous or steep slope terrain. While explanatory
language is included in a footnote in Appendix I, the report's
inclusion of the northern coal field inaccurately portrays the extent
of "Mining in Mountainous Areas." GAO excluded data from the non-
mountainous areas of western Kentucky, and DOI suggests the data from
northern West Virginia be extracted from the report as well. [See
comment 4]
The following are GAO‘s comments on the letter dated November 10, 2009,
from the Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
GAO Comments:
1. We share the department‘s concern that, following publication of our
report, some of the data we present could be presented elsewhere
without proper context or qualification. We include in our report”and
clearly identify”data which we know do not convey a representative
picture of past mining characteristics or decisions. (Some, but not all
of these data were collected prior to 1990.) These data, along with
most of the other data presented in our report, come from Kentucky‘s
and West Virginia‘s publicly accessible databases. We believe that the
extensive discussions that we had with Kentucky and West Virginia
officials brought to light for the first time”at least in a
comprehensive fashion”the full extent of the limitations associated
with these data. Documenting the results of these discussions is an
important aspect of this study. We believe that it is important to
include in our report the data with known limitations, along with the
appropriate caveats, in order to provide a comprehensive overview of
the data that are in the states‘ databases. Furthermore, because these
data are publicly available, another party could present some or all of
the problematic data without proper context or qualifications,
regardless of what we present in our report. For this reason, we
believe it is particularly important that the information on data
limitations is made public.
The department commented that including data in our report ’from the
earlier years“”that is, data with known limitations”could affect the
credibility of the more recent, reliable data that we present. We
believe that we have provided the appropriate caveats to ensure that
the reader clearly understands which data have limitations and which do
not. Nevertheless, the issue of including or excluding data with known
limitations”even with appropriate caveats”has been discussed at length
within GAO, with officials from the Department‘s Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), and with officials from
Kentucky and West Virginia. While we believe it is important to include
these data, we are aware that they could be taken out of context and
misused. While we believe that the caveats included in our report
provide a reasonable basis to believe that the data will not be misused
unintentionally, we are adding additional language to our report
suggested by the department‘s comments: that certain data should not be
relied upon to convey a representative picture of past mining
characteristics or decisions.
2. We determined that examining paper permitting records was
prohibitively resource-intensive. The files are very large and require
detailed knowledge to correctly interpret them. Additionally, we
generally agree with the department that, in presenting data
graphically, the same scale on the y-axis should be used when
presenting similar data. However, in a number of instances in our
report, using the same y-axis scale would have resulted in either
graphs that did not fit on the page or graphs that had detail that was
too small to easily see. In these cases, we used a different y-axis
scale.
3. We include information collected prior to 2002 on approximate
original contour (AOC) variances from Kentucky‘s Surface Mining
Information System (SMIS) database for the reasons identified above”to
provide a comprehensive overview of the data that are in the states‘
databases and to clearly identify the years for which there are data
limitations and the nature of those limitations. We did not review
individual permit files because we determined that it was prohibitively
resource-intensive to do so. Additionally, we are aware that there are
other sources of information about Kentucky‘s permitting activity.
However, we designed the scope of this engagement to limit the
information we present in our report to what is contained in SMIS.
4. We included permits from all of West Virginia in our report,
including permits from the northern half of the state. According to
West Virginia‘s Environmental Resource Information System (ERIS)
database, as of July 2008, about 6 percent of the open acres in West
Virginia were in the northern half of the state. Although OSM and West
Virginia officials told us that most of the permits in this area are
generally not found on the steeper-sloped areas of that region, they
were referring to steep slope mining, which, according to the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) is mining that
occurs on a slope with an average of 20 percent grade or steeper. The
scope of our report is surface mining in the mountainous areas of
Kentucky and West Virginia, not specifically steep slope mining.
Northern West Virginia is a mountainous area-”it is within the
Appalachian Mountain chain.
Additionally, the relationship between surface coal mining in the
northern and southern portions of West Virginia is not analogous to the
relationship between surface coal mining in the eastern and western
portions of Kentucky. Although we identified a specific ’line“ in West
Virginia, north of which we stated permits are generally not found on
steeper-sloped areas, this line was identified in consultation with OSM
and West Virginia officials for the purposes of this report. This
contrasts with the situation in Kentucky. The U.S. Department of
Energy‘s Energy Information Administration has identified a number of
coal-producing regions throughout the country. It places all of West
Virginia and the eastern part of Kentucky in the Appalachian region. It
places western Kentucky in the Illinois basin region. Additionally,
while eastern Kentucky is within the Appalachian mountain chain,
western Kentucky is not.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Kentucky Department for Natural
Resources:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
Energy And Environment Cabinet:
Department For Natural Resources:
Steven L, Beshar, Governor:
Leonard K. Peters, Secretary:
Carl E. Campbell, Commissioner:
2 Hudson Hollow:
Frankfort, Kentucky:
Phone: (502) 564-6940:
Fax: (502) 564-5698:
[hyperlink: http://www.eec.ky.gov]
[hyperlink: http://www.dnr.ky.gov]
November 9, 2009:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Reference is made to your correspondence of October 9, 2009 where in
you conveyed a draft copy of your proposed report entitled "Surface
Coal Mining: Characteristics of "Mining in Mountainous Areas of
Kentucky and West Virginia, (GAO-10-20)" for our review and comment. We
have reviewed the draft document and our comments and suggestions are
as follows:
General Comments:
1. We sincerely appreciate GAO's intent to craft an informational
document designed to provide credible information and reliable data.
However, as we have previously slated on to your staff, the accuracy of
our Surface Mining Information System data prior to the year 2000 was
subject to repeated duplication of the information. The rationale that
because the general public has access to data from all years GAO is
going to include data from all years in many of your graphics so as to
provide a comprehensive overview should be reconsidered. If GAO is not
willing to do that, your statements should be carefully reworded to
reflect that transitions in recording protocols (paper to electronic)
and changes in the formal of our electronic information storage prior
to 2000 could provide for general misinterpretation and invalid
assumptions. It should also be understood the public generally does not
have the same access capability that was afforded GAO. The public's
access is through a web-based system that provides access to the data
one permit at a time. The extensive data download provided to GAO was
an infrequent event. However, should the public ask for and receive a
data dump of this magnitude, DNR would inform the requestor, as with
GAO, the limitations of the data. [See comment 1]
2. As was previously discussed with GAO staff, we have some concern
with the generally broad terms crafted to represent the status of a
mining facility. The term "open" permit is one GAO created for this
report and one that can easily be misinterpreted. We have noted the
footnote on page 9 used to describe the term "open" permit. This term,
as presented, encompasses wide-ranging mining scenarios, from no
disturbance to active mining to complete reclamation awaiting bond
release. We believe that the explanation should more thoroughly
describe and, given the significance of this term, be included in the
body of the text, rather than reduced to a footnote, so readers don't
misinterpret its significance. We believe the current approach yields a
misunderstanding by the general public that all "open" permits are
disturbed, un-reclaimed mine sites. [See comment 2]
3. A significant aspect of the permitting process that isn't clearly
conveyed in the report is that the selection of a post mining land use
is mostly a landowner's choice. The only exception would be when a
landowner's request conflicts with regulations. [See comment 3]
4. The data on Kentucky AOC variances does not exist prior to 2002. We
understand that OSM has been compiling this information for some time
and we recommend that you consult with them to acquire a more reliable
source of information. We are aware that they have an inventory of
permits with mountaintop removal and steep slope variances contained in
a document they prepared called "An Evaluation of Approximate Original
Contour and Post-Mining Land Use in Kentucky dated September 1999."
There is also a tabulation of this data in the Stream Buffer Zone EIS.
[See comment 4]
Specific Comments:
1. Beginning on page 7, and repeated elsewhere, is the statement that
"Kentucky and West Virginia accounted for about 76% of the coal
produced from surface mines in Appalachia and are the states with the
second and third largest coal production totals in the country". The
statement is written such that one can incorrectly assume that Kentucky
is the second largest producer rather than third. Further, GAO should
clarify that Kentucky's western coal fields are not part of Appalachian
Mountain system, but rather the Central coal basin. If GAO feels that
the western Kentucky the coal production levels need to be included in
Table 1, we suggest that the other coal producing states in the central
coal basin also be included in this table. [See comment 5]
2, Page #8, paragraph #1, reads that "the requirements of Kentucky and
West Virginia are generally similar to the federal requirements." This
should read "the requirements of Kentucky and West Virginia are no less
effective than the federal requirements." The federal Office of Surface
Mining has evaluated both the Kentucky and West Virginia surface
programs and determined that our programs are no less effective than
the federal regulations. [See comment 6]
3. Page #8, paragraph #2, should include a statement that the operator
must demonstrate that the reclaimed site will meet environmental
protection standards such as water quality and restore the ecological
function of the land. Additionally, if it is the purpose of this
document to educate the reader on the components of coal mining
(regulatory requirements, effects of mining on the environment,
overview of mining in the Appalachian states), then the narrative on
permit application review is too brief and incomplete. The coal
applicant (permittee/operator) will propose, in the application,
strategies that will avoid, minimize or protect: the quality and
quantity of surface water and ground water systems; adverse effects on
fish, wildlife, and cultural and historic resources; and the effects of
the operation on the public, including property, roads and
infrastructure. It is the responsibility of the permit application
reviewer to gauge the effectiveness and enforceability of these
strategies. Absent from the stated process is the opportunity for
public participation, supplied by consulting federal and state agencies
and citizen input. [See comment 7]
4. Page #33, paragraph #2, should be revised to recognize that our
Appalachian forests have been repeatedly harvested and, at best, we
encounter second growth forest. This would more accurately describe the
condition of the forests in both Kentucky and West Virginia. [See
comment 8]
5. Page #13, paragraph #1, line #9 should be modified to convey that
"permitted acres" does not mean acreage disturbed. While included in a
footnote, we believe this information is important and should be
included in the body of the text to ensure clarity. [See comment 9]
6. Page #27, paragraph #1, it should be noted in this paragraph that
the number of approved (permitted) fills does not reflect the number of
constructed fills. This discrepancy is mentioned later in the document
on page 49, footnote 38. Though it can easily be tracked, the number of
approved fills is an irrelevant statistic as it only details proposed
fills. No permitting action is required to delete a fill from a mining
plan. It would be much more meaningful to compare annual number of
constructed fills that would reveal direct/indirect effects on the
mountain environment. [See comment 10]
7. Page #38, paragraph #1 should be modified to read "SMCRA requires
surface-mined land to be reclaimed to AOC, unless a variance is
approved or it is a remining operation." [See comment 11]
8. On Page # 48, paragraph #1, indicates that a "completed fill is at
approximately the same elevation as the adjacent ridge line". This
should be modified to convey that the crest of the fill is generally at
approximately the same elevation as the lowest coal seam being mined.
[See comment 12]
Again, we sincerely appreciate the opportunity for review and comment.
Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can be of further
assistance.
Respectfully,
Signed by:
Carl E. Campbell, Commissioner:
Department for Natural Resources:
The following are GAO‘s comments on the letter dated November 9, 2009,
from the Commissioner, Department for Natural Resources.
GAO Comments:
1. We share Kentucky‘s concern that data from the Surface Mining
Information System (SMIS) for the years prior to 2000 could be
misinterpreted, but we believe we have made the limitations of the data
clear in our report. We have discussed this concern within GAO; with
Kentucky; with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM); and with West Virginia, which has expressed a similar concern
regarding its permit data. Given the level of concern, we have added
additional language to our report stating that certain data should not
be relied upon to convey a representative picture of past mining
characteristics or decisions. Nevertheless, we believe that it is
important to include the data, along with the appropriate caveats, in
order to provide a comprehensive overview of the data in SMIS that
clearly identifies the years for which there are data limitations and
the nature of those limitations. When Kentucky originally provided the
data from SMIS to us, the limitations on the older data were not
acknowledged. We believe that the extensive discussions that we had
with Kentucky officials brought to light for the first time”at least in
a comprehensive fashion”the full extent of the data limitations and
that documenting the results of these discussions is an important
aspect of this study. This information about data limitations is useful
to the public, even though public access to SMIS data through its Web-
based system is limited to one permit at a time. Furthermore, if
another party were to obtain the same access to SMIS data that Kentucky
provided to us, it would be even more important for this information to
be public. While we believe that Kentucky would include information on
data limitations were it to provide this access to another party, we
are less certain that this other party would fairly and accurately
describe the limitations.
2. We note Kentucky‘s concern that the term ’open permit“ could lead
readers to believe that the land consists entirely of disturbed,
unreclaimed mine sites. (Disturbed land is land that has been cleared
of vegetation as part of the mining process.) In response to earlier
comments from Kentucky officials, we included a footnote to clarify
this term when we first introduce it. Given the continued concern, we
have now put this language into the text of the report. In addition,
elsewhere in our report, we explain that not all acres that are
permitted end up being disturbed.
3. We have modified the text of the report to make it clearer that
landowners play a large role in choosing post-mining land uses.
4. We are aware that there are other sources of information about
Kentucky‘s permitting activity. However, we designed the scope of this
engagement to limit the information we present in our report to what is
contained in SMIS.
5. Although table 1 makes clear that Kentucky is the third-largest
producer of coal from surface mines in 2008, we modified the text of
our report to ensure there is no ambiguity. However, we do not believe
it is necessary to add additional information about coal production in
other states to table 1. Although the scope of our report does not
include surface coal mines in western Kentucky, we include the
production total for all of Kentucky (east and west), along with the
production total for Kentucky (east only) to be comprehensive. We do
not believe that information about coal production from other states
outside the scope of our report would be useful.
6. We are aware that OSM has determined that both Kentucky and West
Virginia mining programs meet the legal requirements found in the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and that
they are ’no less effective“ than federal regulations. However, the
point of the paragraph is to explain that Kentucky‘s and West Virginia‘
s regulations are, in fact, similar to federal regulations. We make
this point to avoid the repetition of describing each entity‘s
regulations when there are not substantive differences. When we discuss
regulations for which there are substantive differences, we note this
in the report.
7. As noted in the text, there are statutory and regulatory
requirements regarding surface coal mining that are not included in
this report. We provide an overview of those requirements as
background, but describing the regulatory framework for surface mining
was not an objective of this report.
8. We do not dispute Kentucky‘s assertion that much of the forestland
in Kentucky and West Virginia that has been mined was previously
harvested, i.e., is second growth forest. However, in our report, we
are discussing the use of the land immediately prior to mining, not how
the land was used historically.
9. We agree that it is important to note that not all permitted acres
are disturbed”that is, cleared of vegetation as part of the mining
process”and we address this point specifically in our report. See also
our comment 2 above.
10. We agree it would be better to report on the number of fills
constructed instead of the number of fills approved. However, SMIS only
contains data from permits and, as Kentucky notes, no permitting action
is required to delete a fill from a mining plan. Thus, we were unable
to provide data on the number of fills constructed.
11. We do not believe this change is necessary because the exceptions
to the approximate original contour (AOC) requirement are made clear in
later paragraphs. The paragraph that Kentucky references serves to
introduce the concept of AOC and AOC variances. The next several pages
of our report explain in greater detail the policy and requirements
regarding AOC and variances.
12. We have modified the text in this paragraph to better make the
distinction between ’valley fills“ and ’hollow fills.“
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection:
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection:
Division of Mining & Reclamation:
Joe Manchin III, Governor:
Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretary:
601 57th St. SE:
Charleston, WV 25304:
Phone (304) 926-0490:
Facsimile (304) 926-0456:
[hyperlink, http://www.wvdep.org]
November 13, 2009:
Robin Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
Government Accountability Office report GAO-10-21, "Characteristics of
Mining in Mountainous areas of Kentucky and West Virginia." Although we
have no major concerns about the report, we have included technical
comments that clarify or provide more in-depth explanation for certain
items.
Please feel free to contact our office with any additional questions
you might have.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Lewis A. Halstead:
Deputy Director:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841, nazzaror@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Andrea W. Brown, Assistant
Director; Josey Ballenger; Antoinette Capaccio; Charles Egan; John
Mingus, Jr.; Rebecca Shea; and Benjamin Shouse made key contributions
to this report. Carol Kolarik, Janice Poling, and Jena Sinkfield also
contributed to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Mining breaks up solid rock layers and produces smaller,
irregularly shaped pieces that are separated by voids, or air pockets.
This causes the overall volume of the excavated material to increase,
or ’swell,“ so that it no longer fits together as compactly as it once
did.
[2] The remaining 60 percent of coal produced in Appalachia comes from
underground mining.
[3] Wyoming produced about 464 million tons of coal from surface mines
in 2008.
[4] GAO did not conduct a comprehensive analysis of differences between
the regulatory schemes, but we note some differences that we have
observed or which have been identified to us by the regulatory
authorities in this report. OSM has determined that both Kentucky and
West Virginia mining programs meet the legal requirement found in SMCRA
that they are ’no less effective“ than federal regulations.
[5] For simplicity in this report, we refer to permittees and operators
as operators. The permittee is the person or entity holding the permit
and is legally responsible for the permit, whereas the operator is the
person or entity who conducts coal removal operations. The permittee
and the operator may or may not be the same person or entity.
[6] SMCRA requires that highwalls be eliminated, except in cases where
they already existed due to mining operations conducted prior to the
enactment of SMCRA, in which case they must be eliminated to the extent
practical. Depressions must also be eliminated, except where they are
small and are needed for moisture retention, erosion minimization,
creation or enhancement of wildlife habitat, or revegetation.
[7] Due to rounding, the difference between the number of acres for
which permits have been issued, and the number of acres that have been
released or forfeited, may not equal the number of acres under open
permit.
[8] Although we found this data to be sufficiently reliable starting in
1984, the text in this section of the report is based on our analysis
of data from January 1990 through July 2008 to be consistent between
the states.
[9] There are 55,300 additional acres under open permit in the flatter,
western portion of the state.
[10] Due to rounding, the percentage of acres under open permit in Pike
County, Perry County, and Knott County total 45 percent in figure 7.
[11] The exception is the category of forfeited permits between 1,000
and 2,999 acres in size. There is only one permit in this category.
[12] The West Virginia Department of Mines Web site had a geospatial
permit boundary file for all but six open permits. In total, these
permits are 1,000 acres in size.
[13] SMCRA authorizes both ’exceptions“ and ’variances“ to AOC
requirements, but federal and state regulations use the term AOC
variances to address both concepts, as we do for consistency in this
report.
[14] Kentucky officials commented that the selection of a PMLU is
generally the landowner‘s choice”although the choice must be consistent
with applicable regulations.
[15] The federal regulations implementing SMCRA present specific
criteria for higher or better uses, such as a reasonable likelihood for
achieving the proposed use, and the use does not pose a hazard to
public health. If the land was previously mined and left unreclaimed,
the PMLU must be the highest and best achievable use that is compatible
with surrounding areas and does not require the disturbance of areas
previously unaffected by mining.
[16] According to the Department of Interior, prior to bond release by
the regulatory authority, the operator must demonstrate that the PMLU
identified in the approved permit has been established or the
infrastructure is in place to ensure its development.
[17] Kentucky regulations define fish and wildlife land use as land
dedicated wholly or partially to the production, protection, or
management of fish or wildlife. Areas considered as having the fish and
wildlife land use are typically characterized by a diversity of
habitats in which use by wildlife is the dominant characteristic,
whether actively managed or not. Kentucky regulations define
pastureland as land used primarily for the long-term production of
adapted, domesticated forage plants to be grazed by livestock or
occasionally cut and cured for livestock feed. Kentucky regulations
define forestland as land used or managed for the long-term production
of wood, wood fiber, or wood derived products.
[18] The other permits in Kentucky included five approved for ’other“
PMLU types of an unspecified nature and one for recreation.
[19] West Virginia regulations define forestland as having at least a
25 percent tree canopy or being at least 10 percent stocked by forest
trees of any size, including land formerly having had such tree cover
and that will be naturally or artificially reforested. Fish and
wildlife habitat and recreation lands are wetlands, fish and wildlife
habitat, and areas managed primarily for fish and wildlife or
recreation. West Virginia regulations define hay or pastureland as
being used primarily for the long-term production of adapted,
domesticated forage plants to be grazed by livestock or cut and cured
for livestock feed.
[20] The other permits in West Virginia included 14 approved for
’combined“ PMLU types of an unspecified nature, 6 rangeland, 2 public
service, 2 residential, and 1 water impoundment.
[21] OSM directive TSR-16, ’Reforestation of Title IV and Title V Mined
Lands,“ June 10, 2008, available at [hyperlink,
www.osmre.gov/guidance/directives/directive931.pdf].
[22] The other permits in Kentucky included five that identified a pre-
mining land use type of heavy industrial, five residential, two each
for commercial, cropland, and fish and wildlife habitat, and one each
for impoundment of water, public services, and ’other“ of an
unspecified nature.
[23] The other permits in West Virginia included 12 that identified
’combined“ pre-mining land use types of an unspecified nature, 4
industrial/commercial, 3 rangeland, and 1 each for commercial woodland,
public service, and water impoundment.
[24] U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Final
Report: An Evaluation of Approximate Original Contour and Post-Mining
Land Use in West Virginia, May 1999; and An Evaluation of Approximate
Original Contour and Post-Mining Land Use in Kentucky, May 2000.
[25] Specifically, the OSM report on Kentucky found that state
regulators had placed a greater emphasis on the amount of spoil
material returned to the mined-out area and not enough emphasis on the
post-mining land configuration, land use, slope stability, and drainage
controls. Similarly, the OSM report on West Virginia concluded that the
state's AOC determinations should give more attention to large, post-
mining changes in elevation in relation to the pre-mining relief; the
amount and location of spoil placed outside the mined area; and land
configuration. In 2007 and 2008, OSM conducted follow-up reviews on the
effectiveness of the two states' new AOC policies and procedures and
how sites in steep slope areas had been reclaimed to AOC, compared with
AOC variances. As of September 30, 2009, OSM had not published its
findings. GAO did not analyze individual permits and post-mining site
data to determine the extent to which the proposed reclamation plan is
ultimately achieved or whether bond release is appropriately granted.
[26] Memorandum from Larry D. Adams, Director, Division of Permits,
Kentucky Department for Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
’Approximate Original Contour Determination,“ Sept. 20, 2001.
[27] West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection‘s Division of
Mining and Reclamation, Permit Handbook, Section 29, ’AOC/Excess Spoil
Guidelines,“ June 24, 1999. These guidelines were later supplemented
with a ’Final AOC Guidance Document Policy“ in the Permit Handbook on
June 5, 2000.
[28] In the special oversight reviews that OSM published in 1999 and
2000, OSM found that the two states did not have reliable electronic
inventories of AOC variances at that point, which made it difficult to
identify exactly how many existed. In response, Kentucky and West
Virginia revised their databases to clearly identify AOC variances on
existing and future permits.
[29] A ’mountaintop removal“ operation is one that, by definition, will
not restore the area to AOC, but will instead reclaim the land to a
level plateau or a gently rolling contour, with no highwalls remaining.
However, the term ’steep slope“ is used to describe mining operations
in mountainous terrain that may, or may not, include an AOC variance.
Steep slope operations that do not have an AOC variance follow the same
requirements as other permits that comply with AOC requirements.
[30] OSM, Postmining Land Use: Exceptions to Approximate Original
Contour Requirements for Mountaintop Removal Operations and Steep Slope
Operations, June 2000, available at [hyperlink,
http://www.osmre.gov/guidance/docs/mtpmlureport.pdf].
[31] A ’hollow“ is a depressed or low part of a surface, especially a
small valley or basin. Throughout this report, we use the term ’fills“
to encompass both hollow and valley fills, unless otherwise noted.
[32] Even when land is returned to AOC, some excess spoil must be
disposed of in fills. When a site is not returned to AOC, a
substantially greater amount of excess spoil can be generated, which
must be placed outside the mined-out area.
[33] By contrast, AOC variances granted for remining operations are not
restricted to specific PMLUs. However, if an alternative PMLU is
planned for such an operation, it is subject to the general requirement
that it must be deemed equal to, or better than, the land‘s original,
pre-mining use.
[34] Ninety-four permits in Kentucky issued from January 2002 through
July 2008 each contained one AOC variance, while five permits issued in
that time frame each contained two AOC variances.
[35] Thirty-one permits in West Virginia issued from January 2002
through July 2008 each contained one AOC variance, while two permits
issued in that time frame each contained two AOC variances.
[36] While there is no specific numerical requirement in regulations
relating to what amount of excess spoil may be deposited in fills, OSM
states that permit applications should contain strata-by-strata, volume-
weighted information regarding spoil calculations to help the states
determine the amount of excess spoil to be placed in fills and the
degree to which AOC may be achieved.
[37] The fill must be designed and constructed to attain a minimum long-
term static safety factor of 1.5. The foundation and abutments of the
fill must be stable under all conditions of construction.
[38] West Virginia officials noted that they do not allow acid-forming
materials to be included in fills. Kentucky regulations allow for acid-
forming materials to be included in fills under certain circumstances.
[39] For example, OSM found in its 2000 special oversight report on
Kentucky that only 21 fills, or 64 percent, of the 33 authorized fills
it reviewed were actually constructed. OSM stated that, in a number of
instances, operators had overestimated the anticipated volume of excess
spoil.
[40] A small amount of surface mining takes place in the northern half
of West Virginia. According to officials from West Virginia and Office
of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, permits in the northern
half of West Virginia”north of Sutton, West Virginia”are generally not
found on the steeper-sloped areas of that region. According to the ERIS
database, as of July 2008, about 6 percent of open acres were in the
northern half of West Virginia.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
