GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

SURFACE COAL 

MINING 

Characteristics of 

Mining in 

Mountainous Areas of 

Kentucky and 

West Virginia 

December 2009 

GAO-10-21 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

December 2009

SURFACE COAL MINING

Characteristics of Mining in Mountainous Areas of 

Kentucky and West Virginia 

Highlights of GAO-10-21, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Surface coal mining in the 

mountainous areas of Appalachia—

often called “mountaintop 

mining”—generates controversy, in 

part because of its scale and the 

post-mining appearance of the 

land. Yet there is limited public 

access to information on the size, 

location, and life span of these 

operations, or on how the land can 

be expected to look afterward. 

GAO was asked to report on the 

characteristics of (1) surface coal 

mining and (2) reclaimed lands that 

were disturbed by surface coal 

mining in the mountainous, eastern 

part of Kentucky and in West 

Virginia, where most such mining 

occurs. 

Federal and state law requires 

mining operators to obtain permits 

before mining. Among other 

things, the permits identify the 

acres under open permit (the acres 

subject to mining associated with a 

permit that has not been closed) 

and how the land will be 

reclaimed—including the postmining land use, whether the 

approximate original contour 

(AOC) of the land will be restored, 

and the extent to which excess 

earth, rock, and other materials 

(known as “spoil”) are placed in 

nearby valleys. For this study, GAO 

relied on electronic databases of 

mining permits maintained by 

Kentucky and West Virginia. This 

report makes no recommendations. 

In commenting on a draft of this 

report, the Department of the 

Interior and the two state mining 

agencies generally agreed with our 

findings. 

Surface coal mining in Kentucky and West Virginia had the following 

important characteristics, based on permits issued from January 1990 through 

July 2008: 

• The number of acres under open permit increased by an average annual 

rate of 2.2 percent in Kentucky and 1.7 percent in West Virginia. 

• The number of acres under open permit became more geographically 

concentrated. 

• The length of time that permits were open varied from less than a year to 

more than 18 years. 

• In West Virginia, 28 contiguously permitted areas contained nearly half of 

the permitted acres, as of July 2008. 

Reclaimed lands had the following important characteristics, based on 

permits issued from January 2000 through July 2008: 

• The most common type of post-mining land use in Kentucky was fish and 

wildlife habitat and, in West Virginia, it was forestland. 

• Most permits required operators to reclaim the land to AOC, but there 

were some exceptions (called variances). Most of the variances were for 

lands where there was insufficient spoil to restore AOC because the land 

had been previously mined but not reclaimed. 

• Kentucky and West Virginia collectively approved nearly 2,000 fills to 

store at least 4.9 billion cubic yards of excess spoil in nearby valleys. 

A West Virginia site showing the bare soil of active mining and the greener land that is being

reclaimed

Source: GAO.

View GAO-10-21 or key components.

For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro 

at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-21 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 4 

Characteristics of Surface Coal Mining in Mountainous Areas in 

Kentucky and West Virginia 8 

Characteristics of Reclaimed Lands That Were Disturbed by 

Surface Coal Mining in Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and 

West Virginia 29 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 62 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 64 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of the Interior 69 

Appendix III Comments from the Kentucky Department for 

Natural Resources 74 

Appendix IV Comments from the West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection 81 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 82 

Tables 

Table 1: Coal Production from Surface Mines in Select States and 

Regions, 2008 6 

Table 2: The 10 Counties in Kentucky with the Largest Number of 

Open Acres in July 2008 and the Number of Open Acres in 

Those Counties in 1990 20 

Table 3: The 10 Counties in West Virginia with the Largest Number 

of Open Acres in July 2008 and the Number of Open Acres 

in Those Counties in 1990 22 

 Surface Coal Mining 
Figures 

Figure 1: Contour, Auger, and Highwall Mining 5 

Figure 2: Area Mining on a Mountaintop 6 

Figure 3: Acres in Kentucky Associated with Issued, Released, or 

Forfeited Permits, by Year the Permit Was Issued, 

Released, or Forfeited, 1970–July 2008 11 

Figure 4: Cumulative Number of Acres in Kentucky Associated 

with Open, Released, and Forfeited Permits, 1970–July 

2008 13 

Figure 5: Acres in West Virginia Associated with Issued, Released, 

or Forfeited Permits, by Year the Permit Was Issued, 

Released, or Forfeited, 1961–July 2008 15 

Figure 6: Cumulative Number of Acres in West Virginia Associated 

with Open, Released, and Forfeited Permits, 1961–July 

2008 17 

Figure 7: Acres in Kentucky under Open Permit as a Percentage of 

All Acres under Open Permit in the 10 Counties with the 

Largest Number of Open Acres in July 2008 19 

Figure 8: Acres in West Virginia under Open Permit as a Percentage 

of all Acres under Open Permit in the 10 Counties with the 

Largest Number of Open Acres in July 2008 21 

Figure 9: Average Length of Time Kentucky Permits Issued Since 

1990 Were Open, by Size and Status, as of July 2008 23 

Figure 10: Average Length of Time West Virginia Permits Issued 

Since 1990 Were Open by Size and Status, as of July 2008 24 

Figure 11: The 559 Permitted Areas in West Virginia, as of July 2008 26 

Figure 12: The 28 largest Permitted Areas in West Virginia 28 

Figure 13: PMLU Types Approved in Kentucky, 1970–2008 32 

Figure 14: PMLU Types Approved in West Virginia, 1970–2008 34 

Figure 15: Pre-Mining Land Use Types Identified in Kentucky, 

1970–2008 37 

Figure 16: Pre-Mining Land Use Types Identified in West Virginia, 

1970–2008 39 

Figure 17: An Illustration of a Reclaimed Site Meeting the AOC 

Requirement, Compared with the Original, Pre-Mining 

Contour 42 

Figure 18: Number of Permits in Kentucky Issued to Be Reclaimed 

to AOC, Compared with Permits Issued with AOC 

Variances, 1970–2008 43 

Figure 19: Number of Permits in West Virginia Issued to Be 

Reclaimed to AOC, Compared with Permits Issued with 

AOC Variances, 1970–2008 45 

Page ii GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Figure 20: A Reclaimed, Surface-Mined Site with an AOC Variance 

in West Virginia 47 

Figure 21: Types of AOC Variances Approved in Kentucky, 1970–

2008 50 

Figure 22: Types of AOC Variances Approved in West Virginia, 

1970–2008 52 

Figure 23: A Terraced Fill on a Reclaimed Site in West Virginia 54 

Figure 24: Fills Approved in Kentucky, 1970–2008 56 

Figure 25: Storage Volume of Fills Approved in Kentucky, 1970–

2008 57 

Figure 26: Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970–2008 59 

Figure 27: Storage Volume of Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970–

2008 60 

Figure 28: Length of Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970–2008 61 

Abbreviations 

AOC approximate original contour 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

ERIS Environmental Resources Information System 

OSM Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

PMLU post-mining land use 

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

SMIS Surface Mining Information System 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page iii GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Page 1 GAO-10-21 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

December 9, 2009 

The Honorable Norm D. Dicks 

Chairman 

The Honorable Michael K. Simpson 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment 

 and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Surface mining for coal in the mountainous areas of Appalachia—often 

referred to as mountaintop mining—generates controversy due to the 

scale of mining operations and concern about the post-mining appearance 

of reclaimed lands, among other issues. Mountaintop mining operations 

can involve thousands of acres and take a decade or more to complete. 

During this time, the land is cleared of forests and other vegetation, and 

explosives or other techniques are used to break up the earth, rock, and 

other materials (known as “spoil”). The spoil is then removed to expose 

the underlying coal seams and allow for its extraction.1

 Once the coal has 

been extracted, some or most of the spoil is placed back on top of the 

mined-out area. Excess spoil is often placed in adjacent valleys. The area 

is then prepared for its post-mining land use. 

Surface mining is an important source of coal production in Appalachia, 

accounting for about 40 percent of the coal produced in the region in 2008, 

the most recent data available.2

 In 2008, Kentucky and West Virginia 

accounted for about 76 percent of the coal produced from surface mines 

1

Mining breaks up solid rock layers and produces smaller, irregularly shaped pieces that 

are separated by voids, or air pockets. This causes the overall volume of the excavated 

material to increase, or “swell,” so that it no longer fits together as compactly as it once 

did. 

2

The remaining 60 percent of coal produced in Appalachia comes from underground 

mining. 

 Surface Coal Mining 
 

in Appalachia, producing about 120 million tons, making them the thirdand second-largest surface coal-producing states in the nation.3

 Almost all 

surface mining in Appalachia occurs on private land. 

Surface mining of coal is regulated by the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), which created the Department of the 

Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) 

to implement and enforce the act. SMCRA allows an individual state to 

develop its own program to implement SMCRA if that program is in 

accordance with federal law and is approved by OSM. OSM is charged 

with enforcing states’ adherence to their approved programs or 

implementing a federal program in accordance with SMCRA if the state 

fails to submit, implement, or enforce its own program. OSM has approved 

programs for 24 states, including Kentucky and West Virginia in 1982 and 

1981, respectively. 

Despite the public scrutiny that surface mining in mountainous areas has 

received, the public is limited in its ability to access information on the 

scope of these operations—their size, location, and how long they have 

been in operation—and on what the mountain can be expected to look like 

after mining operations have ceased and the land has been reclaimed. 

Although this information is available to the public, the public cannot 

readily aggregate these data over time to perform trend analyses, which is 

a key component to understanding the characteristics of surface mining in 

these states since mining operations can last a decade or more. In 

response to your request, this report provides information on the 

characteristics, over time, of (1) surface coal mining in mountainous areas 

in Kentucky and West Virginia and (2) reclaimed lands disturbed by 

surface coal mining in mountainous areas in Kentucky and West Virginia. 

This report focuses on surface coal mining in the mountainous areas of 

Kentucky and West Virginia because these are the states in which the 

majority of mountaintop mining that is the source of controversy in 

Appalachia occurs. These areas accounted for about 73 percent of 

Appalachia’s surface coal production in 2008. For Kentucky, we included 

in our analysis surface mining permits in the mountainous, eastern part of 

the state, which accounted for most of the state’s surface coal production. 

We excluded permits in the flatter, western part of Kentucky, which 

accounted for about 9 percent of Kentucky’s surface coal production in 

 

3

Wyoming produced about 464 million tons of coal from surface mines in 2008. 

Page 2 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

2008. We included surface mining permits from all of West Virginia in our 

analysis. To address our objectives, we relied extensively on the two 

states’ electronic databases, which contain select information from the 

states’ surface mining permit files. The permit files provide detail on 

mining operations that are not contained in these databases. The Kentucky 

database is called the Surface Mining Information System (SMIS). The 

West Virginia database is called the Environmental Resources Information 

System (ERIS). Through extensive discussion with state officials familiar 

with these electronic databases, and our analysis of the information from 

the databases, we determined that specific data elements are sufficiently 

reliable within certain time frames. Specifically, due to limits on data 

reliability and to be consistent between the states, we are reporting on the 

characteristics of surface mining in Kentucky and West Virginia from 

January 1990 through July 2008 and on the characteristics of reclaimed 

lands that were disturbed by surface mining from January 2000 through 

July 2008, except for Kentucky’s data on variances, for which we are 

reporting from January 2002 through July 2008. However, SMIS and ERIS 

also contain data on these characteristics for prior years, in some cases 

dating to 1961. For some of these years, for some data elements, we 

determined that the data is reliable; in other instances, we identified 

specific data limitations. Although the general public has access to data 

from all years—the surface mining permit files in Kentucky and West 

Virginia are public documents—the data are readily accessible to the 

public by electronically accessing SMIS and ERIS. We include data from 

all years in many of the graphics in our report in order to provide a 

comprehensive overview of the data in SMIS and ERIS that clearly 

identifies the years for which there are data limitations and what those 

data limitations are. We believe that presenting data from the earlier 

years—and its limitations—decreases the likelihood of misuse or 

misinterpretation because the limitations on the data are not disclosed on 

the Web sites from which the public accesses SMIS and ERIS. 

Additionally, for West Virginia, we combined data from ERIS with 

electronic geospatial files of permit boundaries from the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection to determine which permitted 

areas were adjacent to each other. From this information, we identified 

the largest, contiguously permitted areas in West Virginia. We had 

insufficient data to identify contiguously permitted areas in Kentucky. We 

also reviewed relevant federal and state laws, regulations, and policy 

guidance on surface coal mining and reclamation; visited several active 

mining operations and reclaimed sites in the two states; and met with 

officials from OSM, the West Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection, and the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources. A more 

detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in 

Page 3 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

appendix I. We conducted our work from March 2008 to December 2009 in 

accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that 

are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 

perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to 

meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We 

believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 

conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in 

this report. 

This section provides background on surface coal mining techniques used 

in Kentucky and West Virginia, coal production data, and SMCRA’s 

requirements for coal mining operations. 

Background 

Surface Coal Mining 

Methods Used in Kentucky 

and West Virginia 

A number of different surface mining methods are used to mine coal in 

Appalachia—including in Kentucky and West Virginia. The method used 

depends largely on the geology, terrain, and the accessibility of the 

underlying coal seam. Three of the most commonly used methods are 

contour mining, auger/highwall mining, and area mining. What is 

conventionally referred to as mountaintop mining is typically mining using 

one or more of these methods in mountainous areas. 

Contour mining is typically used where coal seams are exposed in 

outcrops on hillsides and mountainsides. A cut is first made in the hillside 

above a coal seam to remove the overburden—the dirt and rock above a 

coal seam. This further exposes the coal seam and creates a flat area, 

called a bench, and a highwall—a cliff of exposed rock left after a surface 

mining operation has cut into the landscape. The mine is then enlarged by 

successive cuts that follow the coal seam around the side of the hill. The 

mining extends into the hill to the point where the overburden is too thick 

to make further exposure of the coal seam economic. The overburden—

which is called spoil once it has been removed—can be placed back on top 

of the mined-out area. Any excess spoil that is not replaced because of 

stability or other reasons is placed in nearby valleys and hollows. 

Additionally, auger mining often is used at this stage to maximize the 

amount of coal recovered. Auger mining involves drilling into an exposed 

coal seam at the highwall, from the bench—much like a carpenter drills 

through wood. If coal seam characteristics permit, a “highwall miner” may 

be used in place of an auger. A highwall miner typically uses rotary cutting 

heads to extract the coal from the exposed coal seam. Both methods are 

secondary methods that permit the recovery of additional coal that would 

Page 4 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

not be economically recovered through surface or underground mining. 

Figure 1 depicts contour, auger, and highwall mining. 

Figure 1: Contour, Auger, and Highwall Mining 

Overburden

Coal seam

Source: GAO depiction of an OSM figure.

Original contour

Highwall

Bench

Auger and highwall mining

To recover additional coal that cannot be recovered through contour and 

auger mining, some or all of a mountaintop can be area mined. To provide 

a flat surface for the operation of equipment, a first cut is made parallel to 

the top of the ridge after vegetation and topsoil have been removed. The 

overburden is loosened by blasting and removed. Once the coal seam is 

uncovered, the coal can be removed. As with contour mining, the 

overburden can be placed back on top of the mined-out area or in nearby 

valleys and hollows. Figure 2 depicts area mining on a mountaintop. 

Page 5 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 2: Area Mining on a Mountaintop 

Overburden

Source: GAO depiction of an OSM figure.

Original contour

Spoil

Coal seam

Highwall

Bench

Surface Coal Production in 

Kentucky and West 

Virginia 

In 2008, Kentucky and West Virginia accounted for about 76 percent of the 

coal produced from surface mines in Appalachia and are the states with 

the third- and second-largest surface coal production totals in the country, 

respectively. Wyoming is the largest. See table 1. 

Table 1: Coal Production from Surface Mines in Select States and Regions, 2008 

State/region 

Production 

(thousands of 

 short tons) 

Percentage of 

production of total 

U.S. surface mines

All U.S. surface mines 813,322 100%

Appalachia (including eastern 

Kentucky and West Virginia) 157,705 19.4

Kentucky (east and west) 50,849 6.3

Kentucky (east only) 46,116 5.7

West Virginia 69,409 8.5

Wyoming 464,143 57.1%

Source: U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

Note: EIA defines Appalachia for purposes of compiling data on coal production to include Alabama, 

eastern Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

Page 6 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

SMCRA and its implementing rules set national standards for regulating 

the surface impact from both surface and underground mines. States with 

their own programs are to set standards in accordance with federal 

standards, and the requirements of Kentucky and West Virginia are 

generally similar to federal requirements.4

 In some instances, the wording 

of Kentucky and West Virginia’s state requirements is identical to the 

federal requirements. OSM oversight focuses on assuring that state 

regulating agencies comply with the requirements of the approved state 

program. SMCRA requires OSM to make such inspections as are necessary 

to evaluate how well state programs are administered. 

Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act 

Requirements for 

Regulating Coal Mining 

Operations 

Under approved state programs, state regulatory agencies review and 

approve surface mining permits. The permitting process requires 

operators to submit detailed plans that describe the extent of the proposed 

mining operations and how reclamation will be achieved.5

 For example, 

operators must identify the area to be permitted, provide technical 

descriptions of how mining operations will be conducted, and describe 

how the land will be reclaimed. In reclaiming the land, operators generally 

must backfill, compact, and grade the mined-out area and eliminate all 

highwalls,6

 spoil piles, and depressions. Operators are also required to 

comply with standards that govern, among other things, the post-mining 

use(s) for which the reclaimed land will be prepared, the final contour of 

the reclaimed land, and how spoil that is not deposited back onto the 

mined-out area will be handled. 

To help ensure that operators comply with regulatory requirements and 

permit provisions, including a site’s reclamation plan, SMCRA requires 

operators to post a bond (or bonds). States are also authorized to set up an 

 

4

GAO did not conduct a comprehensive analysis of differences between the regulatory 

schemes, but we note some differences that we have observed or which have been 

identified to us by the regulatory authorities in this report. OSM has determined that both 

Kentucky and West Virginia mining programs meet the legal requirement found in SMCRA 

that they are “no less effective” than federal regulations. 

5

For simplicity in this report, we refer to permittees and operators as operators. The 

permittee is the person or entity holding the permit and is legally responsible for the 

permit, whereas the operator is the person or entity who conducts coal removal operations. 

The permittee and the operator may or may not be the same person or entity. 

6

SMCRA requires that highwalls be eliminated, except in cases where they already existed 

due to mining operations conducted prior to the enactment of SMCRA, in which case they 

must be eliminated to the extent practical. Depressions must also be eliminated, except 

where they are small and are needed for moisture retention, erosion minimization, creation 

or enhancement of wildlife habitat, or revegetation. 

Page 7 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

alternative system if it will achieve the same objectives and purposes as 

the bonding requirements of SMCRA. For example, West Virginia imposes 

a tax on coal production, the proceeds of which are used to reclaim 

forfeited sites instead of requiring a bond reflecting the full projected cost 

of site reclamation. Once a state bond release specialist determines that all 

reclamation standards identified in the permit have been met, the bond is 

“released,” meaning the money put up for bond is returned to the operator. 

Once the bond has been released, state jurisdiction over the mining 

operation ceases. If an operator fails to comply with applicable provisions, 

it may forfeit the bond, in which case the state becomes responsible for 

reclaiming the land to the reclamation standards found in the operator’s 

permit. 

When a permit is issued, it is considered an open permit until the bond 

associated with it is completely released or forfeited, at which time it is 

considered a closed permit. Permits are not actively mined during the 

entire period that the permit is open. For example, mining might not have 

begun, or the land could be in the process of being reclaimed prior to bond 

release. In this report, the acres associated with issued permits (whether 

open or closed) are sometimes referred to as “issued acres” for the 

purposes of brevity and readability. Similarly, the acres associated with 

open permits are sometimes referred to as “acres under open permit” or 

“open acres.” If a permit is closed because the bond associated with it was 

completely released, the permit is referred to as a “released permit,” and 

the acres associated with the released permit are sometimes referred to as 

“released acres.” If the permit is closed because the bond was forfeited, 

the permit is referred to as a “forfeited permit,” and the acres associated 

with the permit are sometimes referred to as “forfeited acres.” 

Based on data provided to us by Kentucky and West Virginia, we are 

reporting on three characteristics in surface mining in the mountainous 

areas of these two states. We identified a fourth characteristic in West 

Virginia using electronic geospatial files of permit boundaries provided to 

us by the state. These data were not available from Kentucky. In summary: 

• First, the number of acres under open permit increased because the 

number of acres issued grew faster than the number of acres released or 

forfeited. The average annual growth rate from January 1990 through July 

2008 was about 2.2 percent in Kentucky and 1.7 percent in West Virginia. 

Characteristics of 

Surface Coal Mining 

in Mountainous Areas 

in Kentucky and West 

Virginia 

• Second, acres under open permit have become more concentrated in 

specific counties since 1990. About 44 percent of the acres under open 

Page 8 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

permit in Kentucky, as of July 2008, were located in three counties—Pike 

County, Perry County, and Knott County. In 1990, the three counties with 

the most acres under open permit accounted for only 28 percent of the 

total. Similarly, in West Virginia, as of July 2008, Boone County, Logan 

County, and Mingo County accounted for about 48 percent of all acres 

under open permit at that time, compared with 33 percent for the three 

counties with the most acres under open permit in 1990. 

• Third, the length of time that permits were open varied. In Kentucky, for 

permits issued since 1990, the length of time a permit was open—from 

issuance to release—ranged from less than 1 year to more than 18 years 

and averaged about 7-1/2 years. In West Virginia, the length of time from 

issuance to release ranged from less than 1 year to almost 17 years and 

averaged about 8-1/2 years. Moreover, both states have a substantial 

number of permits that were issued since 1990 that were still open as of 

July 2008. The average length of time these permits were open was nearly 

5 years in Kentucky and more than 8-1/2 years in West Virginia. 

• Fourth, nearly half of the permitted acres in West Virginia are 

concentrated in 28 contiguously permitted areas. We identified these areas 

using available electronic geospatial files of West Virginia permit 

boundaries for permits that were open in July 2008 or that were released 

or forfeited since 1990. These 28 contiguously permitted areas account for 

178,600 acres, or about 47 percent of all the acreage that is either currently 

open or that was released or forfeited since 1990. The largest of these 

contiguously permitted areas is 21,700 acres and is made up of 37 permits. 

About 89 percent of the acreage in the 28 contiguously permitted areas is 

under open permit as of July 2008. 

Both states’ databases provide data on acres under open permit and 

related data for years prior to 1990. However, for some of these earlier 

years, the data understates or overstates mining activity. Because of these 

data limitations, and to be consistent between the states, we base our 

analysis on data from January 1990 through July 2008. We present the 

results of this analysis in the text of this section of the report. However, 

we include data from the earlier years in some of the figures in this section 

and identify the data limitations for these years in order to provide a 

comprehensive overview of the data in the states’ databases that clearly 

identify the years for which there are data limitations and what those data 

limitations are. We believe that presenting data from the earlier years—

and its limitations—decreases the likelihood for misuse or 

misinterpretation because the data is publicly available, but its limitations 

are not disclosed on the Web sites from which the public can access the 

Page 9 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

data. Data from the earlier years should not be relied upon to convey a 

representative picture of past mining characteristics or decisions. 

Acres Under Open Permit 

Have Increased in 

Kentucky and West 

Virginia 

The two states’ databases show that the number of acres associated with 

open permits has increased from 1990 through 2008. Kentucky provided us 

with data on the number of permits and their associated acres that were 

issued, released, and forfeited from 1970 through July 2008. However, data 

from the 1980s double counts some issued and released permits (and 

associated acreage). A Kentucky state official told us that all permits open 

in the mid-1980s were reissued to comply with revisions to state 

regulations. However, the number of reissued permits and their associated 

acres cannot be distinguished from other permits that were issued during 

that time frame. A state official knowledgeable about the reissuing effort 

told us that it was completed by 1990 and that subsequent data should 

therefore generally be considered reliable. Additionally, data from the 

1970s undercounts some permits (and associated acreage) because not all 

permits of that era are included in the SMIS database. Figure 3 shows the 

number of acres for which permits were issued, released, and forfeited by 

year, and includes the spike in permitted acres that resulted not from new 

mining but from the permit reissuing effort in the 1980s. 

Page 10 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 3: Acres in Kentucky Associated with Issued, Released, or Forfeited Permits, by Year the Permit Was Issued, 

Released, or Forfeited, 1970–July 2008 

Acres (in thousands)

Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS database. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited

Data undercounts issued, 

released, and forfeited acres in 

the 1970s and double counts

some acres in the 1980s.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Acres issued

Acres forfeited

Acres released

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1970

1972

1974

1976

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts acres associated with permits issued, released, or forfeited in the 1970s because 

not all permits of that era are included in the SMIS database. Data double counts some acres 

associated with permits issued or released in the 1980s because of state administrative actions to 

reissue previously issued permits. 

Acres issued also includes changes in the size of existing permits that occurred during the year. 

Page 11 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

From January 1990 through July 2008, the number of acres under open 

permit in Kentucky grew from 292,400 acres to 420,900 acres—an average 

annual increase of about 2.2 percent. The difference between the number 

of acres for which permits have been issued and the number of acres that 

have been released or forfeited is the number of acres under open permit. 

From 1990 through July 2008, the number of acres associated with issued 

permits grew from 378,800 acres to 778,800 acres, and the number of acres 

associated with released and forfeited permits grew from 86,400 acres to 

357,900 acres.7

 Figure 4 illustrates the growth in acres associated with 

issued permits relative to acres associated with released or forfeited 

permits. 

 

7

Due to rounding, the difference between the number of acres for which permits have been 

issued, and the number of acres that have been released or forfeited, may not equal the 

number of acres under open permit. 

Page 12 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 4: Cumulative Number of Acres in Kentucky Associated with Open, Released, and Forfeited Permits, 1970–July 2008 

Acres (in thousands)

Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS database. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited

Data undercounts open, 

released, and forfeited acres in 

the 1970s and double counts

some acres in the 1980s.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Acres under open permit

Released acres

Forfeited acres

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

100

200

300

400

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1970

1972

1974

1976

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts acres associated with permits issued, released, or forfeited in the 1970s because 

not all permits of that era are included in the SMIS database. Data double counts some acres 

associated with permits issued or released in the 1980s because of state administrative actions to 

reissue previously issued permits. 

Page 13 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

West Virginia provided us with data on the number and size of permits that 

were issued from January 1984 through July 2008 and on permits that were 

already open in 1984. These data are presented in figure 5. One official told 

us that, when the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

upgraded its computer system, it didn’t systematically update electronic 

permit files that were closed prior to 1984. As figure 5 shows, there is very 

little data on the number of acres released and forfeited prior to 1984.8

 

8

Although we found this data to be sufficiently reliable starting in 1984, the text in this 

section of the report is based on our analysis of data from January 1990 through July 2008 

to be consistent between the states. 

Page 14 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 5: Acres in West Virginia Associated with Issued, Released, or Forfeited Permits, by Year the Permit Was Issued, 

Released, or Forfeited, 1961–July 2008 

Acres (in thousands)

Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited

Data undercounts issued, 

released, and forfeited acres

prior to 1984.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Acres issued

Acres released

Acres forfeited

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

5

10

15

20

1983

196

1965

1967

1969

3

1981

197

1975

1977

1979

3

1961

1971

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts acres associated with permits issued, released, or forfeited prior to 1984 because 

permits closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS. 

Acres issued also includes changes in the size of existing permits that occurred during the year. 

Page 15 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

According to ERIS data, from January 1990 through July 2008, the number 

of acres under open permit in West Virginia grew from 183,700 acres to 

245,200 acres—an average annual increase of about 1.7 percent. The 

difference between the number of acres for which permits have been 

issued, and the number of acres that have been released or forfeited, is the 

number of acres under open permit. From 1990 through July 2008, the 

number of acres associated with issued permits grew from 243,700 acres 

to 435,200 acres, and the number of acres associated with released and 

forfeited permits grew from 60,000 acres to 190,000 acres. Figure 6 

illustrates the growth in acres associated with issued permits relative to 

acres associated with released or forfeited permits. 

Page 16 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 6: Cumulative Number of Acres in West Virginia Associated with Open, Released, and Forfeited Permits, 1961–July 

2008 

Acres (in thousands)

Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited

Data undercounts open, 

released, and forfeited acres in 

the 1970s and double counts

some acres in the 1980s.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Acres under open permit

Released acres

Forfeited acres

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1989

1983

1985

1987

196

1965

1967

1969

3

1981

197

1975

1977

1979

3

1961

1971

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts acres associated with permits issued, released, or forfeited prior to 1984 because 

permits closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS. 

Page 17 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Not all acres that are permitted are disturbed—that is, cleared of 

vegetation as part of the mining operation. Typically, areas are disturbed 

when they are mined for coal, used for roads, or to temporarily or 

permanently store spoil. Sometimes operators will leave relatively large 

portions of a permitted area undisturbed if, for example, market 

conditions do not support mining an area where it is relatively expensive 

to extract the coal. A Kentucky official said that SMIS does not contain 

data on disturbed acres and that he and other officials he spoke with do 

not believe they can provide a sufficiently accurate estimate. A West 

Virginia official said that data from ERIS on disturbed acres is not reliable. 

However, he estimated that about 25 percent of permitted acres are never 

disturbed. 

Mining in Kentucky and 

West Virginia Has Become 

More Geographically 

Concentrated 

According to the two states’ databases, mining activity in the mountainous 

areas of Kentucky is concentrated in the southeastern part of the state, 

while mining in West Virginia is concentrated in the southwestern part of 

the state. In both states, mining has become more concentrated over the 

last 19 years, according to data provided by state agencies. In Kentucky, 

the 420,900 acres that were under open permit, as of July 2008, in the 

mountainous, eastern portion of the state constitute about 1.6 percent of 

the state’s total land mass.9

 However, as figure 7 indicates, about 44 

percent (186,600 acres) of the 420,900 acres under open permit in 

mountainous areas are located in three counties: Pike, Perry, and Knott.10

Collectively, the open acres account for 20 percent of these counties’ total 

land mass. 

 

9

There are 55,300 additional acres under open permit in the flatter, western portion of the 

state. 

10Due to rounding, the percentage of acres under open permit in Pike County, Perry 

County, and Knott County total 45 percent in figure 7. 

Page 18 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 7: Acres in Kentucky under Open Permit as a Percentage of All Acres under 

Open Permit in the 10 Counties with the Largest Number of Open Acres in July 2008 

BELL

(6%)

BREATHITT

(6%)

FLOYD

(4%)

HARLAN

(9%)

KNOTT

(10%)

LESLIE

(5%)

LETCHER

(7%)

MARTIN

(8%)

PERRY

(12%)

PIKE

(23%)

BATH

KENTUCKY

Sources: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS database; Map Resources (map).

In 1990, the acreage under open permit in Kentucky was less concentrated 

in individual counties than it was in 2008. As table 2 shows, the three 

counties with the greatest acreage under open permit in 1990—Pike, 

Martin, and Breathitt—accounted for about 28 percent (82,400 acres) of 

the 292,400 acres under open permit. Collectively, these open acres 

accounted for about 8 percent of the total area of the three counties. Table 

2 also shows the 10 counties in Kentucky with the most acres under open 

Page 19 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

permit in 2008 and the number of acres under open permit in 1990 for 

those same counties. 

Table 2: The 10 Counties in Kentucky with the Largest Number of Open Acres in July 2008 and the Number of Open Acres in 

Those Counties in 1990 

Acres under open permit in July 2008 Acres under open permit in January 1990 

County 

Size of 

county 

(acres) 

Number of

 acres

County’s share of 

open acres in 

Kentucky 

Number of 

 acres 

County’s share of 

open acres in 

Kentucky

Pike 504,858 96,300 23% 27,500 9%

Perry 219,290 50,100 12 25,000 9

Knott 225,926 40,200 10 17,300 6

Harlan 299,501 37,700 9 16,100 6

Martin 147,718 34,300 8 29,000 10

Letcher 217,037 28,100 7 11,800 4

Breathitt 316,986 26,000 6 25,900 9

Bell 231,264 25,800 6 20,600 7

Leslie 258,790 21,700 5 12,400 4

Floyd 253,094 15,600 4 16,500 6

All other counties 23,187,309 45,000 11% 90,300 31%

Total 25,861,773 420,900 100% 292,400 100%

Sources: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS database and the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Note: Columns may not add to the total because of rounding. 

In West Virginia, the 245,200 acres that were under open permit, as of July 

2008, constitute 1.6 percent of the state’s total land mass, the same 

percentage as in Kentucky. As figure 8 indicates, about 48 percent (118,600 

acres) of the 245,200 acres are located in three counties: Boone, Logan, 

and Mingo. Collectively, the open acres account for about 13 percent of 

these counties’ total land mass. 

Page 20 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 8: Acres in West Virginia under Open Permit as a Percentage of all Acres 

under Open Permit in the 10 Counties with the Largest Number of Open Acres in 

July 2008 

BOONE

(20%)

CLAY

(4%)

FAYETTE

(6%)

LOGAN

(15%)

MCDOWELL

(4%)

MINGO

(13%)

NICHOLAS

(7%)

RALEIGH

(4%)

WYOMING

(4%)

KANAWHA

(10%)

WEST VIRGINIA

Sources: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database; Map Resources (map).

In 1990, the acreage under open permit was less concentrated in individual 

counties than it was in 2008. As table 3 shows, the three counties with the 

greatest amount of acreage under open permit in 1990—Logan, Boone, and 

Nicholas—accounted for 33 percent (61,000 acres) of the 183,700 acres 

under open permit in 1990. Collectively, these open acres accounted for 

about 6 percent of the total area of these counties. Similar to table 2, this 

Page 21 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

table shows the 10 counties in West Virginia with the most acres under 

open permit in 2008 and the number of acres under open permit in 1990 

for those same counties. 

Table 3: The 10 Counties in West Virginia with the Largest Number of Open Acres in July 2008 and the Number of Open Acres 

in Those Counties in 1990 

Acres under open permit in July 2008 Acres under open permit in January 1990 

County 

Size of county 

(acres) 

Number of

 acres 

County’s share 

of open acres in 

West Virginia

Number of 

 acres 

County’s share of 

open acres in 

West Virginia

Boone 322,035 48,000 20% 20,400 11%

Logan 291,590 37,800 15 21,500 12

Mingo 271,130 32,900 13 16,900 9

Kanawha 583,034 25,000 10 18,900 10

Fayette 427,750 16,400 7 13,800 8

Nicholas 418,816 15,900 6 19,100 10

Raleigh 389,978 11,000 4 2,200 1

Wyoming 321,165 10,900 4 4,100 2

Clay 220,045 8,900 4 2,400 1

McDowell 342,336 8,600 4 6,200 3

All other counties 11,919,168 29,800 12% 58,200 32%

Total 15,507,046 245,200 100% 183,700 100%

Sources: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database and the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Note: Columns may not add to the total because of rounding. 

Page 22 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

The two states’ databases show that the length of time that permits were 

open varied. In Kentucky, of the 1,075 permits issued since 1990, 362 were 

subsequently released, as of July 2008. The length of time these permits 

were open ranged from less than 1 year to more than 18 years and 

averaged about 7-1/2 years. However, 680 of the permits issued since 1990 

were still open, as of July 2008, and the average length of time these 

permits were open was about 7 years. Additionally, 33 of the permits 

issued since 1990 have been forfeited. As figure 9 shows, the length of time 

that permits were open did not vary substantially by their size or status—

open, released, or forfeited—with one exception.11

The Length of Time That 

Permits Were Open in 

Kentucky and West 

Virginia Varies 

Figure 9: Average Length of Time Kentucky Permits Issued Since 1990 Were Open, 

by Size and Status, as of July 2008 

0

5

10

15

20

Forfeited permit

Released permit

Open permit

Less than

100 acres

3,000 plus acres 1,000-2,999 acres 500-999 acres 100-499 acres

Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS database.

Years

Size of permit

 

11The exception is the category of forfeited permits between 1,000 and 2,999 acres in size. 

There is only one permit in this category. 

Page 23 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Notes: 

For forfeited acres, the length of time the permit was open is from the issue date to the forfeiture date; 

additional reclamation work occurs after forfeiture. 

There is only one forfeited permit between 1,000 and 2,999 acres in size. 

The situation is similar in West Virginia. Of the 637 permits issued since 

1990, 171 were subsequently released, as of July 2008. The length of time 

these permits were open ranged from less than a year to almost 17 years 

and averaged about 8-1/2 years. However, 397 of the permits issued since 

1990 were still open, as of July 2008, and the average length of time these 

permits were open was about 8-1/2 years. Additionally, 69 of the permits 

issued since 1990 have been forfeited. As figure 10 shows, the length of 

time that permits were open did not vary substantially by their size. There 

is greater variation by status—open, released, or forfeited. 

Figure 10: Average Length of Time West Virginia Permits Issued Since 1990 Were 

Open by Size and Status, as of July 2008 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Forfeited permit

Released permit

Open permit

1,000-2,999 acres 500-999 acres 100-499 acres Less than 100 acres

Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database.

Years

Size of permit

Note: For forfeited acres, the length of time the permit was open is from the issue date to the 

forfeiture date; additional reclamation work occurs after forfeiture. 

Page 24 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

We obtained from the West Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection Web site all available electronic geospatial files of permit 

boundaries. For permits that were open, as of July 2008, or released or 

forfeited since 1990, the permits with permit boundary files are associated 

with 317,600 acres—or 83 percent of the 381,000 acres associated with all 

open permits and permits released or forfeited since 1990.12 Using the 

permit boundary files, we determined that there were 559 separate, 

permitted areas. We defined these as areas that were covered by either 

(1) a single permit that was not contiguous with any other permit or (2) 

two or more contiguous permits. The larger areas tended to consist of 

contiguous permits. Figure 11 shows 559 permitted areas in West Virginia, 

as of July 2008. 

Many Permitted Acres in 

West Virginia Are 

Concentrated in a Few 

Large, Contiguously 

Permitted Areas 

 

12The West Virginia Department of Mines Web site had a geospatial permit boundary file for 

all but six open permits. In total, these permits are 1,000 acres in size. 

Page 25 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 11: The 559 Permitted Areas in West Virginia, as of July 2008 

Sources: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

GIS data; Map Info (map).

WEST VIRGINIA

A few of the contiguously permitted areas are much larger than most of 

the other permitted areas. The largest 5 percent of permitted areas—28 

areas of the 559 we identified—are groups of contiguous permits and 

cover 178,600 acres, or 47 percent of the 381,000 acres associated with 

open permits or permits released or forfeited since 1990. Additionally, we 

found that about 89 percent (159,200 acres) of the 178,600 acres that 

constitute these 28 permitted areas were under open permit. This 

Page 26 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

contrasts with the 139,000 acres that make up the remaining 531 permitted 

areas, which have 85,000 acres (61 percent) under open permit. Figure 12 

shows open and closed (released and forfeited) permits for these 28 

permitted areas. 

Page 27 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 12: The 28 largest Permitted Areas in West Virginia 

Closed permits

Sources: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

GIS data; Map Info (map).

Open permits

WEST VIRGINIA

Page 28 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

In summary, the states’ data for permits issued from January 2000 through 

July 2008 provides information on three important characteristics of land 

reclaimed after being disturbed by surface mining: the approved postmining land use (PMLU), the extent to which the land is restored to its 

original contour, and the number and size of fills created from excess 

spoil. First, fish and wildlife habitat and forestland were the most common 

types of PMLU approved in Kentucky and West Virginia, respectively. 

Forestland was the most common type of land use prior to mining in both 

states. Second, while most operations have been issued permits in recent 

years requiring them to reclaim the land to its approximate original 

contour (AOC), some were granted exceptions, referred to as AOC 

variances.13 Specifically, 76 percent (294 permits) of the 388 permits issued 

in Kentucky from January 2002 through July 2008 were required to reclaim 

the land to AOC. In West Virginia, 85 percent (181 permits) of the 212 

permits issued from January 2000 through July 2008 were required to be 

reclaimed to AOC. Most of the AOC variances granted were “remining” 

variances, meaning that the variance was granted because the land had 

been previously mined but not reclaimed, leaving insufficient spoil to 

restore AOC. Finally, Kentucky and West Virginia collectively approved 

nearly 2,000 fills to be placed in nearby valleys and hollows, with a storage 

volume of at least 4.85 billion cubic yards of excess spoil, on permits 

issued from January 2000 through July 2008. 

Characteristics of 

Reclaimed Lands That 

Were Disturbed by 

Surface Coal Mining 

in Mountainous Areas 

of Kentucky and West 

Virginia 

Both states’ databases provide data on pre-mining land uses and PMLUs, 

AOC variances, and fills for permits issued in years prior to 2000. 

However, for many of these years, the data understates or overstates 

mining activity and, consequently, characteristics of reclaimed lands. 

Because of these data limitations, and to be consistent between the two 

states, we base our analysis on data from January 2000 through July 2008, 

with the exception of AOC variances in Kentucky, where the data is 

complete only for permits issued starting in 2002. We present the results of 

this analysis in the text of this section of the report. However, we include 

data from the earlier years in the figures of this section and identify the 

data limitations associated with these years in order to provide a 

comprehensive overview of the data in the states’ databases, and we 

clearly identify the data limitations and the years to which they apply. We 

believe that presenting data from the earlier years—and its limitations—

 

13SMCRA authorizes both “exceptions” and “variances” to AOC requirements, but federal 

and state regulations use the term AOC variances to address both concepts, as we do for 

consistency in this report. 

Page 29 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

decreases the likelihood for misuse or misinterpretation because the data 

is publicly available, but its limitations are not disclosed on the Web sites 

from which the public can access the data. Data from the earlier years 

should not be relied upon to convey a representative picture of past 

mining characteristics or decisions. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

and Forestland Were the 

Most Common Post-Mining 

Land Uses Approved, 

While Forestland Was the 

Most Common Land Use 

Prior to Mining 

During the permitting process, operators designate one or more types of 

PMLU, although the approved PMLU(s) may later be changed through a 

permit revision. If an operator does not plan to return an area to its premining land use, the operator must propose an alternative PMLU for 

approval. State approval of an alternative PMLU requires consultation with 

the landowner.14 In general, the PMLU must be either a use the land could 

have supported before any mining, or a “higher or better” use.15 Under 

SMCRA, once mining has been completed, operators are required to 

reclaim all disturbed lands in a timely manner to a condition capable of 

supporting the approved PMLU(s).16 However, once the bond has been 

released, state jurisdiction over the mining operation ceases, and 

landowners can use the land at their own discretion following bond 

release. Additionally, even in cases where the PMLU(s) is fully 

implemented after bond release, some land use types, such as forestland, 

can take years—even decades—to achieve their intended appearance and 

productivity. 

The two states’ data show that, for permits issued from January 2000 

through July 2008, the most common PMLU type approved was fish and 

wildlife habitat in Kentucky and forestland in West Virginia. Our analysis 

of the data revealed that both states’ databases improved over time in the 

percentage of permits that captured information on PMLU types and, by 

1995 and 1998, respectively, the data indicates that all new permits issued 

had at least one PMLU type approved in Kentucky and West Virginia. 

 

14Kentucky officials commented that the selection of a PMLU is generally the landowner’s 

choice—although the choice must be consistent with applicable regulations. 

15The federal regulations implementing SMCRA present specific criteria for higher or better 

uses, such as a reasonable likelihood for achieving the proposed use, and the use does not 

pose a hazard to public health. If the land was previously mined and left unreclaimed, the 

PMLU must be the highest and best achievable use that is compatible with surrounding 

areas and does not require the disturbance of areas previously unaffected by mining. 

16According to the Department of Interior, prior to bond release by the regulatory authority, 

the operator must demonstrate that the PMLU identified in the approved permit has been 

established or the infrastructure is in place to ensure its development. 

Page 30 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Specifically, in Kentucky, of the 481 permits issued from January 2000 

through July 2008, 216 permits were approved for fish and wildlife habitat 

as a PMLU, followed by 209 permits approved for hay or pastureland, and 

109 permits approved for forestland.17 Fifty-nine permits issued during that 

time were approved for other PMLU types, including 22 residential, 19 

industrial, and 12 commercial.18 Figure 13 shows these data, including the 

number of permits that did not identify a PMLU type. 

 

17Kentucky regulations define fish and wildlife land use as land dedicated wholly or 

partially to the production, protection, or management of fish or wildlife. Areas considered 

as having the fish and wildlife land use are typically characterized by a diversity of habitats 

in which use by wildlife is the dominant characteristic, whether actively managed or not. 

Kentucky regulations define pastureland as land used primarily for the long-term 

production of adapted, domesticated forage plants to be grazed by livestock or 

occasionally cut and cured for livestock feed. Kentucky regulations define forestland as 

land used or managed for the long-term production of wood, wood fiber, or wood derived 

products. 

18The other permits in Kentucky included five approved for “other” PMLU types of an 

unspecified nature and one for recreation. 

Page 31 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 13: PMLU Types Approved in Kentucky, 1970–2008 

Permits

Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS database.

Year permit issued

Data undercounts the 

number of PMLU types

approved on permits

issued prior to 1995, 

and data from some 

permits was double 

counted in the 1980s.

1988

19

1990

86

1984

1982

1980

1978

1970

1972

1974

1976

1992

1994

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

No PMLU type identified

All other PMLU types

Forestland

Hay or pastureland

Fish and wildlife habitat

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Page 32 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Data undercounts the number of PMLU types approved prior to 1995 because this data element was 

not consistently recorded in the SMIS database for permits issued prior to that time, and because not 

all permits issued in the 1970s are included in SMIS. Data double counts the number of PMLU types 

approved for some permits issued in the 1980s because of state administrative actions to reissue 

previously issued permits. 

The total number of PMLUs approved might exceed the total number of permits issued because 

operators can designate more than one PMLU type. In addition, the data reflects the approved PMLU 

type and does not necessarily represent the actual land use after the permit has closed. 

In West Virginia, of the 212 permits issued from January 2000 through July 

2008, 141 permits were approved for forestland as a PMLU, followed by 46 

permits approved for fish and wildlife habitat/recreation and 34 permits 

approved for hay or pastureland.19 Sixty permits issued during this time 

were approved for other PMLU types, including 23 for commercial forestry 

or woodland, and 12 for industrial/commercial.20 Figure 14 shows these 

data, including the number of permits that did not identify a PMLU type. 

 

19West Virginia regulations define forestland as having at least a 25 percent tree canopy or 

being at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of any size, including land formerly having 

had such tree cover and that will be naturally or artificially reforested. Fish and wildlife 

habitat and recreation lands are wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and areas managed 

primarily for fish and wildlife or recreation. West Virginia regulations define hay or 

pastureland as being used primarily for the long-term production of adapted, domesticated 

forage plants to be grazed by livestock or cut and cured for livestock feed. 

20The other permits in West Virginia included 14 approved for “combined” PMLU types of 

an unspecified nature, 6 rangeland, 2 public service, 2 residential, and 1 water 

impoundment. 

Page 33 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 14: PMLU Types Approved in West Virginia, 1970–2008 

Permits

Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database.

Year permit issued

Data undercounts the 

number of PMLU types

approved on permits

issued prior to 1998.

1988

19

1990

86

1984

1982

1980

1978

1970

1972

1974

1976

1992

1994

1996

0

10

20

30

40

50

No PMLU type identified

All other PMLU types

Forestland

Hay or pastureland

Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of PMLU types approved prior to 1998 because this data element was 

not consistently recorded in the ERIS database for permits issued prior to that time, and because 

permits closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS. 

Page 34 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

The total number of PMLUs approved might exceed the total number of permits issued because 

operators can designate more than one PMLU type. In addition, the data reflects the approved PMLU 

type and does not necessarily represent the actual land use after the permit has closed. 

While the state and federal agencies are not required to oversee a PMLU’s 

implementation once a permit has been released, OSM and several 

Appalachian states have recognized that past practices have not always 

established healthy, productive forests on reclaimed lands. In June 2008, 

OSM issued a policy directive to promote reestablishment of forestland 

where existing forests had been removed by surface mining.21 The OSM 

directive’s purpose is to encourage reforestation, rather than past 

reclamation practices that led many operators and landowners to choose 

agricultural PMLUs that did not include trees, such as hay or pastureland. 

According to the directive, past reclamation practices led to low rates of 

tree survival and growth, forest fragmentation, reduced carbon 

sequestration, loss of wildlife habitat and forest products, and increased 

flood potential. To reverse this trend, the directive encourages the 

widespread and routine planting of native, high-value trees that will 

restore the uses and ecosystems provided by forests prior to mining. The 

OSM directive is part of a broader effort known as the Appalachian 

Regional Reforestation Initiative—formed in 2004 by federal and state 

agencies, the coal industry, environmental organizations, and others in the 

Appalachian region—to promote improved reforestation techniques on 

surface-mined lands. 

In addition to PMLU types, the states’ databases contain information on 

the type of land use associated with the permitted area immediately prior 

to mining—the pre-mining land use. The most common types of premining land use identified for permits issued from January 2000 through 

July 2008 were the same for both states: forestland and previously mined 

but unreclaimed lands. According to OSM, virtually all of the land that has 

been surface mined for coal over the past 30 years in Appalachia was 

forested before it was originally mined. The states’ data indicate that other 

types of pre-mining land use—such as residential, commercial, or 

cropland—occurred infrequently or not at all. Our analysis of the data 

revealed that starting in 1989 in Kentucky, at least 97 percent of new 

permits issued identified at least one pre-mining land use type and starting 

in 1998 in West Virginia, all new permits issued identified at least one premining land use type. 

 

21OSM directive TSR-16, “Reforestation of Title IV and Title V Mined Lands,” June 10, 2008, 

available at www.osmre.gov/guidance/directives/directive931.pdf. 

Page 35 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Kentucky’s data show that, of the 481 permits issued from 2000 through 

July 2008, 415 permits had a pre-mining land use of forestland, and 290 

were previously mined. (As with PMLU, permits can identify more than 

one pre-mining land use type). In addition, 44 permits identified hay or 

pastureland, and 43 permits identified other types of pre-mining land use, 

including 24 permits with undeveloped land.22 Two permits did not identify 

any pre-mining land use type. Figure 15 shows these data, including the 

number of permits that did not identify a pre-mining land use type. 

 

22The other permits in Kentucky included five that identified a pre-mining land use type of 

heavy industrial, five residential, two each for commercial, cropland, and fish and wildlife 

habitat, and one each for impoundment of water, public services, and “other” of an 

unspecified nature. 

Page 36 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 15: Pre-Mining Land Use Types Identified in Kentucky, 1970–2008 

Permits

Year permit issued

Data undercounts the number of 

pre-mining land use types

identified on permits issued prior to 

1989, and data from some permits

was double counted in the 1980s.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

No pre-mining land use type identified

All other pre-mining land use types

Hay or pastureland

Previously mined but not reclaimed

Forestland

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1970

1972

1974

1976

Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS database. 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of pre-mining land use types identified prior to 1989 because this data 

element was not consistently recorded in the SMIS database for permits issued prior to that time, and 

because not all permits in the 1970s are included in SMIS. Data double counts the number of premining land use types identified on some permits issued in the 1980s because of state administrative 

actions to reissue previously issued permits. 

Page 37 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

The total number of pre-mining land uses identified might exceed the number of permits issued 

because operators can identify more than one pre-mining land use type. 

Over the same period, West Virginia’s data show that of the 212 permits 

issued, 174 permits had a pre-mining land use of forestland, and 59 were 

previously mined. Additionally, 43 permits had a pre-mining land use type 

of fish and wildlife/recreation, while 45 permits identified other types of 

pre-mining land use, including 23 for hay or pastureland.23 All permits 

issued since 2000 in West Virginia identified at least one pre-mining land 

use type. Figure 16 shows these data, including the number of permits that 

did not identify a pre-mining land use type. 

 

23The other permits in West Virginia included 12 that identified “combined” pre-mining land 

use types of an unspecified nature, 4 industrial/commercial, 3 rangeland, and 1 each for 

commercial woodland, public service, and water impoundment. 

Page 38 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 16: Pre-Mining Land Use Types Identified in West Virginia, 1970–2008 

Permits

Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database. 

Year permit issued

Data undercounts the number 

of pre-mining land use types

identified on permits issued 

prior to 1998.

1988

19

1990

86

1984

1982

1980

1978

1970

1972

1974

1976

1992

1994

1996

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No pre-mining land use identified

All other pre-mining land use types

Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation

Previously mined but not reclaimed

Forestland

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Page 39 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Data undercounts the number of pre-mining land use types identified prior to 1998 because this 

element was not consistently recorded in the ERIS database for permits issu

b

data 

ed prior to that time, and 

ecause permits closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS. 

he 

n of 

t 

e 

standards such as ensuring stability, controlling drainage, and preventing 

1 and 1999, 

ce 

tates 

r 

supposed to return the land to AOC differed little from sites that had been 

 

The total number of pre-mining land uses identified might exceed the number of permits issued 

because operators can designate more than one pre-mining land use type. 

SMCRA generally requires surface-mined land to be reclaimed to AOC. T

act defines AOC as closely resembling the general surface configuratio

the land prior to mining and blending into and complementing the 

drainage pattern of the surrounding terrain. However, SMCRA does no

require operators to duplicate the original contour or elevation of the 

mined area. Furthermore, according to OSM, it is often not physically 

possible to do so because of site-specific conditions and performanc

face Coal Mining

stream sedimentation. In addition, SMCRA allows exceptions to the AOC 

requirement—called AOC variances—under certain circumstances. 

Kentucky and West Virginia issued AOC policy guidance in 200

respectively, to help implement SMCRA. The states issued this guidan

following special oversight reviews that OSM conducted on how the s

applied standards and approved permits in reference to AOC 

requirements.24 In both states’ permit applications, operators provide 

calculations, maps, and/or cross sections to illustrate and define the 

proposed post-mining contour of the permit area. This proposed contou

becomes part of the reclamation plan for the site, fulfillment of which is a 

condition for release of the operator’s bond. The OSM reports found, 

among other things, that some reclaimed sites where the operator was 

 f 

aim the 

Land to AOC, but There 

Are Exceptions 

Most Operations Are 

Required to Recl

24U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Final Report: An Evaluation o

Approximate Original Contour and Post-Mining Land Use in West Virginia, May 1999; 

and An Evaluation of Approximate Original Contour and Post-Mining Land Use in 

Kentucky, May 2000. 

Page 40 GAO-10-21 Sur
 

granted AOC variances.25 Both states agreed to apply their AOC policie

prospectively for all new permits issued, as well as review all pre-existing 

permits and correct deficiencies to the extent practicable. Kentucky’s 

guidance states that, in general, approximately 80 percent of spoil volum

should be returned to the mined-out area to achieve AOC, although sitespecific flexibility is allowed.

s 

e 

t the 

tly 

s 

. Figure 17 

illustrates what a reclaimed site could look like in meeting the AOC 

 

26 Kentucky’s guidance also states tha

post-mining contour must closely resemble, but does not need to exac

match the pre-mining contour, and the post-mining slopes do not 

necessarily have to be long and uninterrupted, even if the pre-mining 

slopes were. West Virginia’s AOC guidance provides a technical model 

designed to maximize the amount and height of spoil placed back on the 

mined-out area and therefore minimize the amount of excess spoil placed 

in fills that can impact streams and terrestrial and aquatic habitats.27 In 

addition, the West Virginia model is designed to result in fills being placed 

as far upstream as possible. Like Kentucky’s guidance, West Virginia’

guidance allows site-specific flexibility for AOC determinations

requirement, compared with the original, pre-mining contour. 

25Specifically, the OSM report on Kentucky found that state regulators had placed a greater 

emphasis on the amount of spoil material returned to the mined-out area and not enough 

emphasis on the post-mining land configuration, land use, slope stability, and drainage 

controls. Similarly, the OSM report on West Virginia concluded that the state’s AOC 

determinations should give more attention to large, post-mining changes in elevation in 

relation to the pre-mining relief; the amount and location of spoil placed outside the mined 

rea; and land configuration. In 2007 and 2008, OSM conducted follow-up reviews on the 

 states’ new AOC policies and procedures and how sites in steep 

slope areas had been reclaimed to AOC, compared with AOC variances. As of September 

30, 2009, OSM had not published its findings. GAO did not analyze individual permits and 

post-mining site data to determine the extent to which the proposed reclamation plan is 

ultimately achieved or whether bond release is appropriately granted. 

a

effectiveness of the two

26Memorandum from Larry D. Adams, Director, Division of Permits, Kentucky Department 

for Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour 

Determination,” Sept. 20, 2001. 

27West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Mining and 

Reclamation, Permit Handbook, Section 29, “AOC/Excess Spoil Guidelines,” June 24, 1999. 

These guidelines were later supplemented with a “Final AOC Guidance Document Policy” 

in the Permit Handbook on June 5, 2000. 

Page 41 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 17: An Illustration of a Reclaimed Site Meeting the AOC Requirement, 

Compared with the Original, Pre-Mining Contour 

Excess spoil

Coal seams

Source: OSM.

Post-mining contour

Pre-mining contour

While the states’ databases contain data on some permits issued with AOC

variances as long ago as 1982 in Kentucky and 1976 in West Virginia, 

officials in both states stated that the reliability of data on AOC variances 

improved starting in 2002 and 2000, respectively.28 In addition, state 

officials told us that operators do not always use the variances they ar

granted, resulting in some of those sites being reclaimed to AOC, a fa

that may not be reflected in the data. State officials also told us that an

AOC variance may apply to the entire permitted area, or only a portion,

and that a permi

e 

ct 

t may contain more than one AOC variance. Finally, 

Kentucky officials told us that they have not consistently recorded reliable 

information in their database on the acres or PMLU types associated 

specifically with AOC variances, and West Virginia officials told us they 

have not recorded this information to any extent in their database, thus we 

are unable to provide that information. 

According to Kentucky’s and West Virginia’s data, most surface coal 

mining permits issued in recent years required the land to be reclaimed to 

AOC, although both states also granted some permits with AOC variances. 

Specifically, 76 percent (or 294 permits) of the 388 permits that Kentucky 

issued from January 2002 through July 2008 required the operator to 

reclaim the land to AOC. The remaining 24 percent (or 94 permits) 

 

28In the special oversight reviews that OSM published in 1999 and 2000, OSM found that the 

two states did not have reliable electronic inventories of AOC variances at that point, 

which made it difficult to identify exactly how many existed. In response, Kentucky and 

West Virginia revised their databases to clearly identify AOC variances on existing and 

future permits. 

Page 42 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

face Coal Mining

contained 99 AOC variances. Figure 18 shows the number of permit

issued to reclaim the land to AOC, compared with permits issued w

s 

ith 

AOC variances. 

Figure 18: Number of Permits in Kentucky Issued to Be Reclaimed to AOC, 

Compared with Permits Issued with AOC Variances, 1970–2008 

 

Page 43 GAO-10-21 Sur

s 

ith 

AOC variances. 

Figure 18: Number of Permits in Kentucky Issued to Be Reclaimed to AOC, 

Compared with Permits Issued with AOC Variances, 1970–2008 

Permits

Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS database.

Year permit issued

Data undercounts permits issued in the 

1970s, and some permits were double 

counted in the 1980s. In addition, data

undercounts permits with AOC 

variances issued prior to 2002.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Number of permits issued with an AOC variance

Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1998

19

1990

1992

1994

1996

2000

88

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1970

1972

1974

1976

Page 43 GAO-10-21 Sur
 

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts permits issued 

S

in the 1970s because not all permits of that era are included in the 

MIS database, and some permits were double counted in the 1980s because of state administrative 

istently recorded in SMIS for permits 

sued prior to that time. 

aim the 

land to AOC. The remaining 15 percent (or 31 permits) contained 33 AOC 

variances. Figure 19 shows the number of permits issued to reclaim the 

land to AOC, compared with permits issued with AOC variances. 

actions to reissue previously issued permits. In addition, data undercounts permits issued with AOC 

variances prior to 2002 because this data element was not cons

is

A permit may contain more than one AOC variance. In addition, the data reflects the AOC variances 

that are approved, not necessarily the variances implemented. 

In West Virginia, 85 percent (or 181 permits) of the 212 permits issued 

from January 2000 through July 2008 required the operator to recl

Page 44 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 19: Number of Permits in West Virginia Issued to Be Reclaimed to AOC, 

Compared with Permits Issued with AOC Variances, 1970–2008 

Permits

Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database.

Year permit issued

Data undercounts permits issued 

prior to 1984. In addition, data

undercounts permits issued with 

AOC variances prior to 2000.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Number of permits issued with an AOC variance

Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1998

19

1990

1992

1994

1996

88

1986

1984

19821980

1978

1970

1972

1974

1976

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts permits issued prior to 1984 because permits closed prior to 1984 are not included 

in the ERIS database. In addition, data undercounts permits issued with AOC variances prior to 2000 

because this data element was not consistently recorded in ERIS for permits issued prior to that time. 

Page 45 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

A permit may contain more than one AOC variance. In addition, the data reflects the AOC variances 

that are approved, not necessarily the variances implemented. 

According to the two states’ databases, Kentucky and West Virginia have 

approved three different types of AOC variances—remining, mountaintop 

removal, and steep slope. Remining AOC variances are used for certain 

lands that have been previously mined, but not reclaimed, and for which 

the regulatory agency deems there is insufficient spoil to return the 

remined land to the shape of the original mountain. A remining AOC 

variance simply requires the operator to return as much spoil as possible 

to the site. This type of AOC variance also allows the operator to keep a 

preexisting highwall intact, so long as it is stable. 

By contrast, the other two types of AOC variances—mountaintop removal 

and steep slope—may be approved for specific types of operations on land 

in mountainous areas, even though the land could physically be reclaimed 

to AOC.29 In these cases, federal and state regulations allow the operator to 

reclaim the land without regard to the AOC requirement if the land will be 

suitable for certain PMLUs. According to an OSM policy document on 

AOC variances issued in June 2000,30 these types of AOC variances present 

an opportunity to create relatively flat, flood-free land capable of 

supporting residential and industrial development or other valuable land 

uses in mountainous Appalachia. However, the OSM policy advises that 

mountaintop removal and steep slope AOC variances should be granted 

“only in situations where beneficial land uses could compensate for the 

adverse effects of not returning the land to AOC.” These adverse effects 

include increased excess spoil that can result in more and larger fills 

placed in adjacent valleys and hollows,31 compared with operations that 

 

29A “mountaintop removal” operation is one that, by definition, will not restore the area to 

AOC, but will instead reclaim the land to a level plateau or a gently rolling contour, with no 

highwalls remaining. However, the term “steep slope” is used to describe mining operations 

in mountainous terrain that may, or may not, include an AOC variance. Steep slope 

operations that do not have an AOC variance follow the same requirements as other 

permits that comply with AOC requirements. 

30OSM, Postmining Land Use: Exceptions to Approximate Original Contour 

Requirements for Mountaintop Removal Operations and Steep Slope Operations, June 

2000, available at http://www.osmre.gov/guidance/docs/mtpmlureport.pdf. 

31A “hollow” is a depressed or low part of a surface, especially a small valley or basin. 

Throughout this report, we use the term “fills” to encompass both hollow and valley fills, 

unless otherwise noted. 

Page 46 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

comply with the AOC requirement.32 The OSM policy also directs state 

regulatory agencies to approve mountaintop removal and steep slope AOC 

variances only in cases where the PMLU offers a net benefit to the public 

or the economy. An example of a reclaimed site with an AOC variance, 

used to build the Mount Olive Correctional Complex in Fayette County, 

West Virginia, appears in figure 20. 

 County, 

Figure 20: A Reclaimed, Surface-Mined Site with an AOC Variance in West Virginia 

Source: GAO.

 

32Even when land is returned to AOC, some excess spoil must be disposed of in fills. When 

a site is not returned to AOC, a substantially greater amount of excess spoil can be 

generated, which must be placed outside the mined-out area. 

Page 47 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

The types of mining operations and PMLU restrictions to which 

mountaintop removal and steep slope AOC variances apply are as 

follows:33

• A mountaintop removal operation involves the extraction of an entire coal 

seam or seams in the upper part of a mountain, ridge, or hill. Additionally, 

the land must be reclaimed to a condition suitable for agricultural, 

industrial, commercial, residential, or public facility (including 

recreational facilities) uses. 

• A steep slope operation is one conducted in an area with a slope 

exceeding 20 degrees (or less, if deemed appropriate by the state after 

considering soil, climate, and other site characteristics) that does not 

involve the removal of the entire mountaintop. Operators of steep slope 

AOC variances are restricted to the same PMLUs as for mountaintop 

removal variances, except that agricultural land use is not allowed. 

To help ensure the land is reclaimed to a condition capable of supporting 

the PMLU proposed by the operator, SMCRA and its implementing 

regulations also provide specific criteria for granting mountaintop removal 

and steep slope AOC variances. For example, for mountaintop removal 

AOC variances, the operator must provide assurance in the permit 

application that the PMLU will be 

• compatible with adjacent land uses; 

• obtainable according to data regarding expected need and market; 

• assured of investment in necessary public facilities; 

• supported by commitments from public agencies, where appropriate; 

• practicable with respect to private financial capability for completion of 

the proposed use; 

 

33By contrast, AOC variances granted for remining operations are not restricted to specific 

PMLUs. However, if an alternative PMLU is planned for such an operation, it is subject to 

the general requirement that it must be deemed equal to, or better than, the land’s original, 

pre-mining use. 

Page 48 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

• planned pursuant to a schedule attached to the reclamation plan so as to 

integrate the mining operation and reclamation with the PMLU; and 

• designed by a registered engineer in conformance with professional 

standards established to ensure the stability, drainage, and configuration 

necessary for the intended use of the site. 

Kentucky’s data indicate that, of the 99 AOC variances contained in 94 

permits issued from January 2002 through July 2008, 79 were for remining, 

while 5 were for mountaintop removal, and 15 were for steep slope AOC 

variances.34 Figure 21 shows the types of AOC variances approved in 

Kentucky, by year. 

 

34Ninety-four permits in Kentucky issued from January 2002 through July 2008 each 

contained one AOC variance, while five permits issued in that time frame each contained 

two AOC variances. 

Page 49 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 21: Types of AOC Variances Approved in Kentucky, 1970–2008 

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of AOC variances approved on permits issued prior to 2002 because 

this data element was not consistently recorded in the SMIS database for permits issued prior to that 

time. 

The data reflects the AOC variances that are approved, not necessarily the variances implemented. 

AOC variances

Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS database. 

Year permit issued

Data undercounts AOC 

variances approved on 

permits issued prior to 2002.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mountaintop removal

Steep slope

Remining

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1988

19

1990

86

1984

1982

1980

1978

1974

1976

1994

1996

1998

1970

1972

1992

2000

Page 50 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

In West Virginia, of the 33 AOC variances contained in 31 permits issued 

from January 2000 through July 2008, 9 were for remining, 18 were for 

mountaintop removal, and 6 were for steep slope AOC variances.35 Figure 

22 shows the types of AOC variances approved in West Virginia, by year. 

 

35Thirty-one permits in West Virginia issued from January 2002 through July 2008 each 

contained one AOC variance, while two permits issued in that time frame each contained 

two AOC variances. 

Page 51 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 22: Types of AOC Variances Approved in West Virginia, 1970–2008 

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of AOC variances approved on permits issued prior to 2000 because 

this data element was not consistently recorded in the ERIS database for permits issued prior to that 

time, and because permits closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS. 

The data reflects the number of AOC variances that are approved, not necessarily the number of 

variances implemented. 

AOC variances

Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database. 

Year permit issued

Data undercounts AOC 

variances approved on 

permits issued prior to 

2000.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Mountaintop removal

Steep slope

Remining

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1988

19

1990

86

1984

1982

1980

1978

1974

1976

1994

1996

1998

1970

1972

1992

Page 52 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

As part of the permitting process, operators may be authorized to place 

excess spoil in fills in nearby valleys and hollows. OSM, Kentucky, and 

West Virginia regulations define these fills as structures consisting of any 

material, other than organic material, placed in a valley or the uppermost 

reaches of a hollow where either (1) the side slopes, measured at the 

steepest point, are greater than 20 degrees or (2) the average slope of the 

profile of the valley or hollow, from the bottom to the top of the fill, is 

greater than 10 degrees. In the permit application, operators justify the 

estimated number and size of these fills based on the amount of excess 

spoil they calculate will not be needed to achieve AOC or, in the case of an 

AOC variance, to support the proposed PMLU. The regulations further 

distinguish between valley fills and hollow fills, and Kentucky makes use 

of this distinction in its database. One official told us that in Kentucky, the 

difference between valley fills and hollow fills is that hollow fills tend to 

be smaller in size and located higher up in the valley than valley fills. West 

Virginia does not make use of this distinction in its database. 

Operators Were Approved 

to Construct Nearly 2,000 

Valley and Hollow Fills 

from 2000 to 2008 

According to OSM, the amount of excess spoil generated varies 

considerably depending on the nature of the rock and the mining method 

used, but the industry average is about 25 percent of material removed.36

Although fills are not subject to AOC requirements, the operator must 

ensure fills are safe and stable,37 compatible with the surrounding 

landscape, and suitable for the approved PMLU. In addition, among other 

requirements, operators must dispose of the excess spoil in designated 

areas within the permit boundaries; minimize the adverse effects of 

leaching and surface water runoff from the fill; and minimize adverse 

impacts on fish and wildlife to the extent possible, using the best 

technology currently available. Excess spoil that is acid- or toxic-forming 

must be adequately covered or treated to control the impacts on surface 

and groundwater, plant growth, and the approved PMLU.38 Terraces may 

be constructed if needed for stability, for control of erosion, to conserve 

 

36While there is no specific numerical requirement in regulations relating to what amount of 

excess spoil may be deposited in fills, OSM states that permit applications should contain 

strata-by-strata, volume-weighted information regarding spoil calculations to help the 

states determine the amount of excess spoil to be placed in fills and the degree to which 

AOC may be achieved. 

37The fill must be designed and constructed to attain a minimum long-term static safety 

factor of 1.5. The foundation and abutments of the fill must be stable under all conditions 

of construction. 

38West Virginia officials noted that they do not allow acid-forming materials to be included 

in fills. Kentucky regulations allow for acid-forming materials to be included in fills under 

certain circumstances. 

Page 53 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

soil moisture, or to facilitate the approved PMLU. Figure 23 shows a 

terraced fill on a reclaimed site in West Virginia. 

Figure 23: A Terraced Fill on a Reclaimed Site in West Virginia 

Source: GAO.

The two states’ databases indicate operators were collectively approved to 

construct nearly 2,000 fills from January 2000 through July 2008 to store at 

least 4.85 billion cubic yards of excess spoil. The data reflects the number 

and size of fills approved; the states do not keep electronic data on the 

number and size of fills that were actually constructed.39 According to state 

officials, operators may forgo constructing an approved fill, or they may 

construct a smaller fill than approved, without revising the permit. A 

permit can contain one or more fills, but an operator may only be 

authorized to increase the number or size of fills through a permit revision. 

 

39For example, OSM found in its 2000 special oversight report on Kentucky that only 21 

fills, or 64 percent, of the 33 authorized fills it reviewed were actually constructed. OSM 

stated that, in a number of instances, operators had overestimated the anticipated volume 

of excess spoil. 

Page 54 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Additionally, while both states have collected some information on fills in 

their databases since the late 1970s, Kentucky officials told us their fill 

data is less reliable prior to 2000. West Virginia officials also told us they 

did not consistently record information on fills in their database until the 

late 1990s. 

Kentucky approved 1,488 fills on permits issued from January 2000 

through July 2008, of which 94 percent of the fills were classified as 

hollow fills, and 6 percent were valley fills. Sixty-six percent (319 permits) 

of the 481 permits issued during that time approved the construction of 

one or more fills. Figure 24 shows the total number of fills approved, and 

permits issued with fills, by year. 

Page 55 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 24: Fills Approved in Kentucky, 1970–2008 

Fills Permits

Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS database.

Year permit issued

Data undercounts fills

approved on permits

issued prior to 2000, 

and data from some 

permits was double 

counted in the 1980s.

1988

19

1990

86

1984

1982

1980

1978

1974

1976

1994

1996

1998

1970

1972

1992

Permits with fills

Valley fills

Hollow fills

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

10

20

30

40

50

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of fills approved prior to 2000 because this data element was not 

consistently recorded in the SMIS database for permits issued prior to that time, and because not all 

permits issued in the 1970s are included in SMIS. Data double counts the number of fills approved for 

some permits issued in the 1980s because of state administrative actions to reissue previously issued 

permits. 

The data reflects the number of fills approved, not the actual number of fills constructed. 

Page 56 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Of the 1,488 fills approved on permits issued from 2000 through July 2008, 

Kentucky’s database contains storage volume information on 1,485 fills. In 

total, these 1,485 fills were approved to store up to 2.15 billion cubic yards 

of excess spoil, averaging 1.4 million cubic yards and ranging from 564 

cubic yards to 23.1 million cubic yards per fill. See figure 25 for the total 

storage volume approved, by year. 

Figure 25: Storage Volume of Fills Approved in Kentucky, 1970–2008 

Cubic yards (in millions)

Source: GAO analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS database. 

Year permit issued

Data undercounts the 

storage volume of fills

approved on permits

issued prior to 2000, and 

data from some permits

was double counted in 

the 1980s.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Valley fills

Hollow fills

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1988

19

1990

86

1984

1982

1980

1978

1974

1976

1994

1996

1998

1970

1972

1992

Page 57 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the storage volume of fills approved prior to 2000 because this data element was 

not consistently recorded in the SMIS database for permits issued prior to that time, and because not 

all permits issued in the 1970s are included in SMIS. Data double counts the storage volume of fills 

approved for some permits issued in the 1980s because of state administrative actions to reissue 

previously issued permits. 

The data reflects the size of fills approved, not the actual size of fills constructed. 

West Virginia approved the construction of 511 fills on permits issued from 

January 2000 through July 2008. Unlike Kentucky, West Virginia does not 

make a distinction between valley and hollow fills in its database. Fiftyfive percent (117 permits) of the 212 permits issued during this time 

approved the construction of one or more fills. Figure 26 shows the total 

number of fills approved, and permits issued with fills, by year. 

Page 58 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Figure 26: Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970–2008 

Fills Permits

Data undercounts fills

approved on permits issued 

prior to 2000.

Fills

Permits with fills

1988

19

1990

86

1984

1982

1980

1978

1974

1976

1994

1996

1998

1970

1972

1992

Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database. 

Year permit issued

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of fills approved prior to 2000 because this data element was not 

consistently recorded in the ERIS database for permits issued prior to that time, and because permits 

closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS. 

The data reflects the number of fills approved, not the actual number of fills constructed. 

Of the 511 fills approved on permits issued from 2000 to 2008, West 

Virginia’s database contains storage volume information on 506 fills. In 

total, these 506 fills were approved to store up to 2.7 billion cubic yards of 

excess spoil, averaging 5.4 million cubic yards and ranging from 6,932 

Page 59 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

cubic yards to 123.6 million cubic yards per fill. See figure 27 for the total 

storage volume approved, by year. 

Figure 27: Storage Volume of Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970–2008 

Cubic yards (in millions)

Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database. 

Year permit issued

Data undercounts the storage 

volume of fills approved on 

permits issued prior to 2000.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1988

19

1990

86

1984

1982

1980

1978

1974

1976

1994

1996

1998

1970

1972

1992

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the storage volume of fills approved prior to 2000 because this data element was 

not consistently recorded in the ERIS database for permits issued prior to that time, and because 

permits closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS. 

The data reflects the size of fills approved, not the actual size of fills. 

While both states collect data on the approved storage volume of fills, 

West Virginia also collects data on their approved length. Of the 511 fills 

approved on permits issued from 2000 through July 2008, West Virginia’s 

Page 60 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

database contains length information on 496 fills. In total, these fills were 

approved to measure 933,487 feet (nearly 177 miles) in length. On average, 

these fills were approved to measure 1,882 feet (over one-third of a mile) 

in length and varied from 150 feet to 8,400 feet (up to 1.6 miles) per fill. 

Figure 28 shows the total fill length approved, by year. 

Figure 28: Length of Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970–2008 

Source: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database. 

Year permit issued

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1988

19

1990

86

1984

1982

1980

1978

1974

1976

1994

1996

1998

1970

1972

1992

Feet (in thousands)

Data undercounts the length 

of fills approved on permits

issued prior to 2000.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Page 61 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

Data undercount the length of fills approved prior to 2000 because this data element was not 

consistently recorded in the ERIS database for permits issued prior to this time and because permits 

closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS. 

The data reflect the size of fills approved, not the actual size of fills. 

We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources, and the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection for review and comment. The 

agencies generally agreed with our findings. However, all three agencies 

raised concerns about including the older data from SMIS and ERIS in our 

report, data for which there are known limitations. We share the agencies’ 

concerns that these data could be misinterpreted or misused. However, we 

are including these data in our report, along with the appropriate caveats, 

in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the data in SMIS and 

ERIS that clearly identifies the years for which there are data limitations 

and the nature of those limitations. We believe that the extensive 

discussions we had with Kentucky and West Virginia officials brought to 

light for the first time, at least in a comprehensive fashion, the full extent 

of the data limitations, and that documenting the results of these 

discussions is an important aspect of this study. We believe that presenting 

the data from the earlier years—and their limitations—decreases the 

likelihood of misuse or misinterpretation because the limitations on the 

data are not disclosed on the Web sites from which the public accesses 

SMIS and ERIS. Further, we clearly identify the data for which there are 

limitations and state that they do not convey a representative picture of 

past mining characteristics or decisions. We present comments from the 

Department of the Interior, the Kentucky Department for Natural 

Resources, and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

in appendixes II, III and IV, respectively. Our responses to the Department 

of the Interior and the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources are 

included in appendixes II and III, respectively. No response is warranted 

for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s 

comments. The Department of the Interior and the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection also provided technical 

comments that we incorporated into the report, as appropriate. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees; the Secretary of the Interior; the Director of the Office of 

Surface Mining, Enforcement and Reclamation; the Commissioner of the 

Kentucky Department for Natural Resources; and the Secretary for the 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. The report also is 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 62 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report 

Robin M. Nazzaro 

are listed in appendix V. 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

Page 63 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 64 GAO-10-21 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

This appendix details the methods we used to examine the characteristics, 

over time, of (1) surface coal mining in mountainous areas in Kentucky 

and West Virginia and (2) reclaimed lands that were disturbed by surface 

coal mining in mountainous areas in Kentucky and West Virginia. This 

report focuses on surface coal mining in the mountainous areas of 

Appalachia—often referred to as mountaintop mining—because of the 

controversy that mountaintop mining generates. We focused specifically 

on surface mining in the mountainous, eastern part of Kentucky and all of 

West Virginia because the majority of mountaintop mining in the 

Appalachian region occurs in these areas.1

 According to the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), nearly 

73 percent of the surface coal produced in Appalachia in 2008 came from 

these areas. 

To respond to both objectives, we relied extensively on surface coal 

mining data provided by the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources 

and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Both of 

these departments maintain extensive electronic databases that contain 

select information from the states’ surface mining permit files. The permit 

files provide details on mining operations that are not contained in these 

databases. Kentucky describes its database, called the Surface Mining 

Information System (SMIS), as an extensive computer database that is 

used for tracking all permitting and enforcement actions on coal mining 

activity in the commonwealth of Kentucky. West Virginia describes its 

database, called the Environmental Resources Information System (ERIS), 

as a comprehensive information management system designed to track 

information about a variety of environmental regulatory activities. 

We worked with state officials to identify available data elements useful to 

our analysis and requested extracts containing those elements from the 

states’ databases. Kentucky provided us with data from surface mining 

permits issued from 1970 through July 2008, and West Virginia provided us 

with data from surface mining permits that were open, as of 1984, or were 

issued from 1984 through July 2008. 

 

1

A small amount of surface mining takes place in the northern half of West Virginia. 

According to officials from West Virginia and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, permits in the northern half of West Virginia—north of Sutton, West 

Virginia—are generally not found on the steeper-sloped areas of that region. According to 

the ERIS database, as of July 2008, about 6 percent of open acres were in the northern half 

of West Virginia. 

 Surface Coal Mining 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Based on discussions with Kentucky officials, we excluded from our 

analysis the following surface mining permits from the SMIS database 

extracts: 

• surface mining permits for the western portion of the state because this 

region is generally not considered mountainous; 

• combination permits (permits for both surface and underground mining) 

because SMIS does not provide data on the number of acres associated 

with each type of mining; and 

• a type of permit that is designed for homeowners and issued for sites that 

are 2 acres or smaller because these permits are not industrial in nature. 

Based on discussion with West Virginia officials, we excluded from our 

analysis those permits that were closed by the state before the operator 

ever utilized the permit. 

For both states, we used the following data elements to address our 

objectives: 

• issued permits, including the permit identification number, the issue date, 

the original size of the permit (in acres) and any adjustments to its size, 

and the county in which the permitted area lies; 

• information on bonds associated with permits, as well as the status of the 

bonds and associated dates; 

• the pre- and post-mining land uses associated with permits; 

• information on approximate original contour variances, if any, associated 

with permits; and 

• information on the number and size of fills, if any, associated with permits. 

We performed the following analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS 

database. We linked certain permits together under a unified identification 

number to more accurately reflect actual mining activity. Specifically, we 

linked renumbered permits, which are older permits that received a new 

identification number to conform to a new numbering system. We also 

linked transferred permits, which are permits that received a new 

identification number when they changed ownership. Despite the different 

identification numbers, the permits are essentially the same. Linking these 

permits prevents overcounting of the mining and reclamation activities 

Page 65 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

associated with a specific geographic area. This issue did not arise with 

West Virginia’s ERIS database. 

We also took the following steps as part of our analysis of data from West 

Virginia’s ERIS database. First, because ERIS does not identify the date 

that a permit’s status changed from open to either released or forfeited, we 

used the most recent date that a corresponding bond was released or 

forfeited. This issue did not arise with Kentucky’s SMIS database. Second, 

to identify the largest permitted areas in West Virginia, we combined ERIS 

data with electronic geospatial files of permit boundaries from the West 

Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. We used ERIS data to 

identify when permits were issued and whether the permits were open, 

released, or forfeited, as of July 2008. We only included permits released 

or forfeited since January 1990, or permits that were still open as of July 

2008, in this analysis. We excluded permits that were closed prior to 1990 

because few of these older permits had associated geospatial files, and 

because the older permits were less likely to be associated with current 

mining activity. We used the electronic geospatial files to identify 

permitted areas, which we defined as either single, non-contiguous 

permits; or groups of contiguous permits, We then identified the size of the 

permitted areas and ranked them to identify the largest 5 percent. We did 

not perform this analysis with Kentucky permits because we did not have 

electronic geospatial files of their permit boundaries. 

To assess the reliability of SMIS and ERIS data, we (1) worked with state 

officials familiar with these systems to understand each data element and 

determine the time frames for the reliability of each element, (2) 

conducted extensive electronic and logic testing of the SMIS and ERIS 

data extracts we received, and (3) reviewed the SQL code for the states’ 

system extracts. We determined these data elements to be sufficiently 

reliable within certain time frames. Specifically, data related to 

characteristics in surface coal mining (for example, permits issued, 

released, and forfeited) is sufficiently reliable starting in 1990 for Kentucky 

and in 1984 for West Virginia. For Kentucky, the extract provided to us 

double counts some issued and released permits (and associated acreage) 

in the 1980s because of administrative actions to reissue previously issued 

permits to comply with revisions to state regulations. The extract also 

undercounts some permits (and associated acreage) issued in the 1970s 

because not all permits of that era are included in the SMIS database. In 

West Virginia, the extract provided to us does not contain data from 

permits closed prior to 1984 and thus undercounts the number of issued 

and closed permits (and associated acreage) for prior years. Due to these 

data limitations, and to be consistent between the states, we are reporting 

Page 66 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

on the characteristics of surface mining in Kentucky and West Virginia 

from January 1990 through July 2008. With respect to characteristics of 

reclaimed lands—pre- and post-mining land uses, approximate original 

contour (AOC) variances, and fill data—the data are sufficiently reliable 

by 2000 in both states, with the exception of AOC variances in Kentucky, 

which are sufficiently reliable starting in 2002. Prior to these times, the 

states did not always consistently record these data elements in their 

databases—they began to consistently record different data elements at 

different times. Consequently, both states’ data undercount these data 

elements prior to certain years. Due to these data limitations, and to be 

consistent between the states, we are reporting on the characteristics of 

reclaimed lands that were disturbed by surface mining from January 2000 

through July 2008, except for Kentucky’s data on variances, for which we 

are reporting from January 2002 through July 2008. 

However, in many of the graphics in this report, we include data on 

characteristics from all the years for which SMIS and ERIS contain data, in 

some cases dating back to 1961. We do this for two reasons. First, it allows 

us to include in our report the additional data that are sufficiently reliable, 

but that fall outside of our reporting time frames. Second, although the 

general public has access to data from all years—surface mining permit 

files in Kentucky and West Virginia are public documents—the data are 

readily accessible to the public by electronically accessing SMIS and ERIS. 

Thus, including the additional data in the graphics of our report allows us 

to provide a comprehensive overview of the data in SMIS and ERIS that 

clearly identifies the years for which there are data limitations and what 

those data limitations are. We believe that presenting data from the earlier 

years—and their limitations—decreases the likelihood of misuse or 

misinterpretation because the limitations on the data are not disclosed on 

the Web sites from which the public accesses SMIS and ERIS. 

In addition to our analysis of Kentucky’s SMIS database and West 

Virginia’s ERIS database, we took a number of other steps to gain an 

understanding of surface coal mining in Appalachia. Specifically, we 

reviewed relevant federal and state laws, regulations, and policy guidance 

on surface coal mining and reclamation and visited mining sites—both 

active and reclaimed—in Kentucky and West Virginia. We also met with 

officials from the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), including regional officials from 

their Charleston, West Virginia, and Lexington, Kentucky, field offices, as 

well as officials from the West Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection, the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources, and others 

knowledgeable about coal mining in Appalachia. 

Page 67 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

We conducted our work from March 2008 to December 2009 in accordance 

with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant 

to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the 

engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our 

stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe 

that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, 

provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this report. 

Page 68 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior 

of the Interior 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

Page 69 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 

See comment 1. 

See comment 2. 

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

Page 70 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 

Page 71 GAO-10-21 

The following are GAO’s comments on the letter dated November 10, 2009, 

from the Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. 

1. We share the department’s concern that, following publication of our 

report, some of the data we present could be presented elsewhere 

without proper context or qualification. We include in our report—and 

clearly identify—data which we know do not convey a representative 

picture of past mining characteristics or decisions. (Some, but not all 

of these data were collected prior to 1990.) These data, along with 

most of the other data presented in our report, come from Kentucky’s 

and West Virginia’s publicly accessible databases. We believe that the 

extensive discussions that we had with Kentucky and West Virginia 

officials brought to light for the first time—at least in a comprehensive 

fashion—the full extent of the limitations associated with these data. 

Documenting the results of these discussions is an important aspect of 

this study. We believe that it is important to include in our report the 

data with known limitations, along with the appropriate caveats, in 

order to provide a comprehensive overview of the data that are in the 

states’ databases. Furthermore, because these data are publicly 

available, another party could present some or all of the problematic 

data without proper context or qualifications, regardless of what we 

present in our report. For this reason, we believe it is particularly 

important that the information on data limitations is made public. 

GAO Comments 

The department commented that including data in our report “from the 

earlier years”—that is, data with known limitations—could affect the 

credibility of the more recent, reliable data that we present. We believe 

that we have provided the appropriate caveats to ensure that the 

reader clearly understands which data have limitations and which do 

not. Nevertheless, the issue of including or excluding data with known 

limitations—even with appropriate caveats—has been discussed at 

length within GAO, with officials from the Department’s Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), and with 

officials from Kentucky and West Virginia. While we believe it is 

important to include these data, we are aware that they could be taken 

out of context and misused. While we believe that the caveats included 

in our report provide a reasonable basis to believe that the data will 

not be misused unintentionally, we are adding additional language to 

our report suggested by the department’s comments: that certain data 

should not be relied upon to convey a representative picture of past 

mining characteristics or decisions. 

 Surface Coal Mining 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 

2. We determined that examining paper permitting records was 

prohibitively resource-intensive. The files are very large and require 

detailed knowledge to correctly interpret them. Additionally, we 

generally agree with the department that, in presenting data 

graphically, the same scale on the y-axis should be used when 

presenting similar data. However, in a number of instances in our 

report, using the same y-axis scale would have resulted in either 

graphs that did not fit on the page or graphs that had detail that was 

too small to easily see. In these cases, we used a different y-axis scale. 

3. We include information collected prior to 2002 on approximate 

original contour (AOC) variances from Kentucky’s Surface Mining 

Information System (SMIS) database for the reasons identified 

above—to provide a comprehensive overview of the data that are in 

the states’ databases and to clearly identify the years for which there 

are data limitations and the nature of those limitations. We did not 

review individual permit files because we determined that it was 

prohibitively resource-intensive to do so. Additionally, we are aware 

that there are other sources of information about Kentucky’s 

permitting activity. However, we designed the scope of this 

engagement to limit the information we present in our report to what 

is contained in SMIS. 

4. We included permits from all of West Virginia in our report, including 

permits from the northern half of the state. According to West 

Virginia’s Environmental Resource Information System (ERIS) 

database, as of July 2008, about 6 percent of the open acres in West 

Virginia were in the northern half of the state. Although OSM and West 

Virginia officials told us that most of the permits in this area are 

generally not found on the steeper-sloped areas of that region, they 

were referring to steep slope mining, which, according to the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) is mining that 

occurs on a slope with an average of 20 percent grade or steeper. The 

scope of our report is surface mining in the mountainous areas of 

Kentucky and West Virginia, not specifically steep slope mining. 

Northern West Virginia is a mountainous area—it is within the 

Appalachian Mountain chain. 

Additionally, the relationship between surface coal mining in the 

northern and southern portions of West Virginia is not analogous to the 

relationship between surface coal mining in the eastern and western 

portions of Kentucky. Although we identified a specific “line” in West 

Virginia, north of which we stated permits are generally not found on 

steeper-sloped areas, this line was identified in consultation with OSM 

Page 72 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 

and West Virginia officials for the purposes of this report. This 

contrasts with the situation in Kentucky. The U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Energy Information Administration has identified a number 

of coal-producing regions throughout the country. It places all of West 

Virginia and the eastern part of Kentucky in the Appalachian region. It 

places western Kentucky in the Illinois basin region. Additionally, 

while eastern Kentucky is within the Appalachian mountain chain, 

western Kentucky is not. 

Page 73 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Appendix III: Comments from the Kentucky Appendix III: Comments from the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources 

Department for Natural Resources 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

See comment 1. 

Page 74 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining 
Appendix III: Comments from the Kentucky 

Department for Natural Resources 

See comment 2. 

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

See comment 5. 

Page 75 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Appendix III: Comments from the Kentucky 

Department for Natural Resources 

See comment 6. 

See comment 7. 

See comment 8. 

See comment 9. 

See comment 10. 

Page 76 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Appendix III: Comments from the Kentucky 

Department for Natural Resources 

See comment 11. 

See comment 12. 

Page 77 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Appendix III: Comments from the Kentucky 

Department for Natural Resources 

Page 78 GAO-10-21 

The following are GAO’s comments on the letter dated November 9, 2009, 

from the Commissioner, Department for Natural Resources. 

1. We share Kentucky’s concern that data from the Surface Mining 

Information System (SMIS) for the years prior to 2000 could be 

misinterpreted, but we believe we have made the limitations of the 

data clear in our report. We have discussed this concern within GAO; 

with Kentucky; with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement (OSM); and with West Virginia, which has expressed a 

similar concern regarding its permit data. Given the level of concern, 

we have added additional language to our report stating that certain 

data should not be relied upon to convey a representative picture of 

past mining characteristics or decisions. Nevertheless, we believe that 

it is important to include the data, along with the appropriate caveats, 

in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the data in SMIS that 

clearly identifies the years for which there are data limitations and the 

nature of those limitations. When Kentucky originally provided the 

data from SMIS to us, the limitations on the older data were not 

acknowledged. We believe that the extensive discussions that we had 

with Kentucky officials brought to light for the first time—at least in a 

comprehensive fashion—the full extent of the data limitations and that 

documenting the results of these discussions is an important aspect of 

this study. This information about data limitations is useful to the 

public, even though public access to SMIS data through its Web-based 

system is limited to one permit at a time. Furthermore, if another party 

were to obtain the same access to SMIS data that Kentucky provided 

to us, it would be even more important for this information to be 

public. While we believe that Kentucky would include information on 

data limitations were it to provide this access to another party, we are 

less certain that this other party would fairly and accurately describe 

the limitations. 

GAO Comments 

2. We note Kentucky’s concern that the term “open permit” could lead 

readers to believe that the land consists entirely of disturbed, 

unreclaimed mine sites. (Disturbed land is land that has been cleared 

of vegetation as part of the mining process.) In response to earlier 

comments from Kentucky officials, we included a footnote to clarify 

this term when we first introduce it. Given the continued concern, we 

have now put this language into the text of the report. In addition, 

elsewhere in our report, we explain that not all acres that are 

permitted end up being disturbed. 

 Surface Coal Mining 
Appendix III: Comments from the Kentucky 

Department for Natural Resources 

3. We have modified the text of the report to make it clearer that 

landowners play a large role in choosing post-mining land uses. 

4. We are aware that there are other sources of information about 

Kentucky’s permitting activity. However, we designed the scope of this 

engagement to limit the information we present in our report to what 

is contained in SMIS. 

5. Although table 1 makes clear that Kentucky is the third-largest 

producer of coal from surface mines in 2008, we modified the text of 

our report to ensure there is no ambiguity. However, we do not believe 

it is necessary to add additional information about coal production in 

other states to table 1. Although the scope of our report does not 

include surface coal mines in western Kentucky, we include the 

production total for all of Kentucky (east and west), along with the 

production total for Kentucky (east only) to be comprehensive. We do 

not believe that information about coal production from other states 

outside the scope of our report would be useful. 

6. We are aware that OSM has determined that both Kentucky and West 

Virginia mining programs meet the legal requirements found in the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and 

that they are “no less effective” than federal regulations. However, the 

point of the paragraph is to explain that Kentucky’s and West Virginia’s 

regulations are, in fact, similar to federal regulations. We make this 

point to avoid the repetition of describing each entity’s regulations 

when there are not substantive differences. When we discuss 

regulations for which there are substantive differences, we note this in 

the report. 

7. As noted in the text, there are statutory and regulatory requirements 

regarding surface coal mining that are not included in this report. We 

provide an overview of those requirements as background, but 

describing the regulatory framework for surface mining was not an 

objective of this report. 

8. We do not dispute Kentucky’s assertion that much of the forestland in 

Kentucky and West Virginia that has been mined was previously 

harvested, i.e., is second growth forest. However, in our report, we are 

discussing the use of the land immediately prior to mining, not how the 

land was used historically. 

Page 79 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Appendix III: Comments from the Kentucky 

Department for Natural Resources 

9. We agree that it is important to note that not all permitted acres are 

disturbed—that is, cleared of vegetation as part of the mining 

process—and we address this point specifically in our report. See also 

our comment 2 above. 

10. We agree it would be better to report on the number of fills 

constructed instead of the number of fills approved. However, SMIS 

only contains data from permits and, as Kentucky notes, no permitting 

action is required to delete a fill from a mining plan. Thus, we were 

unable to provide data on the number of fills constructed. 

11. We do not believe this change is necessary because the exceptions to 

the approximate original contour (AOC) requirement are made clear in 

later paragraphs. The paragraph that Kentucky references serves to 

introduce the concept of AOC and AOC variances. The next several 

pages of our report explain in greater detail the policy and 

requirements regarding AOC and variances. 

12. We have modified the text in this paragraph to better make the 

distinction between “valley fills” and “hollow fills.” 

Page 80 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining
Appendix IV: Comments from the West 

Virginia Department of Environmental Appendix IV: Comments from the West Protection 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection 

Page 81 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining 
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

Acknowledgments 

Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841, nazzaror@gao.gov 

In addition to the individual named above, Andrea W. Brown, Assistant 

Director; Josey Ballenger; Antoinette Capaccio; Charles Egan; John 

Mingus, Jr.; Rebecca Shea; and Benjamin Shouse made key contributions 

to this report. Carol Kolarik, Janice Poling, and Jena Sinkfield also 

contributed to this report. 

Page 82 GAO-10-21 Surface Coal Mining

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360928) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper