OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Annual Evaluation Report

for the

Regulatory Program

Administered by the Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania
for
Evaluation Year 1999

(January 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999)

I. Introduction

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) created the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) in the Department of the Interior. SMCRA provides authority to OSM to oversee the implementation of and provide Federal funding for State regulatory programs that have been approved by OSM as meeting the minimum standards specified by SMCRA. This report contains summary information regarding the Pennsylvania Program and the effectiveness of the Pennsylvania Program in meeting the applicable purposes of SMCRA as specified in section 102. This report covers the 1999 evaluation year, of the period from October 1, 1998, to September 30, 1999. Detailed background information and comprehensive reports for the program elements evaluated during the period are available for review and copying at OSM’s Harrisburg Field Office.

The following list of acronyms are used in this report:

List of Acronyms

ACSI Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative
AMD Acid Mine Drainage (relates to all mining related pollutional discharges.)
AML Abandoned Mine Lands
BAMR Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation
BDMO Bureau of District Mining Operations
BMR Bureau of Mining and Reclamation
BMSLCA Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act
CO&A Consent Order and Agreement
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPACT Energy Policy Act of 1992
EHB Environmental Hearing Board
GFCC Government Financed Construction Contracts
MRAB Mining and Reclamation Advisory Board
NOI Notice of Intent
OSM Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
PennFuture Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future
SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

The coal geology of Pennsylvania is dominated by the Appalachian Mountains running northeast to southwest and dividing the State into two distinct coal regions. The western bituminous region of the State, where the majority of mines are located is characterized by mountains and gently rolling hills. Areas within this region containing acidic overburden often require special reclamation efforts. The bituminous coal seams underlay about 12,000 square miles in 28 counties of the State. The coal is found in four fields; the Main Bituminous Field in the southwest counties; the Georges Creek Field in the southern counties; the Broad Top Field in the south-middle counties; and the North Central Field in the north central counties of the State.

The anthracite coal region is located in the northeast quarter of the State and covers approximately 3,300 square miles. The coal is found in four fields; the Northern Field in the Wyoming and Lackawanna Valleys; the Eastern-Middle Field; the Western-Middle Field; and the Southern Field. The southern field has the greatest amount of minable reserves with the greatest reserves. The coal lies almost entirely in synclinal basins oriented in a general direction of N 70 degrees E. The more than 20 different coal seams vary in thickness from a few inches to 50 or 60 feet. The anthracite region is characterized by steeply pitching seams, some with dips in excess of 60 degrees. Such seams require highly specialized mining techniques, and present unique challenges for solving problems such as mine subsidence associated with abandoned anthracite mines.

For more than a century, coal has played a major role in the economic and industrial development of Pennsylvania, particularly the steel making industry, and has historically employed thousands of workers. In recent years, Pennsylvania's coal production has experienced a decline. However, the estimated bituminous reserves that total 23 billion tons, or 5.3 percent of U.S. reserves, and anthracite reserves that total 7.1 billion tons, or 97 percent of U.S. anthracite reserves, are adequate for Pennsylvania to be a leading coal producing State. In 1998 Pennsylvania produced approximately 78 million tons. In recent years, underground mine production has increased while surface production has decreased. The underground bituminous mines accounted for 60 of the 78 million tons of coal production. Total coal production in 1997 was 70 million tons.

The Pennsylvania mining industry is experiencing a period of change with fewer operations being permitted annually. At present the 53 bituminous underground mining operations, producing 60 million tons, account for about 10 percent of the 525 active mines. These operations vary in size and complexity, varying from small volume operations to large corporations with substantial production. Longwall mining is still predominant in some areas. Of the 20 companies producing over 200,000 tons of underground-mined coal, five companies accounted for approximately 43.2 million tons or 72 percent of total underground production.

The bituminous surface coal production of 18 million tons was mined by 465 operations. Of the 28 companies producing over 200,000 tons, five companies accounted for 3.9 million tons or 22 percent of total surface mine production.

III. Overview of the Public Participation Opportunities in the Oversight Process and the State Program

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) undertook several important initiatives that provided opportunity for in-depth public involvement. During the evaluation year, PADEP received 954 citizens complaints. Blasting is consistently one of the major areas of citizen complaints received, principally dealing with allegations of excessive blasting levels, blasting damage and occasionally flyrock. In the 1998 annual report, OSM reported that PADEP was considering developing technical guidance to establish criteria and procedures as to what constitutes imminent danger from subsidence. This problem had been raised by citizens, particularly with the extent of the immediate and short-term impacts citizens may experience as a result of planned subsidence as the mining takes place under their homes, utility lines and roads. During this report period, PADEP published a new technical guidance document, entitled, "Imminent Hazards Associated with Subsidence from Active Mining," Identification Number 563-2112-658, to address the issue.

Annually, the Field Office develops a workplan to review and support the implementation of Federal SMCRA through Pennsylvania’s Abandoned Mine Reclamation and Regulatory programs. The Annual Workplan specifically included several joint OSM/PADEP activities aimed at supporting and complementing PADEP’s outreach program initiatives. Opportunities for public interaction and input were provided during workplan development as well as during implementation throughout the year. The workplan is on the Field Office’s Internet Websites at (http//www.osmre/gov/harrisburg). A copy of the workplans for 1999 and 2000 are also available from the Field Office.

The workplan activities also were designed to evaluate, address and resolve specific issues and, in so doing, enhance overall program performance. Examples of public involvement included:

A. The PADEP Programs

The PADEP regulatory program provides opportunities for public input throughout the permitting, inspection, compliance monitoring and enforcement processes. PADEP received public comments on the adequacy of individual permit applications prior to rendering a final decision on permit issuance. Some of the areas of concern addressed by these comments included blasting plans, sediment controls and post-mining land use, hydrologic balance protection, and the adequacy of maps and supporting information. During the period, PADEP approved 45 permits. Last year, PADEP approved 102 permits.

The Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) is the forum for appeals to PADEP’s permitting and enforcement decisions. In the Field Office’s 1998 report on Pennsylvania, it was stated that PADEP was pursuing changes in State law to address the award of attorney fees. As noted last year, Pennsylvania agreed to pursue statutory changes necessary to add protections for citizens and the PADEP, to State law, that required a demonstration that the citizen had acted in bad faith for the permittee to be eligible for attorney fees from the complainant. The proposed language was sponsored in the State legislature, but the amendment was not passed before the close of the legislative session. This year the provision in the proposal that would have allowed the PADEP to seek attorney fees from a permittee or citizen that acted in bad faith was removed from the proposed legislation. The legislation was passed by the House.

During the Evaluation Year, the EHB issued two noteworthy decisions dealing with underground mine subsidence. In an adjudication, the EHB found that PADEP approval of a $10,000. subsidence bond was arbitrary and an abuse of its discretion. It found that PADEP may not routinely apply the minimum $10,000. subsidence bond where the statutes and regulations require that PADEP conduct an analysis to determine the proper bond amount for the underground mining operation in question. PADEP was required to obtain additional bonding from the mining company. Commonwealth Court quashed appeals from both parties on related issues. In the second case, EHB found that the Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act (BMSLCA) does not authorize PADEP to order a mining company to reimburse a railroad for mine subsidence damage to its railroad tracks.

In the 1998 Evaluation Year, PADEP published final rules on coal mine subsidence causing damage to property and structures, as well as the loss of water supplies, from underground mining. PADEP submitted these rules and the amended statutory language to the BMSLCA was submitted to OSM for consideration as a program amendment. OSM sent PADEP a partial list of issues and indicated that the review was not yet completed.

The public may submit both informal and formal complaints with respect to ongoing and completed operations as well as bond release requests. Complaints received by PADEP also covered a wide range of issues, with increased incidences of blasting complaints noted. During the year PADEP received and addressed approximately 954 citizen complaints, of which 903 were resolved and the remaining are pending.

PADEP solicits public input on proposed changes to the Pennsylvania mining program by several avenues. For example, the Citizen Advisory Council, created by legislation in 1971, is charged with the responsibility to review all environmental laws of Pennsylvania and to make suggestions for the revision, modification or codification of these laws. During the development of regulations required by statute or by regulatory initiatives, PADEP may, in certain instances, hold outreach discussions or other type of public meetings to explain regulatory initiatives. PADEP requests comments on all proposed regulations and holds public hearings or public meetings to provide area citizens with the opportunity to express their concerns. PADEP addresses all comments received on the proposed rules in the preamble of the final rules that are published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Public participation in the PADEP regulatory program also takes place in the development of technical guidance and policies and through the PADEP web site.

The public is also involved in the PADEP regulatory program through representation on the Mining and Reclamation Advisory Board (MRAB). The MRAB was established by Act 181 in 1984 to advise PADEP on surface coal mining matters. The MRAB, composed of representatives of the Citizen Advisory Council, the coal industry, County Conservation Districts, and the Pennsylvania General Assembly, meets regularly to identify, evaluate, and advise PADEP on coal mining and reclamation issues. Areas addressed by MRAB during this review period included regulations for lands unsuitable for mining, draft proposed regulations for coal refuse disposal sites that include stream buffer zone variance provisions and the status of the attorney fee legislation.

B. Development and Implementation of Oversight Agreements and Workplans

Harrisburg Field Office maintained an open process for industry and citizen involvement in the development and implementation of oversight activities through the annual oversight workplan. Drafts of the agreement were provided to interest groups for comment on proposed activities as well as any suggestions for additional or alternative areas that should be incorporated in the plan. The Harrisburg Field Office met with interested groups to explain the activities proposed in the workplan and to discuss their suggestions for improvements, additional or alternative oversight reviews. The Field Office also met with citizens group representatives during the review period to address concerns that were identified with ongoing oversight activity.

C. Implementation of Energy Policy Act Requirements

Implementation of the Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) requirements for repair or compensation of subsidence damage and replacement of affected water supplies continues to be a major issue in Pennsylvania. This effort has involved the development of both State and Federal standards, development of direct Federal enforcement procedures, and extensive outreach to citizens and industry.

In the July 28, 1995, Federal Register, OSM outlined a process to implement subsidence damage repair or compensation and water supply replacement that addressed the two-year gap period between effective dates of EPACT (October 1992) and the passage of State Act 54 amending Pennsylvania’s BMSLCA (August 1994). In all cases, PADEP has the lead in complaint investigations.

Since only EPACT was in effect in the period from October 1992 to August 1994, the process set out in the Federal Register provides for PADEP to inform operators of their responsibilities under the Federal law. In most cases this results in resolution of the issues. PADEP refers the unresolved cases to OSM for possible direct enforcement under EPACT. To date, Federal enforcement has only been necessary in one case, where a permittee failed to promptly repair or compensate for damages to a residence.

For Post-Act 54 cases, the process provides for PADEP to carry out State law and regulations, taking measures, including enforcement, to carry out subsidence damage repair/compensation or water supply replacement provisions. Under the July 28, 1995, Federal Register Notice, OSM retains direct enforcement authority, where EPACT would provide greater relief on individual cases, until Act 54 amendments to BMSLCA are incorporated in the approved program through the program amendment process. Several of OSM’s EPACT and PADEP’s BMSLCA enforcement actions were appealed. These challenges were pending at the close of the evaluation year.

PADEP formally submitted State Act 54 amendments to BMSLCA and the implementing regulations to OSM for incorporation into the approved Pennsylvania regulatory program during the 1998 review period. In this review period, a public hearing was conducted and OSM partially completed its review of the program amendment. OSM consolidated the comments received during the internal review and sent a letter to PADEP regarding issues of concern or clarification. The letter requested that PADEP respond to the concerns by submitting proposed regulation changes, policy statements, clarifying opinions or other evidence that Act 54 provisions are consistent with and are no less stringent than the SMCRA provisions and that the regulations are no less effective than their Federal counterparts. PADEP responded by stating that it would need additional time to review and respond to the concerns.

OSM continued providing assistance to individuals and groups of citizens, PADEP, and the underground coal mining industry regarding EPACT and its application to specific subsidence and water loss cases. The Harrisburg Field Office attended citizen meetings to provide general information, responded to citizen complaints about subsidence and water loss problems on their properties, and notified underground coal mining companies of their responsibilities under EPACT where specific instances of non-compliance were reported. The Field Office has also been coordinating Federal EPACT compliance activities with PADEP, with respect to citizen complaints of damage both prior to and after implementation of State Legislation.

D. General Outreach

OSM continued to interact with citizens groups, industry and other State and Federal agencies. The Field Office met with industry representatives such as the Pennsylvania Coal Association. As noted above, the Field Office attends the MRAB meetings to provide input on Field Office oversight initiatives and explain any new OSM programs. The Field Office also accompanied citizen group representatives to gather information on issues and concerns raised, including field visits to homes affected by subsidence and blasting.

OSM continues to provide assistance to PADEP and numerous local groups and associations in promoting the clean-up of Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) impacted streams through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI). Since 1996, when the program was first funded, about $2.4 million in clean streams grants have been awarded to PADEP. This has resulted in seven AMD remediation projects across the Pennsylvania coalfields, with two completed, three under contract, one in contracting, and one in design. These projects are being accomplished in partnership with other agencies and watershed groups to maximize the effectiveness of the cleanup effort. The Field Office attends workshops, and individual watershed meetings throughout the year in support of AMD clean-up efforts and PADEP programs. Also under the umbrella of the ACSI, Congress gave OSM new budget authority for Fiscal Year 1999 for project agreements between OSM and local non-profit watershed groups to remediate AMD. Under this new program OSM funded four watershed cooperative agreement assistance projects in Pennsylvania for a total amount of $250,000.

E. Program Amendments

The program amendment process offers the public, industry and the citizens groups an opportunity to have input into the approved Pennsylvania program. During the review period, OSM completed the public input requirements for program amendments under consideration.

IV. Major Accomplishments/ Issues/ Innovations in the Pennsylvania Program

On June 3, 1999, the Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture), on behalf of several other environmental groups, served both PADEP and OSM with Notice of Intent (NOI) to file a citizens suit under Section 520(a) of SMCRA. On October 13, 1999, PennFuture, lawyers for the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc., Pennsylvania Chapter Sierra Club, Pennsylvania Trout, Inc., Tri-State Citizens Mining Network and Mountain Watershed Association, Inc., followed-up on the NOI and filed suit against PADEP and OSM in U.S. District Court, Middle District, Pennsylvania. The litigation focused on the inability of the Pennsylvania bonding system to insure long-term correction of pollutional discharges.

SMCRA and the Pennsylvania approved program require posting of a bond, sufficient to complete reclamation should a permittee fail to carry out his reclamation plan. In terms of post-mining discharges, PADEP does not release bonds where long-term pollution is occurring. Pennsylvania has reported that bonds held on permits with long-term pollutional discharges are insufficient to cover all costs of providing treatment on a long-term basis.

PADEP continued a statewide effort to improve the inventory of sites with long-term pollutional discharges. The purpose of the inventory is to determine: (1) the location the discharges, (2) the magnitude of potential harm, (3) the potential for use of passive treatment, (4) the emergency options available should treatment be discontinued, and (5) the amount of bond available to address the long-term solution. Improvements to the AMD inventory include the addition of underground mines, and addition of spacial data elements such as latitude and longitude. When complete, the inventory will more fully characterize the nature and extent of the AMD problem, and will serve as a basis for costs analysis and prioritizing AMD abatement initiatives.

In a related inventory effort OSM and PADEP are cooperating in a joint study of discharges from bond forfeited primacy permits. OSM has identified these sites as an existing liability of the bonding program. The purpose of the study is to characterize the location, flow and quality of the discharges and the receiving streams. This is designed to enable calculation of treatment cost estimates for the forfeited primacy permits and will facilitate formulation of strategies to address the pollution.

PADEP initiated a financial reassessment of its alternative bonding program. There are two types of bonding programs in Pennsylvania. An alternative bonding program for surface mines and a full cost bonding program for underground mines. In the surface mine alternative bonding program, bonds are underwritten by a fund (bond pool).This allows mines to be bonded at a reduced rate since the fund covers reclamation costs that exceed the posted bond. Underground mines, however, are required to be bonded at the full cost of reclamation. The reassessment of the alternative bonding program was ongoing at the close of the evaluation period.

PADEP is revising the "Remine" model for prediction of annual treatment costs and capitol improvement costs. The "Remine" model was originally developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and PADEP in 1988. The model is applicable to discharges from underground and surface mines. When this effort is complete, "Remine" can be used to calculate site specific bond adjustments to insure long-term treatment of pollutional discharges. OSM is providing assistance to PADEP in this effort.

Pennsylvania continued to develop methodologies for the calculation of site specific treatment trust funds to address long-term treatment responsibilities. State law prohibits the release of reclamation bonds on sites with pollutional discharges, unless other financial assurances for long-term water treatment are provided. Prior to this year, PADEP records indicated that it had negotiated treatment trust funds on 14 permits that included non-coal and several pre-primacy coal sites. During this review period, PADEP negotiated three treatment trust funds to provide for long-term treatment of pollutional discharges on an additional 13 primacy coal permits. PADEP revisions to the trust agreement approach this year included the development models to calculate treatment costs and to select the appropriate financial assumptions for establishing a sound trust investment strategy.

Pennsylvania will negotiate with sureties for AMD treatment and reclamation in-lieu-of collecting a forfeited bond on certain forfeited sites, including sites with long-term treatment liability. PADEP takes several measures aimed at ensuring the value of the work performed and/or treatment provided exceeds the forfeited bond amount. PADEP notes that this process avoids the delays in litigating and collecting forfeited bonds. An OSM review found that PADEP routinely achieved more reclamation than would have otherwise resulted from collecting the forfeited bond and contracting for the work. The findings of the review reinforced the need for adequate financial assurance on permitted sites prior to forfeiture, so that long-term treatment is viable where needed.

Section 18.1 of the 1994 amendment to BMSLCA (Act 54) requires PADEP to compile information contained in deep mine permit applications, monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and from other appropriate sources. The information is to be used by PADEP to determine the effects of deep mining on subsidence of surface structures and features and on water resources, including sources of public and private water supplies. The section further requires that a report be presented to the Governor, the General Assembly and to the Citizens Advisory Council of the Department at five-year intervals commencing in 1993.

In June 1999, PADEP issued the first such report on the effects of underground mining. The report summarizes PADEP’s effort to survey impacts to 1,884 properties undermined between August 1993 and August 1998. Of the 1,884 properties undermined, PADEP found that 14.8% reported structure damage, 28.2% reported water supply problems and 10.3% reported damage to surface lands (cracks and fissures). The PADEP report also looked at whether the problems had been resolved, were undergoing resolution, or were under dispute. In the report, PADEP concluded that mine operators are complying with the State mine subsidence law; providing temporary water supplies as required; and, when relocation is necessary, paying expenses. PADEP’s report noted improvements were needed in efforts to educate property owners about their rights under mining law. PADEP characterizes the report as preliminary, and cautioned against using the information to draw long-term conclusions. Later in 1999, PADEP plans to issue a supplement to the report with more details on unresolved cases.

Pennsylvania continued developing remining initiatives designed to provide a wide range of program elements aimed at eliminating unreclaimed lands through additional mining activity. PADEP, along with several other States, EPA, and OSM participated in meetings during the review period on a variety of water-related remining issues, such as options to develop design-based water quality standards. PADEP has been active in working with other agencies to identify options to existing remining requirements.

As noted in previous years, a number of remining incentives were included in amendments to Pennsylvania SMCRA (Act 173 of February, 1993). During the review period, PADEP submitted portions of Pennsylvania Act 173 to be considered as amendments to the approved program. The submission is currently under review. The sections submitted include provisions for reclamation bond credits for voluntary reclamation of abandoned mine lands, payments in lieu of bond that would allow certain mine operators proposing to remine abandoned mine lands to be eligible to make payments to PADEP in-lieu-of the bond, and two new funds: (1) Remining Environmental Enhancement Fund, and (2) Remining Financial Assurance Fund.

During the review period, PADEP received approval from OSM for a new initiative that will allow the AML program to substantially reduce its costs to reclaim abandoned sites while removing incidental coal as part of an AML project. See the discussion under the AML program for a full description.

PADEP continued to make progress in reclamation of abandoned mines through the "Reclaim PA" program announced by the Governor on October 23, 1998. "Reclaim PA" is a statewide approach to maximizing reclamation of Pennsylvania’s abandoned mineral extraction legacy. "Reclaim PA" contains 18 program initiatives that integrate existing and newly created resources. The program encourages private and public participation in reclamation, improves information management and expands and improves funding/resources for better reclamation results. With respect to the coal program, "Reclaim PA" will provide incentives to operators who do remining; reduce the legal environmental risks to operators connected with remining and AML reclamation; and cut down on paperwork needed for operators to begin remining abandoned mine lands. In addition, part of the initiative includes ways to encourage mine operators to remine and reclaim abandoned mines at no cost to taxpayers. PADEP is developing implementation procedures for many areas of Act 173.

Statewide "Reclaim PA" accomplishments this year included improvements in funding, approval of site specific reclamation projects and enhancements in public education. Pennsylvania received authorization from OSM for several projects under the AML Enhancement Rule. The new projects secure reclamation of abandoned mine lands with substantially reduced costs to the AML program. Pennsylvania has been working closely with EPA to develop water quality standards that encourage remining of abandoned sites. EPA has approved eight trial permit sites under the initiative. Enhancements in funding and education were made available by PADEP without OSM assistance. Public education efforts consisted of the development of displays, presentations and fact sheets for the general public and the industry. Finally, State funding was provided to Watershed Restoration and Partnership Act activities, the Regional Watershed Support Initiative, and to the Senior Environmental Corps.

On March 26, 1999, OSM approved an amendment to the Pennsylvania AML program to improve the efficiency of the Pennsylvania program by allowing the government-financed construction exemption in Section 528 of SMCRA to be applied in cases involving less than 50% financing. The exemption applies in the limited situation where the construction constitutes a government approved and administered abandoned mine land reclamation project under Title IV of SMCRA. The amendment added a new section "F" entitled Government Financed Construction Contracts (GFCC) to authorize the incidental removal of coal and coal refuse at Abandoned Mine Land (AML) sites that would not otherwise be mined and reclaimed under the Title V program. The amendment also included the program and monitoring requirements related to the use of GFCC for that purpose. Finally, the amendment also authorized the use of excess spoil from a valid, permitted coal mining operation for the reclamation of an abandoned unreclaimed area outside of the permit area. Since approval, OSM has provided authorizations on approximately six Pennsylvania projects that will reclaim abandoned mine land impacts.

PADEP developed an Internal Management Control Program to evaluate and verify the effectiveness of its enforcement program. This year PADEP, in coordination with OSM, designed and conducted three management control studies: (1) permits with special handling plans to prevent AMD, (2) water handling plans, and (3) to determine if "Reclamation in-lieu-of Civil Penalty Program" was to verify the quality and cost effectiveness of reclamation achieved.

This year was marked by continued growth in AMD treatment activities in Pennsylvania. Several new watershed groups have emerged, and are receiving support and guidance from OSM and PADEP. There are numerous watershed groups with the abatement of AMD as their primary interest. The Bureau of Mining and Reclamation (BMR), Bureau of District Mining Operations (BDMO) and Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) continue to expand AMD programs, dedicating staff and financial resources to assisting the formation of watershed groups, developing watershed restoration plans, collecting stream data, and implementing AMD treatment plans. Pennsylvania continues to be the leader in the formation of watershed groups, and the use of partnerships to accomplish AMD abatement. OSM continues to provide assistance to PADEP and numerous local groups and associations in promoting the clean-up of AMD impacted streams through ACSI. Since 1996, when the program was first funded, about $2.4 million in clean streams grants have been awarded to PADEP. This has resulted in seven AMD remediation projects across the Pennsylvania coalfields, with one completed, four under contract, one in contracting, and one in design. These projects are being accomplished in partnership with other agencies, and watershed groups to maximize the effectiveness of the clean-up effort. The Field Office attends workshops, and individual watershed meetings throughout the year in support of AMD clean-up efforts and PADEP programs.

In January, 1999, PADEP issued a Model Watershed Reclamation Plan, with the goal to have one standard set of information, and one application format that can be used by all State and Federal AML/AMD funding agencies in support of AML/AMD funding requests. Development of this plan was a team effort including several PADEP Bureaus, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, Natural Resources Conservation Service, as well as OSM.

BAMR continues to expand its 10% AMD Set Aside program. There is currently approximately $11.2 million in the fund including grants and interest. There are 19 Qualified Hydrologic Unit Plans approved by OSM. Twelve AMD projects have been completed, two are under construction, and five are in design. There are three BAMR staff dedicated to the AMD Set-Aside program, and others who also manage projects as part of their duties. These staff provide a valuable service to watershed groups by conducting stream sampling, attending meetings, giving advice and guidance on how to get started in cleaning-up streams, and helping develop partnerships for AMD abatement activities.

This year, OSM issued clarifying guidance to the States, including Pennsylvania, regarding the composition of the qualified hydrologic unit plans. Each plan must contain both lands and waters that are eligible for funding as an abandoned mine land project under Title IV of SMCRA, and lands and waters which are proposed to be the subject of expenditures by Pennsylvania from the forfeiture of bonds required under section 509 of SMCRA, or from other State sources, to mitigate acid mine drainage. The size of the plan, the number and mixture of sites, the reclamation timetable, and the funding mixture are all up to the State’s discretion. In a joint OSM/PADEP exercise, 52 primacy program bond forfeited permits with continuing AMD problems, were inventoried. The Field Office has offered its assistance to PADEP in cross-referencing these permits with existing and proposed hydrologic unit plans, and revising supporting documents.

PADEP has temporarily frozen submission of new hydrologic unit plans for OSM approval, and issuance of AMD reclamation contracts under existing plans while the PennFuture litigation issues are resolved.

Pennsylvania’s AML program continued to make progress in traditional areas of abandoned mine land reclamation such as dangerous highwall removal, subsidence control, and sealing shafts and portals. Specific accomplishments include completion of 25 major projects and 52 smaller State work force projects. Reclamation included 35,810 ft. of highwall (2,020 acres of land), 77 acres of subsidence protection, 18 acres of hazardous water bodies, 13 hazardous equipment/facilities, 2 dangerous landslides, and 29 openings.

V. Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA as Measured by the Number of Observed Off-Site Impacts and the Number of Acres Meeting the Performance Standards at the Time of Bond Release

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

A. Off-Site Impacts

During the evaluation year PADEP inspectors conducted 2,379 inspections on mines and exploration notices. Ninety-seven percent of the mine sites inspected were free of off-site impacts.

OSM evaluated off-site impacts by reviewing the civil penalty assessment files for all State enforcement actions issued during the first six months of the evaluation year. The evaluation studied the degree of off-site impacts resulting from violations cited in 115 enforcement actions. Of the 115 enforcement actions reviewed there were 62 cited off-site impacts. Those 62 off-site impacts were evaluated and analyzed in terms of the type of impact, the resources affected by the impact and the degree of impact. In accordance with OSM’s oversight guidance, the degree of impact was divided into three levels: (1) minor impacts or impacts that do not affect the public, disturb a small area or have negligible effect on the receiving stream, (2) major impacts, or impacts that have significant impacts to the public, that affect large off-site areas and have major impacts to the receiving stream, and (3) moderate impacts, or impacts that do note fit in either of the first two categories. The results are indicated in Figures 1 and 2.

Figures 1 and 2 depict the type of impacts and the resources affected as found in the study data. The hydrology effluent standards are violations that, most often, result in off-site impacts (76%). These impacts to water resources occurred because of discharged water that did not meet effluent limits. These discharges resulted in the pollution of nearby streams by acidity, iron, manganese or suspended solids; or a combination of these contaminants. There were 34 minor, 13 moderate, and no major impacts to the water resources adjacent to these mine sites. Erosion and sediment control violations represent 6 of the total (47) hydrology impacts. In these cases, uncontrolled runoff to offsite lands caused destructive erosion and sedimentation to the adjacent land. The category listed as other (11%) consists of 2 violations pertaining to mining without a permit; 2 violations pertaining to safety; and 3 violations for fugitive dust. Blasting violations (8%) affected a structure (minor impact) in one case where a residential home was struck by fly rock. Land (2 minor) impacts resulted from blasts that caused ground movement. Air blasts, affecting residences, accounted for 2 violations. Land Stability violations accounted for 3% of the total types of impacts. Encroachment (2%) resulted from mining too close to residential property.

Figure 3 distributes the degree of impacts. Most of the impacts are minor (70%), 27% moderate, and 3% major.

The degree of impacts and resources affected are detailed in Table 1 below:

B. Bond Release

During the review period, PADEP released Stage I bonds on 7,021 acres, Stage II bonds on 7,005 acres, and Stage III bonds on 8,617 acres. Bonds were forfeited on 8 primacy permits incorporating 432 acres. As a result of the forfeiture reclamation program, 894 acres were reclaimed (estimate of 800 acres by surety companies and 94 acres by PADEP). The reclaimed bond forfeiture sites generally succeeded in meeting reclamation plan requirements. However, the reclamation plans do not address all hydrologic concerns, particularly treatment of AMD.

The average length of time between the initiation of mining and the completion of backfilling has been approximately 3.5 years. A large majority of sites have been reclaimed to approximate original contour. Alternative configurations have been approved in several cases mostly for refuse disposal and refuse reclamation operations. The most common alternative configuration employed has been a terrace backfill.

VI. OSM Assistance

During the Evaluation Year, OSM worked jointly with PADEP on several programmatic studies, including a study of bond forfeiture/AMD, a follow-up to last year’s Post-Mortem Study, a study of special handling sites, a study of the effectiveness of erosion and sedimentation controls, and a study of the PADEP Reclamation-in-lieu (Rec-In-Lieu) of payment of civil penalties program.

OSM and PADEP coordinated efforts to identify primacy forfeited permits with continuing AMD problems, where collections had occurred and the sites had been turned over to BAMR. A total of 45 permits with potential AMD were identified and evaluated through this collaborative effort. Fifteen permits had discharges, 26 did not have discharges, and 4 had no discharges at the time of evaluation, but will be revisited because of evidence of past problems.

During the 1998 oversight evaluation period, a team of technical personnel from the staffs of OSM and PADEP, conducted an evaluation of the 17 surface mining permits issued by Pennsylvania since 1987, which resulted in post-mining long-term pollutional discharge. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the reasons the AMD developed and to determine what preventative measures might prevent similar discharges from future permits. This year a joint OSM/PADEP follow-up study was conducted to gather additional information and data for the 17 sites and to determine the continuing severity of the discharges. Additionally, methods of passive treatment have been employed on some of these sites; information on the effectiveness of these methodologies was gathered. The costs for treatment at these sites will be determined utilizing site information and the "Treatcost" program developed by PADEP.

In addition, OSM provided technical assistance to PADEP in resolution of citizen’s complaints and provided assistance through participation on teams to develop program enhancements, including remining, AMD, compliance, enforcement, and ACSI. OSM continued to provide assistance to PADEP in the development of an AML program amendment for enhanced reclamation opportunities through government financed construction and reclamation of abandoned sites adjacent to active coal operations.

OSM contracted for an actuarial study to develop consistent methods for calculating the sizes of treatment trust funds. The successful bidder was Tetra Tech EM Inc. The contract has three deliverables. The deliverables are designed to provide Regulatory Authorities with tools to assist in calculating sufficient financial assurance to treat AMD on sites with long-term pollutional discharges.

The deliverables are:

The contractor is to develop an actuarially sound basis for establishing site-specific treatment costs.

The contractor is to identify various financial instruments appropriate to fund long-term treatment. This task includes examining diverse options for individual permittees to develop sufficient finance long-term treatment.

The contractor will provide options for back-up funding sources that may be applied when permittees are unable to finance long-term treatment obligations.

VII. General Oversight Topic Reviews

The below listed evaluation reports are available for review at the Harrisburg Field Office of OSM and selected reports are available on the Internet.

A. Underground Mines

• The Harrisburg Field Office continued the monitoring of EPACT related citizen complaints during FY99. Pennsylvania was instrumental in providing information to OSM for ten EPACT investigations. A report is available with the findings of this review.

B. AMD Prevention

Post-Mortem Follow-Up Review

• As a follow-up to a joint Post-Mortem study performed in the 1998 Evaluation Year, OSM and PADEP conducted a joint study to gather additional information and data for the sites and to determine the continuing severity of the discharges. Field reviews of all 17 sites were conducted jointly by OSM/PADEP field inspection personnel, with assistance from PADEP Permitting Personnel. Discharge flow data and samples were gathered to provide updated site information. Additionally, effectiveness of passive treatment was evaluated. A report is available with the findings of this review.

Active / Inactive

• In order to gather additional data concerning long-term pollutional discharges and to improve the inventory of sites with AMD, OSM visited 25 surface mines and coal refuse piles. Data was gathered to characterize the nature and location of the discharge. A report is available with the findings of this review.

Underground Mines

• As part of an effort to gather additional data concerning long-term pollutional discharges, OSM visited 23 underground mines. Data was gathered to characterize the nature and location of the discharge. A report is available with the findings of this review.

AMD Inventory Metadata

• A preliminary inventory of AMD sites in Pennsylvania was compiled. A report is available that defines the data elements of that inventory and describes how the inventory was compiled. Printed reports from the inventory data are available upon request.

C. Compliance and Enforcement Effectiveness

• As part of the effort to determine the number of off-site impacts in Pennsylvania, OSM conducted a review of the violations cited by PADEP during the first six months of the evaluation year. In addition, off-site impact data was gathered during all inspections conducted during the evaluation year. A report is available of the findings from this review.
  
• PADEP operations and responsiveness in regard to citizen complaints was reviewed by OSM for each of the PADEP District Offices. Twenty citizen complaint case files were reviewed and follow-up field inspections were conducted to determine the investigation completeness, response, and the timeliness of resolution for each case. The findings report for the study is available upon request.
  
• OSM conducted a total of 505 inspections during the evaluation year. Of those inspections, 188 were randomly selected inspections of active mine sites. This data was used to determine the number of sites in full compliance and the number and type of off-site impacts. A data summary from those inspections is available.
  
• A joint PADEP/OSM program review was conducted of permits with special handling plans. The review consisted of field inspections and file reviews. A report is available.
  
• A joint PADEP/OSM program review was conducted of the implementation of erosion and sedimentation plans on permits. The review consisted of field inspections and file reviews. A report is available.
  
• Areas where PADEP completed projects under their Rec-In-Lieu-Of Civil Penalties was reviewed in a joint PADEP/OSM study. The study consisted of file reviews and site visits. A report of the findings of this review is available.

D. Program Implementation Issues

• The Field Office conducted a review of the status of Pennsylvania program amendments. Outstanding amendments, conditions, and significant program submissions were summarized. Also summarized are regulations that have not yet been submitted to OSM for consideration as part of the approved program.

Technical Guidance Review

• A review was conducted of Pennsylvania’s newly revised technical guidance documents that were previously known as program guidance documents. A report is available of the findings from that review.

E. Remining

• Pennsylvania continued to work toward full implementation of a wide range of program elements aimed at eliminating unreclaimed lands through improved remining opportunities. A report is available summarizing the activities of this evaluation year.

Bond Forfeiture

• The Harrisburg Field Office’s 1999 Workplan initially contained a bond forfeiture study that included a field review of a sample of forfeited primacy permits with pollutional discharges. The objective was to update current conditions of the previously identified discharges and to create a data base containing water quality and flow information on those forfeited permits. However, as a result of the NOI filed by PennFuture, OSM, in coordination with PADEP, expanded the scope of this study to include all post-primacy bond forfeitures where a problem with AMD had been identified. The data also will be used to estimate costs to treat discharges from forfeited permits.

Surety Reclamation-Consent Orders and Agreements

• OSM conducted an evaluation of PADEP Consent Orders and Agreements (CO&A) with sureties holding bonds on permits in various stages of bond forfeiture. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine whether the subject CO&A provides for reclamation in accordance with the reclamation plan, including the long-term treatment of post-mining pollutional discharges, and whether the bonds are waived/released before the applicable liability periods have expired.

Tabular Summaries of Data Pertaining to Mining, Reclamation and Program Administration

These tables present data pertinent to mining operations, State and Federal regulatory activities within Pennsylvania. They also summarize funding provided by OSM and Pennsylvania staffing. Unless otherwise specified, the reporting period for the data contained in all tables is the 2000 evaluation year (October 1, 1999 - September 30, 2000). Additional data used by OSM in its evaluation of Pennsylvania’s performance is available for review in the evaluation files maintained by the Harrisburg Field Office.

A Coal production as reported in this table is the gross tonnage which includes coal that is sold, used or transferred as reported to OSM by each mining company on form OSM-1 line 8(a). Gross tonnage does not provide for a moisture reduction. OSM verifies tonnage reported through routine auditing of mining companies. This production may vary from that reported by States or other sources due to varying methods of determining and reporting coal production.

B 1999 production is for nine months.

OFF-SITE IMPACTS

RESOURCES AFFECTED

People

Land

Water

Structures

DEGREE OF IMPACT

minor

moderate

major

minor

moderate

major

minor

moderate

major

minor

moderate

major

TYPE OF IMPACT AND TOTAL NUMBER OF EACH TYPE

Blasting

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

Land Stability

0

0

2

1

2

3

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

Hydrology

0

0

2

3

1

3

0

1

5

2

1

0

2

Encroachment

0

0

0

3

4

2

3

0

3

0

1

0

2

Other

0

0

1

0

2

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

Total

0

1

5

7

10

10

3

3

12

2

3

1

4

OFF-SITE IMPACTS ON BOND FORFEITURE SITES

RESOURCES AFFECTED

People

Land

Water

Structures

DEGREE OF IMPACT

minor

moderate

major

minor

moderate

major

minor

moderate

major

minor

moderate

major

TYPE OF IMPACT AND TOTAL NUMBER OF EACH TYPE

Blasting

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0