Surface Coal Mining: Characteristics of Mining in Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and West Virginia
Published: 2009-12-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to report on the characteristics of (1) surface coal mining and (2) reclaimed lands that were disturbed by surface coal mining in the mountainous, eastern part of Kentucky and in West Virginia, where most such mining occurs. Federal and state law requires mining operators to obtain permits before mining. Among other things, the permits identify the acres under open permit (the acres subject to mining associated with a permit that has not been closed) and how the land will be reclaimed--including the post-mining land use, whether the approximate original contour (AOC) of the land will be restored, and the extent to which excess earth, rock, and other materials (known as "spoil") are placed in nearby valleys. For this study, GAO relied on electronic databases of mining permits maintained by Kentucky and West Virginia. This report makes no recommendations. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior and the two state mining agencies generally agreed with our findings
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Surface coal mining in Kentucky and West Virginia had the following important characteristics, based on permits issued from January 1990 through July 2008: (1) The number of acres under open permit increased by an average annual rate of 2.2 percent in Kentucky and 1.7 percent in West Virginia; (2) the number of acres under open permit became more geographically concentrated; (3) the length of time that permits were open varied from less than a year to more than 18 years; (4) in West Virginia, 28 contiguously permitted areas contained nearly half of the permitted acres, as of July 2008. Reclaimed lands had the following important characteristics, based on permits issued from January 2000 through July 2008: (1) The most common type of post-mining land use in Kentucky was fish and wildlife habitat and, in West Virginia, it was forestlandl; (2) most permits required operators to reclaim the land to AOC, but there were some exceptions (called variances). Most of the variances were for lands where there was insufficient spoil to restore AOC because the land had been previously mined but not reclaimed; (3) Kentucky and West Virginia collectively approved nearly 2,000 fills to store at least 4.9 billion cubic yards of excess spoil in nearby valleys.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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. In 2008, Kentucky and West Virginia  accounted for about 76 percent of the coal produced from surface mines  in Appalachia, producing about 120 million tons, making them the third-  and second-largest surface coal-producing states in the nation. Almost all  surface mining in Appalachia occurs on private land.
Surface mining of coal is regulated by the Surface Mining Control and  Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), which created the Department of the  Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)  to implement and enforce the act. SMCRA allows an individual state to  develop its own program to implement SMCRA if that program is in  accordance with federal law and is approved by OSM. OSM is charged  with enforcing states’ adherence to their approved programs or  implementing a federal program in accordance with SMCRA if the state  fails to submit, implement, or enforce its own program. OSM has approved  programs for 24 states, including Kentucky and West Virginia in 1982 and  1981, respectively.
Despite the public scrutiny that surface mining in mountainous areas has  received, the public is limited in its ability to access information on the  scope of these operations—their size, location, and how long they have  been in operation—and on what the mountain can be expected to look like  after mining operations have ceased and the land has been reclaimed.  Although this information is available to the public, the public cannot  readily aggregate these data over time to perform trend analyses, which is  a key component to understanding the characteristics of surface mining in  these states since mining operations can last a decade or more. In  response to your request, this report provides information on the  characteristics, over time, of (1) surface coal mining in mountainous areas  in Kentucky and West Virginia and (2) reclaimed lands disturbed by  surface coal mining in mountainous areas in Kentucky and West Virginia.
This report focuses on surface coal mining in the mountainous areas of  Kentucky and West Virginia because these are the states in which the  majority of mountaintop mining that is the source of controversy in  Appalachia occurs. These areas accounted for about 73 percent of  Appalachia’s surface coal production in 2008. For Kentucky, we included  in our analysis surface mining permits in the mountainous, eastern part of  the state, which accounted for most of the state’s surface coal production.  We excluded permits in the flatter, western part of Kentucky, which  accounted for about 9 percent of Kentucky’s surface coal production in  2008. We included surface mining permits from all of West Virginia in our  analysis. To address our objectives, we relied extensively on the two  states’ electronic databases, which contain select information from the  states’ surface mining permit files. The permit files provide detail on  mining operations that are not contained in these databases. The Kentucky  database is called the Surface Mining Information System (SMIS). The  West Virginia database is called the Environmental Resources Information  System (ERIS). Through extensive discussion with state officials familiar  with these electronic databases, and our analysis of the information from  the databases, we determined that specific data elements are sufficiently  reliable within certain time frames. Specifically, due to limits on data  reliability and to be consistent between the states, we are reporting on the  characteristics of surface mining in Kentucky and West Virginia from  January 1990 through July 2008 and on the characteristics of reclaimed  lands that were disturbed by surface mining from January 2000 through  July 2008, except for Kentucky’s data on variances, for which we are  reporting from January 2002 through July 2008. However, SMIS and ERIS  also contain data on these characteristics for prior years, in some cases  dating to 1961. For some of these years, for some data elements, we  determined that the data is reliable; in other instances, we identified  specific data limitations. Although the general public has access to data  from all years—the surface mining permit files in Kentucky and West  Virginia are public documents—the data are readily accessible to the  public by electronically accessing SMIS and ERIS. We include data from  all years in many of the graphics in our report in order to provide a  comprehensive overview of the data in SMIS and ERIS that clearly  identifies the years for which there are data limitations and what those  data limitations are. We believe that presenting data from the earlier  years—and its limitations—decreases the likelihood of misuse or  misinterpretation because the limitations on the data are not disclosed on  the Web sites from which the public accesses SMIS and ERIS.  Additionally, for West Virginia, we combined data from ERIS with  electronic geospatial files of permit boundaries from the West Virginia  Department of Environmental Protection to determine which permitted  areas were adjacent to each other. From this information, we identified  the largest, contiguously permitted areas in West Virginia. We had  insufficient data to identify contiguously permitted areas in Kentucky. We  also reviewed relevant federal and state laws, regulations, and policy  guidance on surface coal mining and reclamation; visited several active  mining operations and reclaimed sites in the two states; and met with  officials from OSM, the West Virginia Department of Environmental  Protection, and the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources. A more  detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in  appendix I. We conducted our work from March 2008 to December 2009 in  accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that  are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and  perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to  meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We  believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis  conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in  this report.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Surface Coal Mining Methods Used in Kentucky and West Virginia
paragraphs: A number of different surface mining methods are used to mine coal in  Appalachia—including in Kentucky and West Virginia. The method used  depends largely on the geology, terrain, and the accessibility of the  underlying coal seam. Three of the most commonly used methods are  contour mining, auger/highwall mining, and area mining. What is  conventionally referred to as mountaintop mining is typically mining using  one or more of these methods in mountainous areas.
Contour mining is typically used where coal seams are exposed in  outcrops on hillsides and mountainsides. A cut is first made in the hillside  above a coal seam to remove the overburden—the dirt and rock above a  coal seam. This further exposes the coal seam and creates a flat area,  called a bench, and a highwall—a cliff of exposed rock left after a surface  mining operation has cut into the landscape. The mine is then enlarged by  successive cuts that follow the coal seam around the side of the hill. The  mining extends into the hill to the point where the overburden is too thick  to make further exposure of the coal seam economic. The overburden— which is called spoil once it has been removed—can be placed back on top  of the mined-out area. Any excess spoil that is not replaced because of  stability or other reasons is placed in nearby valleys and hollows.  Additionally, auger mining often is used at this stage to maximize the  amount of coal recovered. Auger mining involves drilling into an exposed  coal seam at the highwall, from the bench—much like a carpenter drills  through wood. If coal seam characteristics permit, a “highwall miner” may  be used in place of an auger. A highwall miner typically uses rotary cutting  heads to extract the coal from the exposed coal seam. Both methods are  secondary methods that permit the recovery of additional coal that would  not be economically recovered through surface or underground mining.  Figure 1 depicts contour, auger, and highwall mining.
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.
section_title: Surface Coal Production in Kentucky and West Virginia
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Requirements for Regulating Coal Mining Operations
paragraphs: 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. In some instances, the wording  of Kentucky and West Virginia’s state requirements is identical to the  federal requirements. OSM oversight focuses on assuring that state  regulating agencies comply with the requirements of the approved state  program. SMCRA requires OSM to make such inspections as are necessary  to evaluate how well state programs are administered.
Under approved state programs, state regulatory agencies review and  approve surface mining permits. The permitting process requires  operators to submit detailed plans that describe the extent of the proposed  mining operations and how reclamation will be achieved. 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, spoil piles, and depressions. Operators are also required to  comply with standards that govern, among other things, the post-mining  use(s) for which the reclaimed land will be prepared, the final contour of  the reclaimed land, and how spoil that is not deposited back onto the  mined-out area will be handled.
To help ensure that operators comply with regulatory requirements and  permit provisions, including a site’s reclamation plan, SMCRA requires  operators to post a bond (or bonds). States are also authorized to set up an  alternative system if it will achieve the same objectives and purposes as  the bonding requirements of SMCRA. For example, West Virginia imposes  a tax on coal production, the proceeds of which are used to reclaim  forfeited sites instead of requiring a bond reflecting the full projected cost  of site reclamation. Once a state bond release specialist determines that all  reclamation standards identified in the permit have been met, the bond is  “released,” meaning the money put up for bond is returned to the operator.  Once the bond has been released, state jurisdiction over the mining  operation ceases. If an operator fails to comply with applicable provisions,  it may forfeit the bond, in which case the state becomes responsible for  reclaiming the land to the reclamation standards found in the operator’s  permit.
When a permit is issued, it is considered an open permit until the bond  associated with it is completely released or forfeited, at which time it is  considered a closed permit. Permits are not actively mined during the  entire period that the permit is open. For example, mining might not have  begun, or the land could be in the process of being reclaimed prior to bond  release. In this report, the acres associated with issued permits (whether  open or closed) are sometimes referred to as “issued acres” for the  purposes of brevity and readability. Similarly, the acres associated with  open permits are sometimes referred to as “acres under open permit” or  “open acres.” If a permit is closed because the bond associated with it was  completely released, the permit is referred to as a “released permit,” and  the acres associated with the released permit are sometimes referred to as  “released acres.” If the permit is closed because the bond was forfeited,  the permit is referred to as a “forfeited permit,” and the acres associated  with the permit are sometimes referred to as “forfeited acres.”
section_title: Characteristics of Surface Coal Mining in Mountainous Areas in Kentucky and West Virginia
paragraphs: Based on data provided to us by Kentucky and West Virginia, we are  reporting on three characteristics in surface mining in the mountainous  areas of these two states. We identified a fourth characteristic in West  Virginia using electronic geospatial files of permit boundaries provided to  us by the state. These data were not available from Kentucky. In summary:    First, the number of acres under open permit increased because the  number of acres issued grew faster than the number of acres released or  forfeited. The average annual growth rate from January 1990 through July  2008 was about 2.2 percent in Kentucky and 1.7 percent in West Virginia.
Second, acres under open permit have become more concentrated in  specific counties since 1990. About 44 percent of the acres under open  permit in Kentucky, as of July 2008, were located in three counties—Pike  County, Perry County, and Knott County. In 1990, the three counties with  the most acres under open permit accounted for only 28 percent of the  total. Similarly, in West Virginia, as of July 2008, Boone County, Logan  County, and Mingo County accounted for about 48 percent of all acres  under open permit at that time, compared with 33 percent for the three  counties with the most acres under open permit in 1990.
Third, the length of time that permits were open varied. In Kentucky, for  permits issued since 1990, the length of time a permit was open—from  issuance to release—ranged from less than 1 year to more than 18 years  and averaged about 7-1/2 years. In West Virginia, the length of time from  issuance to release ranged from less than 1 year to almost 17 years and  averaged about 8-1/2 years. Moreover, both states have a substantial  number of permits that were issued since 1990 that were still open as of  July 2008. The average length of time these permits were open was nearly  5 years in Kentucky and more than 8-1/2 years in West Virginia.
Fourth, nearly half of the permitted acres in West Virginia are  concentrated in 28 contiguously permitted areas. We identified these areas  using available electronic geospatial files of West Virginia permit  boundaries for permits that were open in July 2008 or that were released  or forfeited since 1990. These 28 contiguously permitted areas account for  178,600 acres, or about 47 percent of all the acreage that is either currently  open or that was released or forfeited since 1990. The largest of these  contiguously permitted areas is 21,700 acres and is made up of 37 permits.  About 89 percent of the acreage in the 28 contiguously permitted areas is  under open permit as of July 2008.
Both states’ databases provide data on acres under open permit and  related data for years prior to 1990. However, for some of these earlier  years, the data understates or overstates mining activity. Because of these  data limitations, and to be consistent between the states, we base our  analysis on data from January 1990 through July 2008. We present the  results of this analysis in the text of this section of the report. However,  we include data from the earlier years in some of the figures in this section  and identify the data limitations for these years in order to provide a  comprehensive overview of the data in the states’ databases that clearly  identify the years for which there are data limitations and what those data  limitations are. We believe that presenting data from the earlier years— and its limitations—decreases the likelihood for misuse or  misinterpretation because the data is publicly available, but its limitations  are not disclosed on the Web sites from which the public can access the  data. Data from the earlier years should not be relied upon to convey a  representative picture of past mining characteristics or decisions.
subsections: section_title: Acres Under Open Permit Have Increased in Kentucky and West Virginia
paragraphs: 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.
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. Figure 4 illustrates the growth in acres associated with  issued permits relative to acres associated with released or forfeited  permits.
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.
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.
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.
section_title: Mining in Kentucky and West Virginia Has Become More Geographically Concentrated
paragraphs: 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. 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.  Collectively, the open acres account for 20 percent of these counties’ total  land mass. (8%) (4%) (6%) (23%) (10%) (12%) (5%) (7%) (9%) (6%)
In 1990, the acreage under open permit in Kentucky was less concentrated  in individual counties than it was in 2008. As table 2 shows, the three  counties with the greatest acreage under open permit in 1990—Pike,  Martin, and Breathitt—accounted for about 28 percent (82,400 acres) of  the 292,400 acres under open permit. Collectively, these open acres  accounted for about 8 percent of the total area of the three counties. Table  2 also shows the 10 counties in Kentucky with the most acres under open  permit in 2008 and the number of acres under open permit in 1990 for  those same counties.
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. (4%) (10%) (7%) (20%) (6%) (15%) ) (4%) (4%) (4%)
In 1990, the acreage under open permit was less concentrated in individual  counties than it was in 2008. As table 3 shows, the three counties with the  greatest amount of acreage under open permit in 1990—Logan, Boone, and  Nicholas—accounted for 33 percent (61,000 acres) of the 183,700 acres  under open permit in 1990. Collectively, these open acres accounted for  about 6 percent of the total area of these counties. Similar to table 2, this  table shows the 10 counties in West Virginia with the most acres under  open permit in 2008 and the number of acres under open permit in 1990  for those same counties.
section_title: The Length of Time That Permits Were Open in Kentucky and West Virginia Varies
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Many Permitted Acres in West Virginia Are Concentrated in a Few Large, Contiguously Permitted Areas
paragraphs: 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. 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.
A few of the contiguously permitted areas are much larger than most of  the other permitted areas. The largest 5 percent of permitted areas—28  areas of the 559 we identified—are groups of contiguous permits and  cover 178,600 acres, or 47 percent of the 381,000 acres associated with  open permits or permits released or forfeited since 1990. Additionally, we  found that about 89 percent (159,200 acres) of the 178,600 acres that  constitute these 28 permitted areas were under open permit. This  contrasts with the 139,000 acres that make up the remaining 531 permitted  areas, which have 85,000 acres (61 percent) under open permit. Figure 12  shows open and closed (released and forfeited) permits for these 28  permitted areas.
section_title: Characteristics of Reclaimed Lands That Were Disturbed by Surface Coal Mining in Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and West Virginia
paragraphs: In summary, the states’ data for permits issued from January 2000 through  July 2008 provides information on three important characteristics of land  reclaimed after being disturbed by surface mining: the approved post- mining land use (PMLU), the extent to which the land is restored to its  original contour, and the number and size of fills created from excess  spoil. First, fish and wildlife habitat and forestland were the most common  types of PMLU approved in Kentucky and West Virginia, respectively.  Forestland was the most common type of land use prior to mining in both  states. Second, while most operations have been issued permits in recent  years requiring them to reclaim the land to its approximate original  contour (AOC), some were granted exceptions, referred to as AOC  variances. Specifically, 76 percent (294 permits) of the 388 permits issued  in Kentucky from January 2002 through July 2008 were required to reclaim  the land to AOC. In West Virginia, 85 percent (181 permits) of the 212  permits issued from January 2000 through July 2008 were required to be  reclaimed to AOC. Most of the AOC variances granted were “remining”  variances, meaning that the variance was granted because the land had  been previously mined but not reclaimed, leaving insufficient spoil to  restore AOC. Finally, Kentucky and West Virginia collectively approved  nearly 2,000 fills to be placed in nearby valleys and hollows, with a storage  volume of at least 4.85 billion cubic yards of excess spoil, on permits  issued from January 2000 through July 2008.
Both states’ databases provide data on pre-mining land uses and PMLUs,  AOC variances, and fills for permits issued in years prior to 2000.  However, for many of these years, the data understates or overstates  mining activity and, consequently, characteristics of reclaimed lands.  Because of these data limitations, and to be consistent between the two  states, we base our analysis on data from January 2000 through July 2008,  with the exception of AOC variances in Kentucky, where the data is  complete only for permits issued starting in 2002. We present the results of  this analysis in the text of this section of the report. However, we include  data from the earlier years in the figures of this section and identify the  data limitations associated with these years in order to provide a  comprehensive overview of the data in the states’ databases, and we  clearly identify the data limitations and the years to which they apply. We  believe that presenting data from the earlier years—and its limitations— decreases the likelihood for misuse or misinterpretation because the data  is publicly available, but its limitations are not disclosed on the Web sites  from which the public can access the data. Data from the earlier years  should not be relied upon to convey a representative picture of past  mining characteristics or decisions.
subsections: section_title: 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
paragraphs: During the permitting process, operators designate one or more types of  PMLU, although the approved PMLU(s) may later be changed through a  permit revision. If an operator does not plan to return an area to its pre- mining land use, the operator must propose an alternative PMLU for  approval. State approval of an alternative PMLU requires consultation with  the landowner. In general, the PMLU must be either a use the land could  have supported before any mining, or a “higher or better” use. 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). However, once the bond has been  released, state jurisdiction over the mining operation ceases, and  landowners can use the land at their own discretion following bond  release. Additionally, even in cases where the PMLU(s) is fully  implemented after bond release, some land use types, such as forestland,  can take years—even decades—to achieve their intended appearance and  productivity.
The two states’ data show that, for permits issued from January 2000  through July 2008, the most common PMLU type approved was fish and  wildlife habitat in Kentucky and forestland in West Virginia. Our analysis  of the data revealed that both states’ databases improved over time in the  percentage of permits that captured information on PMLU types and, by  1995 and 1998, respectively, the data indicates that all new permits issued  had at least one PMLU type approved in Kentucky and West Virginia.
Specifically, in Kentucky, of the 481 permits issued from January 2000  through July 2008, 216 permits were approved for fish and wildlife habitat  as a PMLU, followed by 209 permits approved for hay or pastureland, and  109 permits approved for forestland. Fifty-nine permits issued during that  time were approved for other PMLU types, including 22 residential, 19  industrial, and 12 commercial. Figure 13 shows these data, including the  number of permits that did not identify a PMLU type.
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. Sixty permits issued during this time  were approved for other PMLU types, including 23 for commercial forestry  or woodland, and 12 for industrial/commercial. Figure 14 shows these  data, including the number of permits that did not identify a PMLU type.
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. The OSM  directive’s purpose is to encourage reforestation, rather than past  reclamation practices that led many operators and landowners to choose  agricultural PMLUs that did not include trees, such as hay or pastureland.  According to the directive, past reclamation practices led to low rates of  tree survival and growth, forest fragmentation, reduced carbon  sequestration, loss of wildlife habitat and forest products, and increased  flood potential. To reverse this trend, the directive encourages the  widespread and routine planting of native, high-value trees that will  restore the uses and ecosystems provided by forests prior to mining. The  OSM directive is part of a broader effort known as the Appalachian  Regional Reforestation Initiative—formed in 2004 by federal and state  agencies, the coal industry, environmental organizations, and others in the  Appalachian region—to promote improved reforestation techniques on  surface-mined lands.
In addition to PMLU types, the states’ databases contain information on  the type of land use associated with the permitted area immediately prior  to mining—the pre-mining land use. The most common types of pre- mining land use identified for permits issued from January 2000 through  July 2008 were the same for both states: forestland and previously mined  but unreclaimed lands. According to OSM, virtually all of the land that has  been surface mined for coal over the past 30 years in Appalachia was  forested before it was originally mined. The states’ data indicate that other  types of pre-mining land use—such as residential, commercial, or  cropland—occurred infrequently or not at all. Our analysis of the data  revealed that starting in 1989 in Kentucky, at least 97 percent of new  permits issued identified at least one pre-mining land use type and starting  in 1998 in West Virginia, all new permits issued identified at least one pre- mining land use type.
Kentucky’s data show that, of the 481 permits issued from 2000 through  July 2008, 415 permits had a pre-mining land use of forestland, and 290  were previously mined. (As with PMLU, permits can identify more than  one pre-mining land use type). In addition, 44 permits identified hay or  pastureland, and 43 permits identified other types of pre-mining land use,  including 24 permits with undeveloped land. 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.
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. 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.
section_title: Most Operations Are Required to Recl aim the Land to AOC, but There Are Exceptions
paragraphs: 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 e  standards such as ensuring stability, controlling drainage, and preventing  stream sedimentation. In addition, SMCRA allows exceptions to the AOC  requirement—called AOC variances—under certain circumstances.
Kentucky and West Virginia issued AOC policy guidance in 200 respectively, to help implement SMCRA. The states issued this guidance  following special oversight reviews that OSM conducted on how the states  applied standards and approved permits in reference to AOC  requirements. In both states’ permit applications, operators provide  calculations, maps, and/or cross sections to illustrate and define the  proposed post-mining contour of the permit area. This proposed contour  becomes part of the reclamation plan for the site, fulfillment of which is a  condition for release of the operator’s bond. The OSM reports found,  among other things, that some reclaimed sites where the operator was  supposed to return the land to AOC differed little from sites that had been  1 and 1999,  granted AOC variances. 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 site- specific flexibility is allowed. t the  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. 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 illustrates what a reclaimed site could look like in meeting the AOC  requirement, compared with the original, pre-mining contour.
Memorandum from Larry D. Adams, Director, Division of Permits, Kentucky Department  for Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour  Determination,” Sept. 20, 2001.
In the special oversight reviews that OSM published in 1999 and 2000, OSM found that the  two states did not have reliable electronic inventories of AOC variances at that point,  which made it difficult to identify exactly how many existed. In response, Kentucky and  West Virginia revised their databases to clearly identify AOC variances on existing and  future permits. contained 99 AOC variances. Figure 18 shows the number of permit contained 99 AOC variances. Figure 18 shows the number of permit issued to reclaim the land to AOC, compared with permits issued w issued to reclaim the land to AOC, compared with permits issued w AOC variances.  AOC variances.
In West Virginia, 85 percent (or 181 permits) of the 212 permits issued  from January 2000 through July 2008 required the operator to recl 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.
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. 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, 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, compared with operations that  comply with the AOC requirement. 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,   County,  West Virginia, appears in figure 20.  West Virginia, appears in figure 20.
The types of mining operations and PMLU restrictions to which  mountaintop removal and steep slope AOC variances apply are as  follows:    A mountaintop removal operation involves the extraction of an entire coal  seam or seams in the upper part of a mountain, ridge, or hill. Additionally,  the land must be reclaimed to a condition suitable for agricultural,  industrial, commercial, residential, or public facility (including  recreational facilities) uses.
A steep slope operation is one conducted in an area with a slope  exceeding 20 degrees (or less, if deemed appropriate by the state after  considering soil, climate, and other site characteristics) that does not  involve the removal of the entire mountaintop. Operators of steep slope  AOC variances are restricted to the same PMLUs as for mountaintop  removal variances, except that agricultural land use is not allowed.
To help ensure the land is reclaimed to a condition capable of supporting  the PMLU proposed by the operator, SMCRA and its implementing  regulations also provide specific criteria for granting mountaintop removal  and steep slope AOC variances. For example, for mountaintop removal  AOC variances, the operator must provide assurance in the permit  application that the PMLU will be    compatible with adjacent land uses;    obtainable according to data regarding expected need and market;    assured of investment in necessary public facilities;    supported by commitments from public agencies, where appropriate;    practicable with respect to private financial capability for completion of  the proposed use;   planned pursuant to a schedule attached to the reclamation plan so as to  integrate the mining operation and reclamation with the PMLU; and   designed by a registered engineer in conformance with professional  standards established to ensure the stability, drainage, and configuration  necessary for the intended use of the site.
Kentucky’s data indicate that, of the 99 AOC variances contained in 94  permits issued from January 2002 through July 2008, 79 were for remining,  while 5 were for mountaintop removal, and 15 were for steep slope AOC  variances. Figure 21 shows the types of AOC variances approved in  Kentucky, by year.
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. Figure  22 shows the types of AOC variances approved in West Virginia, by year.
section_title: Operators Were Approved to Construct Nearly 2,000 Valley and Hollow Fills from 2000 to 2008
paragraphs: As part of the permitting process, operators may be authorized to place  excess spoil in fills in nearby valleys and hollows. OSM, Kentucky, and  West Virginia regulations define these fills as structures consisting of any  material, other than organic material, placed in a valley or the uppermost  reaches of a hollow where either (1) the side slopes, measured at the  steepest point, are greater than 20 degrees or (2) the average slope of the  profile of the valley or hollow, from the bottom to the top of the fill, is  greater than 10 degrees. In the permit application, operators justify the  estimated number and size of these fills based on the amount of excess  spoil they calculate will not be needed to achieve AOC or, in the case of an  AOC variance, to support the proposed PMLU. The regulations further  distinguish between valley fills and hollow fills, and Kentucky makes use  of this distinction in its database. One official told us that in Kentucky, the  difference between valley fills and hollow fills is that hollow fills tend to  be smaller in size and located higher up in the valley than valley fills. West  Virginia does not make use of this distinction in its database.
According to OSM, the amount of excess spoil generated varies  considerably depending on the nature of the rock and the mining method  used, but the industry average is about 25 percent of material removed.  Although fills are not subject to AOC requirements, the operator must  ensure fills are safe and stable, 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. Terraces may  be constructed if needed for stability, for control of erosion, to conserve  soil moisture, or to facilitate the approved PMLU. Figure 23 shows a  terraced fill on a reclaimed site in West Virginia.
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. According to state  officials, operators may forgo constructing an approved fill, or they may  construct a smaller fill than approved, without revising the permit. A  permit can contain one or more fills, but an operator may only be  authorized to increase the number or size of fills through a permit revision.
Additionally, while both states have collected some information on fills in  their databases since the late 1970s, Kentucky officials told us their fill  data is less reliable prior to 2000. West Virginia officials also told us they  did not consistently record information on fills in their database until the  late 1990s.
Kentucky approved 1,488 fills on permits issued from January 2000  through July 2008, of which 94 percent of the fills were classified as  hollow fills, and 6 percent were valley fills. Sixty-six percent (319 permits)  of the 481 permits issued during that time approved the construction of  one or more fills. Figure 24 shows the total number of fills approved, and  permits issued with fills, by year.
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.
West Virginia approved the construction of 511 fills on permits issued from  January 2000 through July 2008. Unlike Kentucky, West Virginia does not  make a distinction between valley and hollow fills in its database. Fifty- five percent (117 permits) of the 212 permits issued during this time  approved the construction of one or more fills. Figure 26 shows the total  number of fills approved, and permits issued with fills, by year.
Of the 511 fills approved on permits issued from 2000 to 2008, West  Virginia’s database contains storage volume information on 506 fills. In  total, these 506 fills were approved to store up to 2.7 billion cubic yards of  excess spoil, averaging 5.4 million cubic yards and ranging from 6,932  cubic yards to 123.6 million cubic yards per fill. See figure 27 for the total  storage volume approved, by year.
While both states collect data on the approved storage volume of fills,  West Virginia also collects data on their approved length. Of the 511 fills  approved on permits issued from 2000 through July 2008, West Virginia’s  database contains length information on 496 fills. In total, these fills were  approved to measure 933,487 feet (nearly 177 miles) in length. On average,  these fills were approved to measure 1,882 feet (over one-third of a mile)  in length and varied from 150 feet to 8,400 feet (up to 1.6 miles) per fill.  Figure 28 shows the total fill length approved, by year.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of the Interior,  the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources, and the West Virginia  Department of Environmental Protection for review and comment. The  agencies generally agreed with our findings. However, all three agencies  raised concerns about including the older data from SMIS and ERIS in our  report, data for which there are known limitations. We share the agencies’  concerns that these data could be misinterpreted or misused. However, we  are including these data in our report, along with the appropriate caveats,  in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the data in SMIS and  ERIS that clearly identifies the years for which there are data limitations  and the nature of those limitations. We believe that the extensive  discussions we had with Kentucky and West Virginia officials brought to  light for the first time, at least in a comprehensive fashion, the full extent  of the data limitations, and that documenting the results of these  discussions is an important aspect of this study. We believe that presenting  the data from the earlier years—and their limitations—decreases the  likelihood of misuse or misinterpretation because the limitations on the  data are not disclosed on the Web sites from which the public accesses  SMIS and ERIS. Further, we clearly identify the data for which there are  limitations and state that they do not convey a representative picture of  past mining characteristics or decisions. We present comments from the  Department of the Interior, the Kentucky Department for Natural  Resources, and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection  in appendixes II, III and IV, respectively. Our responses to the Department  of the Interior and the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources are  included in appendixes II and III, respectively. No response is warranted  for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s  comments. The Department of the Interior and the West Virginia  Department of Environmental Protection also provided technical  comments that we incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees; the Secretary of the Interior; the Director of the Office of  Surface Mining, Enforcement and Reclamation; the Commissioner of the  Kentucky Department for Natural Resources; and the Secretary for the  West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. The report also is  available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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. According to the U.S.  Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), nearly  73 percent of the surface coal produced in Appalachia in 2008 came from  these areas.
To respond to both objectives, we relied extensively on surface coal  mining data provided by the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources  and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Both of  these departments maintain extensive electronic databases that contain  select information from the states’ surface mining permit files. The permit  files provide details on mining operations that are not contained in these  databases. Kentucky describes its database, called the Surface Mining  Information System (SMIS), as an extensive computer database that is  used for tracking all permitting and enforcement actions on coal mining  activity in the commonwealth of Kentucky. West Virginia describes its  database, called the Environmental Resources Information System (ERIS),  as a comprehensive information management system designed to track  information about a variety of environmental regulatory activities.
We worked with state officials to identify available data elements useful to  our analysis and requested extracts containing those elements from the  states’ databases. Kentucky provided us with data from surface mining  permits issued from 1970 through July 2008, and West Virginia provided us  with data from surface mining permits that were open, as of 1984, or were  issued from 1984 through July 2008.
Based on discussions with Kentucky officials, we excluded from our  analysis the following surface mining permits from the SMIS database  extracts:    surface mining permits for the western portion of the state because this  region is generally not considered mountainous;   combination permits (permits for both surface and underground mining)  because SMIS does not provide data on the number of acres associated  with each type of mining; and    a type of permit that is designed for homeowners and issued for sites that  are 2 acres or smaller because these permits are not industrial in nature.
Based on discussion with West Virginia officials, we excluded from our  analysis those permits that were closed by the state before the operator  ever utilized the permit.
For both states, we used the following data elements to address our  objectives:  issued permits, including the permit identification number, the issue date,  the original size of the permit (in acres) and any adjustments to its size,  and the county in which the permitted area lies; information on bonds associated with permits, as well as the status of the  bonds and associated dates; the pre- and post-mining land uses associated with permits; information on approximate original contour variances, if any, associated  with permits; and information on the number and size of fills, if any, associated with permits.
We performed the following analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS  database. We linked certain permits together under a unified identification  number to more accurately reflect actual mining activity. Specifically, we  linked renumbered permits, which are older permits that received a new  identification number to conform to a new numbering system. We also  linked transferred permits, which are permits that received a new  identification number when they changed ownership. Despite the different  identification numbers, the permits are essentially the same. Linking these  permits prevents overcounting of the mining and reclamation activities  associated with a specific geographic area. This issue did not arise with  West Virginia’s ERIS database.
We also took the following steps as part of our analysis of data from West  Virginia’s ERIS database. First, because ERIS does not identify the date  that a permit’s status changed from open to either released or forfeited, we  used the most recent date that a corresponding bond was released or  forfeited. This issue did not arise with Kentucky’s SMIS database. Second,  to identify the largest permitted areas in West Virginia, we combined ERIS  data with electronic geospatial files of permit boundaries from the West  Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. We used ERIS data to  identify when permits were issued and whether the permits were open,  released, or forfeited, as of July 2008. We only included permits released  or forfeited since January 1990, or permits that were still open as of July  2008, in this analysis. We excluded permits that were closed prior to 1990  because few of these older permits had associated geospatial files, and  because the older permits were less likely to be associated with current  mining activity. We used the electronic geospatial files to identify  permitted areas, which we defined as either single, non-contiguous  permits; or groups of contiguous permits, We then identified the size of the  permitted areas and ranked them to identify the largest 5 percent. We did  not perform this analysis with Kentucky permits because we did not have  electronic geospatial files of their permit boundaries.
To assess the reliability of SMIS and ERIS data, we (1) worked with state  officials familiar with these systems to understand each data element and  determine the time frames for the reliability of each element, (2)  conducted extensive electronic and logic testing of the SMIS and ERIS  data extracts we received, and (3) reviewed the SQL code for the states’  system extracts. We determined these data elements to be sufficiently  reliable within certain time frames. Specifically, data related to  characteristics in surface coal mining (for example, permits issued,  released, and forfeited) is sufficiently reliable starting in 1990 for Kentucky  and in 1984 for West Virginia. For Kentucky, the extract provided to us  double counts some issued and released permits (and associated acreage)  in the 1980s because of administrative actions to reissue previously issued  permits to comply with revisions to state regulations. The extract also  undercounts some permits (and associated acreage) issued in the 1970s  because not all permits of that era are included in the SMIS database. In  West Virginia, the extract provided to us does not contain data from  permits closed prior to 1984 and thus undercounts the number of issued  and closed permits (and associated acreage) for prior years. Due to these  data limitations, and to be consistent between the states, we are reporting  on the characteristics of surface mining in Kentucky and West Virginia  from January 1990 through July 2008. With respect to characteristics of  reclaimed lands—pre- and post-mining land uses, approximate original  contour (AOC) variances, and fill data—the data are sufficiently reliable  by 2000 in both states, with the exception of AOC variances in Kentucky,  which are sufficiently reliable starting in 2002. Prior to these times, the  states did not always consistently record these data elements in their  databases—they began to consistently record different data elements at  different times. Consequently, both states’ data undercount these data  elements prior to certain years. Due to these data limitations, and to be  consistent between the states, we are reporting on the characteristics of  reclaimed lands that were disturbed by surface mining from January 2000  through July 2008, except for Kentucky’s data on variances, for which we  are reporting from January 2002 through July 2008.
However, in many of the graphics in this report, we include data on  characteristics from all the years for which SMIS and ERIS contain data, in  some cases dating back to 1961. We do this for two reasons. First, it allows  us to include in our report the additional data that are sufficiently reliable,  but that fall outside of our reporting time frames. Second, although the  general public has access to data from all years—surface mining permit  files in Kentucky and West Virginia are public documents—the data are  readily accessible to the public by electronically accessing SMIS and ERIS.  Thus, including the additional data in the graphics of our report allows us  to provide a comprehensive overview of the data in SMIS and ERIS that  clearly identifies the years for which there are data limitations and what  those data limitations are. We believe that presenting data from the earlier  years—and their limitations—decreases the likelihood of misuse or  misinterpretation because the limitations on the data are not disclosed on  the Web sites from which the public accesses SMIS and ERIS.
In addition to our analysis of Kentucky’s SMIS database and West  Virginia’s ERIS database, we took a number of other steps to gain an  understanding of surface coal mining in Appalachia. Specifically, we  reviewed relevant federal and state laws, regulations, and policy guidance  on surface coal mining and reclamation and visited mining sites—both  active and reclaimed—in Kentucky and West Virginia. We also met with  officials from the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining  Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), including regional officials from  their Charleston, West Virginia, and Lexington, Kentucky, field offices, as  well as officials from the West Virginia Department of Environmental  Protection, the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources, and others  knowledgeable about coal mining in Appalachia.
We conducted our work from March 2008 to December 2009 in accordance  with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant  to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the  engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our  stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe  that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted,  provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this report.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the letter dated November 10, 2009,  from the Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1.  We share the department’s concern that, following publication of our  report, some of the data we present could be presented elsewhere  without proper context or qualification. We include in our report—and  clearly identify—data which we know do not convey a representative  picture of past mining characteristics or decisions. (Some, but not all  of these data were collected prior to 1990.) These data, along with  most of the other data presented in our report, come from Kentucky’s  and West Virginia’s publicly accessible databases. We believe that the  extensive discussions that we had with Kentucky and West Virginia  officials brought to light for the first time—at least in a comprehensive  fashion—the full extent of the limitations associated with these data.  Documenting the results of these discussions is an important aspect of  this study. We believe that it is important to include in our report the  data with known limitations, along with the appropriate caveats, in  order to provide a comprehensive overview of the data that are in the  states’ databases. Furthermore, because these data are publicly  available, another party could present some or all of the problematic  data without proper context or qualifications, regardless of what we  present in our report. For this reason, we believe it is particularly  important that the information on data limitations is made public.
The department commented that including data in our report “from the  earlier years”—that is, data with known limitations—could affect the  credibility of the more recent, reliable data that we present. We believe  that we have provided the appropriate caveats to ensure that the  reader clearly understands which data have limitations and which do  not. Nevertheless, the issue of including or excluding data with known  limitations—even with appropriate caveats—has been discussed at  length within GAO, with officials from the Department’s Office of  Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), and with  officials from Kentucky and West Virginia. While we believe it is  important to include these data, we are aware that they could be taken  out of context and misused. While we believe that the caveats included  in our report provide a reasonable basis to believe that the data will  not be misused unintentionally, we are adding additional language to  our report suggested by the department’s comments: that certain data  should not be relied upon to convey a representative picture of past  mining characteristics or decisions.  2.  We determined that examining paper permitting records was  prohibitively resource-intensive. The files are very large and require  detailed knowledge to correctly interpret them. Additionally, we  generally agree with the department that, in presenting data  graphically, the same scale on the y-axis should be used when  presenting similar data. However, in a number of instances in our  report, using the same y-axis scale would have resulted in either  graphs that did not fit on the page or graphs that had detail that was  too small to easily see. In these cases, we used a different y-axis scale.  3.  We include information collected prior to 2002 on approximate  original contour (AOC) variances from Kentucky’s Surface Mining  Information System (SMIS) database for the reasons identified  above—to provide a comprehensive overview of the data that are in  the states’ databases and to clearly identify the years for which there  are data limitations and the nature of those limitations. We did not  review individual permit files because we determined that it was  prohibitively resource-intensive to do so. Additionally, we are aware  that there are other sources of information about Kentucky’s  permitting activity. However, we designed the scope of this  engagement to limit the information we present in our report to what  is contained in SMIS.  4.  We included permits from all of West Virginia in our report, including  permits from the northern half of the state. According to West  Virginia’s Environmental Resource Information System (ERIS)  database, as of July 2008, about 6 percent of the open acres in West  Virginia were in the northern half of the state.  Although OSM and West  Virginia officials told us that most of the permits in this area are  generally not found on the steeper-sloped areas of that region, they  were referring to steep slope mining, which, according to the Surface  Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) is mining that  occurs on a slope with an average of 20 percent grade or steeper. The  scope of our report is surface mining in the mountainous areas of  Kentucky and West Virginia, not specifically steep slope mining.  Northern West Virginia is a mountainous area—it is within the  Appalachian Mountain chain.
Additionally, the relationship between surface coal mining in the  northern and southern portions of West Virginia is not analogous to the  relationship between surface coal mining in the eastern and western  portions of Kentucky. Although we identified a specific “line” in West  Virginia, north of which we stated permits are generally not found on  steeper-sloped areas, this line was identified in consultation with OSM  and West Virginia officials for the purposes of this report. This  contrasts with the situation in Kentucky. The U.S. Department of  Energy’s Energy Information Administration has identified a number  of coal-producing regions throughout the country. It places all of West  Virginia and the eastern part of Kentucky in the Appalachian region. It  places western Kentucky in the Illinois basin region. Additionally,  while eastern Kentucky is within the Appalachian mountain chain,  western Kentucky is not.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the letter dated November 9, 2009,  from the Commissioner, Department for Natural Resources.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1.  We share Kentucky’s concern that data from the Surface Mining  Information System (SMIS) for the years prior to 2000 could be  misinterpreted, but we believe we have made the limitations of the  data clear in our report. We have discussed this concern within GAO;  with Kentucky; with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and  Enforcement (OSM); and with West Virginia, which has expressed a  similar concern regarding its permit data. Given the level of concern,  we have added additional language to our report stating that certain  data should not be relied upon to convey a representative picture of  past mining characteristics or decisions. Nevertheless, we believe that  it is important to include the data, along with the appropriate caveats,  in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the data in SMIS that  clearly identifies the years for which there are data limitations and the  nature of those limitations. When Kentucky originally provided the  data from SMIS to us, the limitations on the older data were not  acknowledged. We believe that the extensive discussions that we had  with Kentucky officials brought to light for the first time—at least in a  comprehensive fashion—the full extent of the data limitations and that  documenting the results of these discussions is an important aspect of  this study. This information about data limitations is useful to the  public, even though public access to SMIS data through its Web-based  system is limited to one permit at a time. Furthermore, if another party  were to obtain the same access to SMIS data that Kentucky provided  to us, it would be even more important for this information to be  public. While we believe that Kentucky would include information on  data limitations were it to provide this access to another party, we are  less certain that this other party would fairly and accurately describe  the limitations.  2.  We note Kentucky’s concern that the term “open permit” could lead  readers to believe that the land consists entirely of disturbed,  unreclaimed mine sites. (Disturbed land is land that has been cleared  of vegetation as part of the mining process.) In response to earlier  comments from Kentucky officials, we included a footnote to clarify  this term when we first introduce it. Given the continued concern, we  have now put this language into the text of the report. In addition,  elsewhere in our report, we explain that not all acres that are  permitted end up being disturbed.  3.  We have modified the text of the report to make it clearer that  landowners play a large role in choosing post-mining land uses.  4.  We are aware that there are other sources of information about  Kentucky’s permitting activity. However, we designed the scope of this  engagement to limit the information we present in our report to what  is contained in SMIS.  5.  Although table 1 makes clear that Kentucky is the third-largest  producer of coal from surface mines in 2008, we modified the text of  our report to ensure there is no ambiguity. However, we do not believe  it is necessary to add additional information about coal production in  other states to table 1. Although the scope of our report does not  include surface coal mines in western Kentucky, we include the  production total for all of Kentucky (east and west), along with the  production total for Kentucky (east only) to be comprehensive. We do  not believe that information about coal production from other states  outside the scope of our report would be useful.  6.  We are aware that OSM has determined that both Kentucky and West  Virginia mining programs meet the legal requirements found in the  Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and  that they are “no less effective” than federal regulations. However, the  point of the paragraph is to explain that Kentucky’s and West Virginia’s  regulations are, in fact, similar to federal regulations. We make this  point to avoid the repetition of describing each entity’s regulations  when there are not substantive differences. When we discuss  regulations for which there are substantive differences, we note this in  the report.  7.  As noted in the text, there are statutory and regulatory requirements  regarding surface coal mining that are not included in this report. We  provide an overview of those requirements as background, but  describing the regulatory framework for surface mining was not an  objective of this report.  8.  We do not dispute Kentucky’s assertion that much of the forestland in  Kentucky and West Virginia that has been mined was previously  harvested, i.e., is second growth forest. However, in our report, we are  discussing the use of the land immediately prior to mining, not how the  land was used historically.  9.  We agree that it is important to note that not all permitted acres are  disturbed—that is, cleared of vegetation as part of the mining  process—and we address this point specifically in our report. See also  our comment 2 above.  10. We agree it would be better to report on the number of fills  constructed instead of the number of fills approved. However, SMIS  only contains data from permits and, as Kentucky notes, no permitting  action is required to delete a fill from a mining plan. Thus, we were  unable to provide data on the number of fills constructed.  11. We do not believe this change is necessary because the exceptions to  the approximate original contour (AOC) requirement are made clear in  later paragraphs. The paragraph that Kentucky references serves to  introduce the concept of AOC and AOC variances. The next several  pages of our report explain in greater detail the policy and  requirements regarding AOC and variances.  12. We have modified the text in this paragraph to better make the  distinction between “valley fills” and “hollow fills.”
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.