of

OHIO

for

Evaluation Year 1998

(October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998)

FINAL

December 1998

I. Introduction 1

II. Overview of the Ohio Coal Mining Industry 2

III. Overview of the Public Participation Opportunities 3

IV. Major Accomplishments/Issues/Innovations 5

A. Program Accomplishments and Initiatives 5

B. Program Issues 11

V. Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA 14

A. Off-Site Impacts 14

B. Bond Release/Reclamation Success 14

VI. OSM Assistance 16

VII. General Oversight Topic Reviews 20

Appendix A: Tabular Summary of Core Data to Characterize the Program

Appendix B: State Comments on the Report

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 OSM has approved as meeting the minimum standards specified by SMCRA. This report contains summary information regarding the Ohio Program and the effectiveness of the Ohio Program in meeting the applicable purposes of SMCRA as specified in section 102. This report covers the period of October 1, 1997, to September 30, 1998. Detailed background information and comprehensive reports for the program elements evaluated during the period are available for review and copying at the Columbus OSM Office.

The following acronyms are used in this report:

ABS Alternative Bonding System

ACSI Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative

AMD Acid mine drainage

AML Abandoned mine land

ARP Application to Revise a Permit

BFC Buckeye Forest Council

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EY Evaluation Year

FDW Friends of Dysart Woods

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals

MCRP Monday Creek Restoration Project

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

Ohio Division of Mines and Reclamation

OSM Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

PHC Probable Hydrologic Consequences

QWM Quarterly Water Monitoring

RCIC Raccoon Creek Improvement Committee

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

SOAP Small Operator's Assistance Program

II. Overview of the Ohio Coal Mining Industry

Fifty-two mining companies produced 30.6 million tons of coal in 1997, an increase of 8.2 percent over 1996 production. The total coal sold in 1997 was 30.2 million tons with a value of $743.4 million. The average price per ton of coal was $24.52, a decrease from the 1996 average of $25.43.

The number of coal-producing companies in Ohio in 1997 (52) remained the same as in 1996, and the number of producing mines increased from 134 to 142. During 1997, surface mining operations at 132 mines produced 13.1 million tons (42.8 percent of total production). Underground mining at ten mines produced 17.5 million tons (57.2 percent of total production). Longwall mining of 13.1 million tons accounted for 75.2 percent of the total underground production (43 percent of total production). Increased production from underground mines continues a trend started in 1995, by exceeding coal produced by surface mining methods.

The Ohio coal industry employed 3429 people in 1997, down slightly from 3448 in 1996. Production employees (1957) were 57 percent of the 1997 coal work force. Wages earned by all coal industry employees in 1997 totaled more than $172.9 million.

Ohio ranked tenth of the 25 coal-producing States in the nation, and produced 2.8 percent of the nation's coal in 1997. Ohio ranked third nationally in coal consumption, behind Texas and Indiana.

(Data source: Ohio Geological Survey, 1997 Report on Ohio Mineral Industries )

Industry Award Nominations

The Ohio Division of Mines and Reclamation (Ohio) nominated sites reclaimed by two mining companies for OSM Excellence in Surface Mining Awards in 1998. The nominated sites were mined and reclaimed by Southern Ohio Coal Company and Marietta Coal Company.

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

As reported in previous oversight reports, Ohio has continued several efforts to keep the public informed of activities related to mining and reclamation, in addition to the routine public participation opportunities specified in the Ohio program. Ohio created and maintains an Internet web page that provides basic program information to the public. Ohio has responded to numerous requests for public records this year. Ohio maintains a very open public records policy and holds periodic meetings with interest groups and individuals to communicate with its constituents. Ohio conducts annual public meetings to obtain information from citizens about potential AML projects.

Ohio conducted a public hearing on two petitions to deem land unsuitable for mining in and around Dysart Woods in Belmont County. The hearing was attended by nearly 250 people, with 33 individuals providing testimony. Ohio has received substantial public input about permit applications and the unsuitability petitions in this area. A technical review was conducted by a multi-disciplined panel of experts from several Divisions of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources on the issues related to mining in the vicinity of Dysart Woods. The technical review team provided recommendations that are intended to support decisions on permit applications and on the petitions.

In addition to outreach efforts by Ohio, OSM conducts additional outreach to the public. OSM maintains a mailing list of interested persons, including representatives of industry, environmental and citizen groups, and individuals who have expressed interest in mining in Ohio. OSM routinely sends out notices of Federal Register publications concerning public comment periods regarding Ohio program amendments and OSM's proposed rule making actions. OSM prepares a monthly newsletter that is mailed to everyone on the OSM mailing list and is also published in the Ohio Mining and Reclamation Association's newsletter. The OSM newsletter provides information on current activities of the agency, oversight updates, and Columbus office activities. OSM also maintains an Internet web site that provides OSM news and information on a national level.

During 1998, OSM held public meetings in Ohio to obtain feedback on a proposed national AML enhancement rule, and to provide information on OSM's EY 99 budget and to seek input on OSM's EY 2000 budget request. OSM also held a regional coal symposium in Huntington, West Virginia to obtain input for OSM's Appalachian Region strategic plan. The symposium was attended by some Ohio coal field citizens to voice concern over aspects of mining.

The OSM Director met individually with representatives of industry, environmental organizations, public interest groups, and others to discuss OSM initiatives and to hear individual citizen concerns. OSM and Ohio met periodically with a group of mining industry representatives to exchange information and to obtain feedback on program implementation and policy of Ohio and OSM. OSM and Ohio made presentations at the Ohio Mining and Reclamation Associations's annual meeting.

Ohio and OSM continued to work together to organize and support development of local watershed groups in support of the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI). OSM and Ohio continued to support activities of the Monday Creek Restoration Project, the Raccoon Creek Improvement Committee, the Huff Run Watershed Restoration Partnership, Inc., and the Moxahala Creek Reclamation Project by attending meetings of these organizations. OSM and Ohio are also participating in an inter-agency group for Kimble Creek. OSM and Ohio attended a start-up meeting for the Yellow Creek watershed group. OSM and Ohio participated in a ground-breaking ceremony for the Buckeye Furnace AML project that was sponsored by the Raccoon Creek Improvement Committee.

OSM and Ohio participated in meetings of the Ohio Mineland Partnership to exchange information concerning reclamation of abandoned mine lands and to promote OSM's Appalachian Clean Streams and remining initiatives. The Ohio Mineland Partnership is a citizen's group seeking more funding for AML reclamation.

OSM met with representatives of Buckeye Forest Council (BFC) and the Friends Of Dysart Woods (FDW) periodically to exchange information and to hear concerns. BFC and FDW provided several suggestions for topics for future OSM oversight. BFC has continued its opposition to any mining in the Wayne National Forest and appealed OSM's decision to grant valid existing rights to Buckingham Mining to mine a 25-acre tract in the Wayne National Forest. The Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) affirmed OSM's decision. However, BFC has appealed the IBLA's decision to Federal District Court.

BFC and Ohio University filed separate petitions with Ohio to designate an area around and including Dysart Woods as unsuitable for mining. Ohio is processing this petition and expects a decision before the end of 1998. BFC has also expressed interest in other program areas, including Ohio's process for evaluating stream buffer zone variance requests and Ohio's inspection and enforcement program.

OSM and Ohio attended some of the public meetings organized by the Citizen's Coal Council in Ohio. OSM also met with a group of landowners concerned about the impacts of longwall mining.

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

A. Program Accomplishments and Initiatives

On-the-Ground Accomplishments

Ohio continues to effectively administer SMCRA regulatory and AML programs to protect coal field citizens and to restore land to pre-mining conditions. Overall industry compliance on active mine sites continues at a high level. The on-the-ground end-result of the mining and reclamation process is predominantly restoration of mined lands to a pasture/grazing post-mining land use with permanent water impoundments interspersed to support the land use. OSM's evaluation identified minor impacts to areas outside of the permitted area related to hydrology as a result of mining. There was one incident related to blasting that had significant impact to areas outside the permit area. OSM's general characterization of the on-the-ground accomplishments are based on OSM's experience with mining and reclamation in Ohio. Observations regarding industry compliance and off-site impacts are supported by findings from OSM site visits on 181 regulatory sites, 29 AML sites, and other oversight evaluations conducted during this review period.

During the 1998 Evaluation Year (EY), October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998, the Ohio mining industry, in conjunction with Ohio, achieved final reclamation (Phase III bond release) on 5778 acres; established soil replacement and vegetation for Phase II bond release on 9069 acres; and backfilled and graded mining areas for Phase I bond release on 6546 acres. Through surety companies or contractors, Ohio substantially completed reclamation through the bond forfeiture process on three permits covering approximately 138 acres.

Compared to 1997 data, the acreage of phase I bond release increased by 25 percent, phase II increased by 15 percent, and phase III decreased by 45 percent. This year's decline in phase III acreage was expected, since Ohio had a significant increase last year. Ohio was third among all states in the number of acres released by both phase II and III in 1997. Ohio permittees obtained final bond release on acreage equivalent to about 80 percent of the new acreage bonded in 1998.

The Ohio AML program continues to abate problems related to abandoned mines through its emergency and regular AML programs. Ohio identified and abated 33 emergency conditions during this EY, compared to 33 in EY 97 and 35 in EY 96. As was the case last year, OSM fully supported Ohio emergency project requests, due to continued good communication and cooperative investigation activity between Ohio and OSM. Ohio also completed one design under the emergency program for a high priority project that it will construct as part of its normal AML program, and is working on another. Ohio reported the following accomplishments in the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS):

• 11.0 acres of clogged stream lands reclaimed;
• 1700 feet of dangerous highwall eliminated;
• 3.0 acres of dangerous landslides stabilized;
• one hazardous facility reclaimed;
• seven vertical openings reclaimed;
• 13 mine portals sealed;
• one acre of subsidence stabilized;
• 18.2 acres of refuse reclaimed; and
• one water supply project completed.

Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI)

Ohio continues to actively participate in this initiative to focus more attention and resources on cleaning up sources of AMD from abandoned mines that are polluting streams. Ohio continues to support and successfully encourage organization of local watershed groups that want to participate in efforts to clean up streams impacted by AMD. The first acid mine drainage (AMD) projects under this initiative were designed during EY 97. The following accomplishments were achieved during EY 98:

• The Monday Creek Restoration Project (MCRP) has entered into a partnership with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to do an AMD project design. The Rock Run project sponsored by MCRP was contracted in August 1998 and construction has started. Limestone dosing of the Brush Fork tributary has started and Ohio University is continuing to monitor the watershed.



• The Buckeye Furnace project sponsored by the Raccoon Creek Improvement Committee (RCIC) was contracted in June 1998 and construction is underway. RCIC has entered into a partnership with NRCS to do an AMD project design



• Ohio submitted a 1998 ACSI proposal for cost sharing with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on a project to abate AMD from a deep mine and refuse pile on the north side of Wills Creek Reservoir. A consultant is currently designing this project. American Electric Power has also conducted a mine-grouting project on a small drift mine that drains into Wills Creek. They did this work, under a grant from the Ohio Coal Development Office, to demonstrate the beneficial use of power plant scrubber sludge in abating AMD. Ohio and OSM are partners in this project along with, several other entities. Ohio State University has monitored this site and will continue to do so through EY 99.



• The Huff Run Watershed Restoration Partnership Inc. received a $15,000 grant from the Ohio EPA to develop a watershed plan and is presently finalizing the plan. The Buckeye Career Center is now doing monitoring of the watershed and constructing weirs at three sites. The reclamation of a 50-acre abandoned strip mine in the watershed has been completed. NRCS, in partnership with Ohio, will fund additional contracts. Ohio is continuing to work with a mine operator to develop AMD abatement projects adjacent to the mining operation. The mine operator has already completed exploratory drilling under a cost share agreement with Ohio. Ohio has hired a consultant to complete the work started by the Huff Run group in order to prepare a report to establish AMD set-aside eligibility for the watershed.



• The Moxahala Reclamation Project is an offshoot of an existing watershed group that has expanded its interest from flood control to abating AMD and improving water quality in general. Ohio University is monitoring this watershed for data that will assist in its approval as a watershed eligible for AMD set-aside funding. Black Fork has been identified as a potential hydrologic unit within the Moxahala Basin. OSM and Ohio have reviewed the Misco Gob Pile which is a major source of AMD to Black Fork. OSM strongly supports AMD remediation for this site.



• An interagency group is continuing work on the Kimble Creek/Pine Creek watershed. The group collected monthly samples at ten sites and has completed exploratory drilling. Representatives of the National Mine Land Reclamation Center have reviewed the site and made some recommendations for abatement work.

Stream Buffer Zone Guidelines

In the 1996 Annual Report, OSM reported the results of an oversight evaluation on Ohio's implementation of the regulations regarding stream buffer zones. OSM recommended that Ohio establish criteria for permit applicants and Ohio permitting review personnel to use in submitting and evaluating a buffer zone variance request. Ohio agreed to address the findings from this evaluation through a team, with representation from Ohio, industry, consultants, and OSM. The team met during 1997 and 1998 and developed guidelines for the submission, review, and approval of stream buffer zone requests. Ohio expects to begin implementation of the new guidelines in early 1999.

Permitting Work Group

Based on expressed concerns of the mining industry regarding the timeliness of the permitting process, Ohio formed a group representing industry, Ohio's permitting staff, and OSM to evaluate Ohio's permitting process. A principle objective of the group was that Ohio's review process provide for a decision on permit applications within 45 days after the end of the public comment period. An analysis of the current process, that has evolved over many years of changing standards, identified several areas that need changed to accomplish this objective without changing any standards contained in the rules. A few examples of the recommended changes include: Ohio conducting engineering and hydrology evaluation of applications earlier in the review process; applicants improving initial applications that they believe can be approved and not merely administratively complete; conducting forums for industry and consultants to provide guidance on completing permit applications; and improving Ohio's internal tracking and communication. Ohio has implemented several of the recommendations and is continuing to monitor the process to determine if the 45-day objective is attainable. The group is continuing to meet quarterly to monitor the success of its efforts and to determine if additional revisions are needed.

Regulatory Overlap Committee

Representatives from Ohio and the mining industry have worked together as a committee to address regulatory overlap, particularly between Ohio and the Ohio EPA. The committee developed a list of areas where both agencies may have overlapping jurisdiction. The committee ranked the areas and have worked on two top priorities during 1998. The two main topics of discussion have been regulation of coal waste disposal and mining in and around streams. The committee has effectively opened lines of communication between the two agencies and is seeking concurrence on new ways to address overlapping authority to eliminate duplication of effort and increase information exchange.

Program Amendment 61

Ohio has worked with OSM since 1993 to obtain approval of a program amendment identifying repair and maintenance practices that may be employed during reclamation of mine sites that will not restart the five-year period of extended responsibility for ensuring successful vegetation. On September 29, 1998, OSM approved Ohio's Program Amendment 61. The approval allows a permittee to remove sediment control structures and to repair minor damage to reclaimed areas without restarting the responsibility period. Repair to correct damage to reclaimed areas that have established vegetation cannot exceed ten percent of the total affected area and individual areas cannot exceed three acres. In addition, repair cannot be due to improper reclamation techniques employed by the permittee. Such repairs will generally address damage beyond the control of the permittee such as small slips, damage caused by a third party, and minor erosion. Ohio is in the process of promulgating the approved rules.

Program Amendment 75

OSM approved proposed revisions to the Ohio Revised Code concerning award of attorney fees. This issue has been a long-standing legal issue with the Ohio Program. OSM expects that Ohio will get a sponsor to introduce this revision to the Ohio legislature during 1999.

Seasonal Variations

Ohio, in conjunction with industry representatives and OSM, started a workgroup to examine and develop recommendations regarding standards for submission and analysis of seasonal hydrologic information. This workgroup was charged to review existing Ohio policies and practices related to describing the seasonal variations of the hydrologic regime with regard to obtaining a surface coal mine permitting. The workgroup will recommend changes to the current process for evaluating pre-mining water quality. Accurate pre-mining data helps the reviewing hydrologist assess the probable hydrologic consequences of a permit application more quickly and accurately and should reduce the overall application review time. In addition, accurate pre-mining water quality and quantity data allows Ohio to conduct investigations of water complaints more efficiently and to effectively establish the liability regarding replacement of a user's water supply in a timely manner.

The workgroup developed several proposed sampling schemes to establish variations based on historic water information. Input from OSM's Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center helped the group refine the proposal and draft a new method for collecting pre-mining water information.

In addition to revising the sampling protocol, the workgroup encourages applicants to meet with a permitting hydrologist prior to submitting an application for a permit. Ohio believes this pre-application meeting will eliminate or reduce issues such as: location of baseline sampling points; proposed monitoring locations; identification of alternative monitoring locations if primary locations are unavailable; availability of additional hydrologic information from nearby permitted and/or AML sites; and other such data.

The workgroup is also reviewing Ohio's internal policies to recommend changes that may allow more consistent reviews of hydrologic segments of the applications. Areas under review are: number and locations of baseline sampling points; acceptability of supporting information for describing the probable hydrologic consequences (PHC) of the proposed mining operation; and criteria for determining the validity of submitted seasonal variation data. This task is progressing more slowly than other tasks and will not be final until the sampling protocol for seasonal variation is completed.

OSM believes that the workgroup approach for resolving these long-standing hydrologic issues will provide a mechanism for all members to understand the issue from other perspectives. OSM anticipates that the revised seasonal variation protocol will be implemented during the next evaluation year.

AMD Set-Aside

Ohio has established an AMD Set-Aside Fund which currently exceeds $1.5 million. Currently, the Monday Creek watershed is the only hydrologic unit approved for AMD set-aside funding. However, Ohio has contracted with consultants and universities to complete watershed plans. As the plans are submitted, the AMD Set-Aside Committee will become more involved in allocating funds to specific projects.

Contemporaneous Reclamation and Timely Phase Releases

Ohio has implemented a successful process of monitoring reclamation status on permits. Enforcing contemporaneous reclamation standards is continuing to reduce the number of permits that should be meeting phase II and phase III bond release requirements. In August of 1996, Ohio had 119 permits on which mining had been completed for over two years that had not achieved a phase II bond release. In August 1997, the number of sites in that condition was reduced to 52 permits. Ohio had eliminated 56 percent of the sites identified from the previous year. Between August 1997 and October 1998, Ohio approved phase II bond release on 14 of the 52 permits where mining had been completed for more than two years and phase II bond release has not yet been achieved. Since August 1997, seven permits have been added that now meet this criteria. Ohio is committed to carrying out this process as a routine management practice.

B. Program Issues

Landslides

In the EY 96 evaluation period, OSM evaluated the effectiveness of landslide repair on Ohio permits. Ohio reviewed the study report and agreed with the finding and recommendation presented. The recommendation in the report was for Ohio to establish guidelines for landslide stabilization and repair. Ohio began efforts with OSM to develop guidelines in February of 1998. However, Ohio discontinued those efforts before guidelines could be developed, due to other priorities of the engineering staff. Ohio committed to re-initiate those efforts with OSM in EY 98 and developed a preliminary draft of guidelines. However, at this time the guidelines have not been finalized.

Alternative Bonding System

OSM conditionally approved Ohio's regulatory program on August 10, 1982. The one remaining program condition requires Ohio to demonstrate that the Alternative Bonding System (ABS) will ensure timely reclamation at the site of all sites for which bond has been forfeited. OSM previously identified Ohio program deficiencies for not completing forfeiture reclamation in a timely manner and for having insufficient funds in the ABS to complete reclamation on existing bond forfeiture permits in a timely manner.

Subsequently, OSM and Ohio have made several attempts to solve this problem. In 1993, Ohio conducted a financial solvency analysis of its bonding program. The recommendations of the actuarial study identified specific conditions necessary to ensure long-term solvency of the ABS. Ohio and OSM formalized those conditions in a monitoring and improvement plan designed to collect and analyze the data needed to assess the financial solvency of the ABS. In addition, Ohio agreed to aggressively pursue completion of reclamation on the backlog of the 25 forfeited permits. Ohio has made significant progress in reclaiming the backlog of forfeited sites. At this time four of the 25 backlogged sites are awaiting reclamation or repermitting.

Ohio revised the ABS monitoring plan in January 1998. A key element of the revised plan used information collected during routine inspections to monitor reclamation activities. To complete this element of the monitoring plan, Ohio developed a new computer-based inspection program. This program is now being used by the inspectors. The initial implementation of the new inspection program identified several problems which needed corrected to comply with the monitoring plan. Ohio is now making changes to correct these deficiencies and hopes to have all inspectors using the new inspection program by the end of 1998. Collection of the reclamation information is crucial to Ohio's goal to remove this one condition on their program during calendar year 1998.

A workgroup is gathering other non-inspection information needed to request that the program condition be removed and anticipates submitting the request before the end of 1998. OSM agreed to review the information prior to a formal submission of the request.

AML Construction Management

OSM reviewed the productivity of Ohio's regular AML program for the standard construction management processes regarding design and construction activity. Ohio completed 24 designs during the evaluation period, compared to 24 over the last 12-month evaluation period. Ohio bid 16 contracts during the evaluation period and issued 17 contracts, compared to 19 for the last 12-month period. The dollar amount of the 17 contracts was over $3.1 million, compared to $3.0 million in the previous year. Ohio substantially completed reclamation on 15 projects during the review period, compared to ten last year.

These figures show continued productivity in design and contracting. This is noteworthy, since this shows a continuation of the productivity noted in last year's report. However, there is still a large backlog of pending projects. Design and contracting remain as program areas that delay project construction.

Ohio has implemented changes, with renewed emphasis on priorities and accountability, that have improved productivity in the design process. Ohio is considering bidding projects which include design proposals. OSM has suggested that Ohio consider time and materials-type contracts or performance-based contracts for simple projects. OSM will continue to work with Ohio to increase productivity of the program.

Hydrology

Previous oversight studies in EY 93, EY 94, and EY 96 identified a number of issues relating to hydrology. Ohio has made progress toward resolving these issues during EY 98. Two issues include Ohio's method of establishing seasonal variations and the approval of permits with only general descriptions of toxic material handling plans unrelated to site-specific conditions. A team representing Ohio, industry, consultants, and OSM has met several times and is currently developing recommendations to address the seasonal variations issue. Ohio has also committed to provide OSM with draft guidelines for addressing toxic material handling plans in the permit process. Although Ohio has committed to this in the past, OSM will continue to pursue completion of these guidelines through Ohio's permitting and hydrology section and the AMD Prevention Team.

Ohio has also made progress in resolving the other program issues identified by OSM, such as collecting and evaluating quarterly monitoring data; more closely evaluating requests to discontinue monitoring; continuing to develop quality assurance and control procedures for processing samples; evaluating hydrologic impacts at bond release; and providing timely completion of investigation of water supply complaints. A contractor has completed development of a comprehensive database for hydrologic information. In addition, another Ohio team, including representatives from Ohio, industry, and OSM, has provided extensive recommendations for improving Ohio's processing of hydrologic monitoring data. Ohio has added two field geologist positions for addressing water supply complaints and helping inspectors address hydrology issues. Although Ohio has not yet fully implemented many of the databases or team recommendations, there is movement in that direction. Many of the recommendations will require significant changes on the part of Ohio staff and industry. OSM expects that implementations will be accomplished gradually.

Public Roads

OSM identified a potential problem with Ohio's implementation of its program concerning public roads and mining operations. Ohio adopted criteria consistent with Federal provisions for determining when a public road must be permitted as part of a coal mining operation. Ohio's provisions are based on the primary usage of the road along with other criteria. Ohio has not consistently applied the program criteria to public roads where the primary use of the road is for mining purposes. Ohio agrees with OSM's interpretation on this matter and has taken measures, including holding meetings with staff and industry, to ensure that the provisions are properly applied. Ohio will be holding additional meetings with staff and industry to clarify issues related to mining and public roads.

Response to Hydrology Complaints

In 1997, OSM conducted a study of Ohio's water supply complaint investigations. This study was a result of findings in the previous year's evaluation of off-site impacts concerning the large number of outstanding water supply complaints. The study found that, while Ohio is taking steps to reduce the complaint investigation backlog, a significant backlog still exists. The study also found that the tracking and filing systems were poorly organized and maintained, to the degree that an exact number of outstanding complaints could not be determined. OSM recommended that these systems be revised and maintained in addition to Ohio's efforts to reduce the backlog.

OSM reviewed Ohio's water supply complaint tracking system midway through this evaluation year and found that the backlog of unresolved complaints had increased rather than decreased. Ohio has responded to this situation by creating two field hydrologist positions to assist with complaint investigations in addition to other duties related to field hydrology issues. OSM will continue to monitor Ohio's progress in the area.

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, OSM is collecting the findings from performance standard evaluations for a national perspective in terms of the number and extent of observed off-site impacts and the number of mined and reclaimed acres that meet the bond release requirements for the various phases of reclamation. Individual topic reports that provide additional details on how OSM conducted the following evaluations and measurements are available in the Columbus OSM Office.

A. Off-Site Impacts

During the EY 98 evaluation period, OSM collected information on the number, type, and severity of off-site impacts resulting from mining operations. OSM used this information as a measure of the effectiveness of the Ohio mining program in protecting the environment and the public adjacent to mining operations. The goal of this measurement is for States and OSM to reduce the occurrence of off-site impacts. OSM identified off-site impacts by reviewing Ohio enforcement actions; citizen complaints received by Ohio and OSM; and by conducting oversight inspections that focused on identification and evaluation of impacts that occurred outside the areas authorized for mining and reclamation activities. This year's study identified 37 off-site impacts. Five of the 37 impacts were considered major, four moderate, and 28 minor. The five major impacts were related to one blasting incident that affected five properties. Twenty-one of the impacts identified affected hydrologic resources, with acid water discharges being the most prevalent. Five of the 37 impacts were encroachments of mining activities onto areas outside of the approved permit area. Table 4 provides a distribution of the types of impacts and the affected resources.

The off-site impact data shows that the majority of impacts are water-related. Ohio and OSM have focused on hydrology issues and will continue to pursue improvements to the Ohio program to reduce the number of water-related off-site impacts. At present, this initiative is directed through the efforts of the AMD Prevention Team and Ohio's efforts to improve their investigation of water complaints.

B. Bond Release/Reclamation Success

OSM reviewed Ohio's approval of bond releases as one measure of success in administering the SMCRA program. Between October 1, 1997 and June 1, 1998, OSM conducted on-site inspections on 82 reclamation segments on 52 different permits on which Ohio had approved bond release. OSM collected information about contemporaneous reclamation, remining, land use, and hydrology on most of these inspections. Table 5 in the Appendix tabulates information on bond releases processed by Ohio during the review period.

OSM oversight found that Ohio's evaluation of industry's compliance with the on-the-ground performance standards for bond release is effective. However, some improvements are necessary. Although OSM oversight inspections did not identify any sites where material damage to the hydrologic balance could be demonstrated, Ohio has not fully implemented a defined evaluation process to determine whether mining has caused material damage to the hydrologic system before approving final bond release. Ohio is continuing to develop such a process.

Overall, OSM oversight data collected at reclaimed mine sites shows that on-the-ground reclamation meets or exceeds performance standards in nearly all cases. Mined land is being restored to productive use, with the vast majority restored to pasture/grazing land with hay production generally exceeding the county average.

OSM evaluated Ohio's implementation of contemporaneous reclamation provisions as a measure of how timely mined land is being returned to the landowner for implementing a post-mining land use, one of the purposes of SMCRA. Information on contemporaneous reclamation showed a wide range of reclamation/bond release time frames demonstrating a process in transition. Time frames for completion of phase I reclamation ranged from 0.2 years to 2.3 years with an average of one year on the eleven phase I releases evaluated by OSM. Time frames for completion of phase II reclamation ranged from 0.1 years to 11.9 years with an average of 4.5 years on the 38 phase II releases evaluated by OSM. Completion of phase III reclamation ranged from 3.3 years to 12.9 years with an average of 7.7 years on the 33 phase III releases evaluated by OSM. During the period, 7082 new acres were bonded and a total of 5631.6 acres received final bond release. This comparison indicates that Ohio permittees obtained final bond release on acreage equivalent to 80 percent of the new acreage bonded.

Ohio should continue its efforts to ensure that reclamation and other work necessary for each phase of bond release is conducted as contemporaneously as practicable. OSM and Ohio will continue to refine a process that will provide a consistent measure of the timeliness of reclamation and bond release on a program-wide basis.

VI. OSM ASSISTANCE

During the evaluation period, OSM participated in numerous assistance efforts with Ohio. The purpose of this assistance was to help Ohio more efficiently implement their program. Both OSM and Ohio found that working together cooperatively on teams to resolve problems has been positive and successful. Listed below are brief descriptions of the specific areas where OSM assisted Ohio this year.

ADP Assistance

Permitting

OSM computer assistance in the permitting program continued throughout EY 98. The new application, adjacent area application, permit transfers, and incidental boundary revision modules were substantially completed by July of this year. The new system allows Ohio to track permit- specific data such as landowner information, coal seams, water monitoring sites, permit conditions, etc. In addition, the system also tracks administrative processes associated with processing permit applications, such as reviews and revision letters. This system will help fulfill some of the recommendations of the Permitting Work Group by providing a tracking mechanism for all permitting activity. The system will enable Ohio to provide current status reports on permit applications upon request.

Ohio has contracted with an independent consulting firm to convert the Permitting System to Ohio's core database software, Microsoft Access. OSM will continue to assist Ohio by working with the contractor in the program conversion.

Financial Management

Ohio manages the bonding activities surrounding the mining and reclamation of permitted areas in the bonding section. Currently, Ohio has approximately 134,700 acres on 568 permits. Of this amount, 76,500 acres are affected for a total bond liability of $191,250,000. In addition to the managing of bond funds, the bonding section within Ohio must also process annual reports submitted on each permit. To efficiently deal with this workload and because of the critical nature of the bonding program, Ohio developed a computerized bond management system in 1982. Ohio requested assistance from OSM to develop a replacement for this aging system in 1996.

With the assistance provided by OSM, Ohio established business rules for many aspects of their operations including: administrative completeness of bond release request; receipt and approval of annual reports; billing for the several kinds of permitting actions; and assessment and receipt of civil penalties. The awareness gained by the Ohio staff as to the value and need of establishing business rules, should enhance future computerization of other sections in Ohio.

Ohio's capability to administratively process a bond and reduce a permittee's liability has improved significantly as compared with the non-computerized processing time. The delay in notifying the permittee and the bonding company which issued the bond of completed reclamation was adversely affecting the permittee's ability to obtain bonds and the cost for those bonds. Prior to using the new system, the time to complete the paperwork related to a bond release would range from several days to more than a year. With the new system, the same action can be accomplished instantly. The new bonding system enables bonding documents for the permittee, the bonding company, and other sections within Ohio to be prepared electronically. In addition, the system now provides a complete audit trail for all financial transactions associated with a permit. The system also provides: calculations of bond liability; a simple bond substitution process for the permittee; a user-friendly interface for entry of bond, fees, and penalties; printing of receipts for all deposits; calculations of bills and printing of billing letters; and automatic notification of the permitting section when bonds and fees are received. Accuracy of records is greatly improved.

As the development of the bond application occurred, Ohio staff identified other opportunities where sharing data would eliminate a great deal of data entry and data validation resulting in more time to conduct their work activity. The system can provide more than 30 different electronic reports. The main report is the bond status report that is repeated with every bond release. Previously, this report was done by hand every time a bond release was processed. Another example of a report is one used by field managers to monitor the on-the-ground status of reclamation on all permits. This report enables field managers to know the reclamation status on each permit as reported through bond releases and the number of affected acres.

The assistance provided by OSM in both the bonding and permitting sections enabled a high degree of integration of the actions in both sections. The system now allows standardized data entry that is used by both the permitting and bonding section. Duplicate entry and errors in data entry are minimized. The system provides direct electronic communication between the permitting and bonding section. This communication minimizes opportunities for lost paper work, errors, and permit processing delays.

In addition, the system has the capability to provide information to OSM. In the past, OSM maintained its own data on Ohio's activities. With the new system, Ohio now maintains its own electronic records and can provide reports to OSM.

AMD Prevention Team

The AMD Team began developing an inventory of actual and potential AMD-producing sites in order to determine the degree that post-1977 mine sites are producing or may produce AMD after reclamation. Ohio's and OSM's field staffs were surveyed to establish the initial inventory list. Fifty-eight post-1977 sites were identified as producing AMD. Of these, 11 were interim program permits (C-Permits) and 47 were permanent program permits (D permits). By mine type, the 58 sites included: 17 preparation plants/tipples; five refuse disposal areas; three underground mines; and 33 surface mines. The Team begin visiting and collecting samples from these sites to verify their eligibility for the inventory. Location information for the sites was collected to begin to develop a geographic information system (GIS) for the inventory.

Eight sites were reviewed and sampled by the Team during the year. Six of these sites were producing AMD. Of the six sites, five were interim program sites and the remaining permanent program site was a bond forfeiture site. During the upcoming evaluation year, the Team will continue to develop the inventory and work with Ohio's permitting section on developing acid and toxic material handling guidelines.

Hydrologic Monitoring Team

OSM assisted Ohio in their quarterly water monitoring (QWM) processes. Ohio established a team to evaluate the processes associated with selecting QWM sites, processing and storing qwm information, and using the QWM data submitted to and collected by Ohio. This team provided a detailed report with recommendations to Ohio for implementation. Recommendations included: adopting standard procedures for documentation and collection of ground and surface water samples; adopting QWM site selection goals and criteria for use by Ohio permitting staff; revising water data forms contained in permit applications; field verification by Ohio permitting staff of QWM sites identified in permit applications; duplication or split sampling of QWM sites; and development and implementation of a new data management system for QWM data.

Currently, the new data management system has been developed and QWM site selection goals and criteria have been distributed.

Updating Ohio's Enforcement Manual

OSM assisted Ohio in editing and updating Ohio's enforcement manual. This manual is used as a reference by State inspectors when issuing enforcement actions. OSM finished work on this manual this year. Ohio distributed copies of the manual to their field staff. OSM will continue to assist Ohio by making the manual available in an electronic format.

ARP Permitting Team

In EY 96, Ohio implemented changes to the ARP (Application to Revise a Permit) process. The ARP team was Ohio's pilot team for implementation of their quality improvement process. The report identified problems with obtaining timely approval of permit revisions and provided recommended changes to improve the ARP process. The purpose of the ARP team was to improve the processing time of ARP's while ensuring completeness, regulatory compliance, and tracking of individual ARP's. The ARP team included representatives from Ohio, OSM, and industry.

Recently, Ohio asked the ARP team members to review the ARP data since implementation of the revised process and identify any problems or concerns. The team conducted their first meeting on August 20, 1998. This effort will continue into early EY 99.

Remining Initiative

OSM continued as a member of Ohio's Remining Committee. The committee has an active representative on a national remining committee which is working with EPA concerning water quality issues related to remining. Ohio issued policy to clarify implementation of its rules for remined areas to establish provisions for unanticipated events, reduce the revegetation liability period, lower revegetation standards, and waive yield requirements. Although the rules and policy have been in effect for several months, the coal industry is just beginning to take advantage of the provisions for reduced revegetation liability periods by identifying areas eligible for remining.

VII. General Oversight Topic Reviews

OSM Oversight Inspections

OSM conducted 52 inspections for general compliance monitoring on coal mine operations during the evaluation period to assess compliance with performance standards. In addition, OSM conducted 54 inspections specifically for evaluating mining operations for possible off-site impacts, 48 inspections to evaluate bond releases approved by Ohio, and 27 other mine site visits associated with special studies or for other reasons. In addition, OSM conducted 23 inspections to monitor AML reclamation project construction and six inspections to evaluate potential AML emergencies or to monitor AML emergency project construction.

OSM's general compliance monitoring oversight inspections are conducted to provide OSM with information as to how well Ohio is implementing its program by reviewing the on-the-ground impacts of mining operations. Of the 52 general oversight inspections conducted by OSM, 73 percent of the mine sites inspected were in compliance with all of the standards evaluated at the time of the OSM inspection. The remaining 27 percent of the sites inspected for general compliance were in noncompliance with one or more performance standards. Of the total 181 inspections conducted by OSM during this evaluation period, 78 percent of the sites were in compliance with the standards reviewed by OSM and 22 percent were in noncompliance with one or more standards. In all instances, Ohio either had taken or took appropriate enforcement or other appropriate action to address the noncompliance.

One potential programmatic issue was identified as a result of an OSM inspection. This issue concerns public roads connected with mining operations. See discussion in Section IV.B., Program Issues, of this report. OSM and Ohio continue to address programmatic issues including: repair of landslides, contemporaneous reclamation of sites where mining has been completed for more than two years, and evaluation of hydrologic impacts at the time of bond release. These issues are also discussed elsewhere in this report.

The results of OSM inspections related to OSM special studies concerning bond release, contemporaneous reclamation, and off-site impacts are further discussed under separate topics elsewhere in this report.

SOAP Program

The Ohio Program establishes procedures for providing assistance to qualified small operators who request it. A qualified small operator or an eligible operator is one who (1) intends to apply for a permit and (2) establishes that the total actual and attributed annual production will not exceed 300,000 tons for any consecutive twelve-month period during the first five years of the permit. Ohio's program was amended on December 19, 1996, to expand the services available for SOAP consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

OSM's evaluation found that Ohio generally administers its SOAP operations in accordance with the approved program. However, OSM found some procedural exceptions in Ohio's implementation process. These exceptions include: the requirement to make sure that all required items are included on the application form; to send approval or denial letters to applicants; to conduct work product reviews; and to monitor and track applicant liability matters. OSM will be working with Ohio to address these exceptions during the next evaluation year. OSM has offered assistance in the development of a computerized tracking system for the SOAP program.

Administrative Processing of Bond Releases and Landowner Notification

Ohio and OSM conducted a joint study to evaluate the time Ohio takes to process bond release requests. The study was conducted on 71 reclamation segments released during the evaluation period. The analysis of the data from the sampled segments showed that the current system takes approximately 81 days to process a release excluding the time the permittee takes to make field repairs. This time exceeded the Ohio Program standard of 60 days by 21 days.

The study focused on actions Ohio can take to eliminate or reduce inefficiencies in the process. The data indicates that Ohio should change their process for conducting a release review in the following order: review methods to notify the landowner of the pending bond release so that notification occurs sooner; ensure that the permittee conducts repair work more timely; reduce the time to administratively process the release after the field approves it; and finally, ensure the initial inspection of the release site is conducted as soon as practicable.

Nine suggestions were provided where Ohio could change their method of reviewing bond release requests. Ohio is now reviewing the study to determine which suggestions to implement.

This study also reviewed the method Ohio uses to notify landowners that a bond release request is being reviewed. The study identified that landowners are usually notified by the inspector by a standard form letter identifying the segment, size, release phase sought, inspection date, and instructions for requesting to participate in the field review. One suggestion resulted due to inconsistencies in the way inspectors notify landowners of bond release inspections. Most inspectors notified landowners of the inspection date in the letter so landowners could participate in the inspection. However, one inspector did not notify landowners of the inspection date, but informed landowners in the letter that they may contact Ohio if they have any questions about or problems with releasing bond on their property. The latter approach could be considered as inconsistent with the intent of the program concerning landowner participation by not providing notification of the inspection date. Ohio indicated that a consistent method to notify the landowner is needed and will be implemented.

OSM Part 732 Notices to Ohio

Ohio has responded to two notices from OSM informing Ohio of Federal rule changes that may not be reflected in the Ohio program.

The first notice addresses changes resulting from the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) and Federal regulations implementing the Act concerning areas impacted by mine subsidence. OSM identified that the Ohio Program must address bonding provisions of the Federal regulations that require that coal mine operators provide bond coverage on areas impacted by mine subsidence that are not repaired within 90 days. Ohio responded to this notice by stating that the current bonding provisions of their program apply to areas impacted by mine subsidence and no change is necessary. OSM concurred with Ohio's response. Therefore, no changes to the Ohio Program concerning mine subsidence are required as a result of EPACT and the resulting Federal rules.

The second notice addresses Federal rule changes that have occurred over the past several years. The provisions affecting Ohio include permitting and performance standards on siltation structures and impoundments, variances from approximate original contour, prime farmland, and affirmation by the applicant that reclamation requirements are met when applying for bond release. Ohio submitted a program amendment to address these provisions. OSM is currently evaluating the amendment.

^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.

The objective of this Table is to report all off-site impacts identified in a State regardless of the source of the information. Report the degree of impact under each resource that was affected by each type of impact. Refer to guidelines in Directive REG-8 for determining degree of impact. More than one resource may be affected by each type of impact. Therefore, the total number of impacts will likely be less than the total number of resources affected; i.e. the numbers under the resources columns will not necessarily add horizontally to equal the total number for each type of impact. As provided by the Table, report impacts identified on bond forfeiture sites separately from impacts identified on other sites. If bond forfeitures sites were not evaluated during the period, clearly note the table to indicate that fact. Impacts related to mine subsidence or other areas where impacts are not prohibited are not included in this table. Refer to report narrative for complete explanation and evaluation of the information provided by this table.

TABLE 5

OPTIONAL TABLES 6

(Optional Tables 6 were not utilized.)

TABLE 7