OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Annual Evaluation Report for the Regulatory and Abandoned Mine Land Programs Administered by Oklahoma Department of Mines and the Oklahoma Conservation Commission For Evaluation Year 2014 & Evaluation Year 2015 July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015 Prepared by Tulsa Field Office October 2015 OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior ATTENTION This Annual Evaluation Report for Oklahoma analyzes the state program in accordance with REG-8. This Annual Evaluation Report is not intended, and should not be construed, as an endorsement of Oklahoma’s implementation or enforcement of all parts of its approved State program. Failure to include a discussion of an aspect of the State’s program requirements in this report indicates that those program requirements were not fully analyzed for compliance, and should not be interpreted as approval. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may address problems with the Oklahoma program at a later time and in a different forum or document. The Tulsa Field Office of OSMRE specifically reserves the right to address any concerns with the Oklahoma program at a time and in a manner pursuant to its oversight authority Cover Page Photograph: Reeves Phase II North AML Project, taken in 2014 i Page OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), Tulsa Field Office (TFO), during evaluations years 2014 and 2015 (EY 2014, EY 2015) conducted oversight evaluations of the Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC) and the Oklahoma Department of Mines (ODM). The evaluations were conducted to determine the success with which OCC and ODM implements the abandoned mine land and regulatory programs under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. OCC is the State agency that administers the abandoned mine land program, and ODM is the State agency that administers the regulatory authority. TFO conducted studies of ODM’s data regarding off-site impacts, successful reclamation of regulated coal mining activities, customer service, and frequency of state inspections. TFO also conducted review of the success of the abandoned mined land reclamation program by OCC. The oversight reviews were also used to identify ways that the Oklahoma programs could be strengthened: In EY 2015, two separate Performance Agreements were cooperatively developed by OSMRE with OCC and with ODM that tailored the oversight activities for the review and assessment of the conditions of the two separate State programs. The two Performance Agreements were signed by OSMRE and by both ODM and OCC respectively. Through oversight activities, the need for financial, technical, and other program assistance to OCC and ODM are identified and provided to strengthen the State programs. Oversight activities are also used to identify and report innovative and successful actions taken by OCC and ODM to administer both the Title IV – Abandoned Mine Land (AML) and Title V – Regulatory programs: For EY 2014, OCC operated with a total grant of $2,784,000; however, in EY 2015, OCC’s budget decreased slightly to $2,781,000.00. Through the two evaluation years OCC’s staffing levels remained unchanged at 6.60 full-time personnel. OSMRE’s reviews showed that OCC follows standard AML construction practices using State contracting procedures, completing two non-emergency AML projects and three emergency AML projects in EY 2014. OCC did start, but was not able to complete, one non-emergency AML project. ODM operated with a Federal grant of $1,260,918 for EY 2014, and in EY 2015 the budget decreased slightly to $1,161, 039.00. These grants fund 62 percent of Oklahoma’s regulatory program for both evaluation years. ODM’s staffing levels also remained relatively unchanged between EY 2014 and EY 2015, at 20.15 and 19.8 fulltime personnel positions respectively. In EY 2014, 80 percent of permits in the State were free of off-site impacts; nevertheless, in EY 2015 the percentage rose favorably to 91 percent. During EY 2014, acreage newly bonded for disturbance totaled 937 acres while 518 acres were released from all reclamation performance bonds, indicating that more acres in Oklahoma were being planned for mining than were removed from mining activities. For ii P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior EY 2015, the amount of acreage newly bonded for disturbance dropped to 161; however, the amount of acreage released from all reclamation bonds increased slightly to 532.6. OSMRE reviewed the State’s customer service activities for the two evaluation years, focusing on ODM’s: Coordination with other government agencies and how the State notification to the public and other government agencies about permitting actions and bond releases during EY 2014. Handling of the citizen complaints, and how ODM records the complaints during both EY 2014 and EY 2015. In EY 2014 and EY 2015, ODM exceeded the requirements of its statute and regulations for the inspection frequency of mines that had approved coal mining permits. However, an unpermitted site from which coal was removed did not receive the required inspections in either evaluation year. ODM and OSMRE continue to discuss approximate original contour (AOC) issues that stemmed from a 2010 national priority review of AOC, and the implementation of an Action Plan to address the AOC concerns identified in the 2010 national priority review. Beginning in December of 2011, OSMRE issued three Federal notices of violation (NOV) in Oklahoma for failure to reclaim to AOC. All three Federal NOV’s were issued to a single operator and have been challenged by the coal company. ODM took the permittee’s side in the administrative litigation and in a federal lawsuit. In 2011, the cited coal company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma alleging that OSMRE did not have authority to cite violations in primacy states. In January 2012, ODM was named as a defendant in an amended complaint. ODM answered that amended complaint on January 31, 2012, and filed a cross-claim against OSMRE. In its answer to the amended complaint, ODM agreed with the assertions made by the coal company in the amended complaint. In its counterclaim against OSMRE, the state regulatory authority alleged, among other things, that “OSMRE is attempting to unlawfully usurp Oklahoma's exclusive jurisdiction of regulation of surface coal mining in Oklahoma, without following the express procedures established by SMCRA. This attempted action by OSMRE is a violation of federal law and a violation of Oklahoma's right to due process.” Thus, the coal company and ODM both alleged that OSMRE was attempting to exercise direct enforcement in Oklahoma in a manner that is not appropriate unless the entire state program is withdrawn by an action under Section 30 CFR 733 of the federal regulations. OSMRE filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and the cross-claim on April 2, 2012, alleging that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint and cross-claim because all of OSMRE’s actions in issuing the TDN and replying to ODM’s response to the TDN were taken in accordance with SMCRA and its implementing regulations. OSMRE’s motion to dismiss further alleged that the original and amended complaints were premature since the coal company had not exhausted its administrative remedies. As for the cross-claim, OSMRE said it had to be dismissed because ODM was attacking an administrative action taken in accordance iii P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior with the Secretary’s regulations, which amounts to an attack on the regulations themselves, and only the District Court for the District of Columbia has jurisdiction over attacks on the Federal regulations implementing SMCRA. The coal company, ODM, and the Oklahoma Attorney General appealed the decision of the U.S. District Court to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court. In September of 2013, the Tenth Circuit sustained the District Court ruling that the State and coal company lawsuit was not ripe for review, as OSMRE pointed out in its motion to dismiss. Subsequent to the dismissal, OSMRE issued three NOVs to the permittee for AOC violations at three separate mine sites. The original applicants requested hearings for all three NOVs before the Department of the Interior’s Office of Hearings and Appeals. The administrative hearings on those appeals were held over the course of 2012, 2013 and 2104. In September and December of 2014, the administrative law judge who heard the first two appeals vacated the first two NOVs, and OSMRE immediately appealed both decisions to the Department of the Interior’s Interior Board of Land Appeals. Both of the unfavorable decisions have been fully briefed, but the IBLA has not yet ruled. After the end of Evaluation Year 2015, a decision on the third NOV was issued by a different administrative law judge (in September of 2015, and an amended decision was handed down three weeks later). This time, the ALJ ruled in OSMRE’s favor by sustaining the third NOV. The coal company immediately appealed that decision to the IBLA and asked for temporary relief, hoping to avoid having to immediately comply with the abatement measures. No final decisions on the merits of any of the three appeals to the IBLA were issued by the end of calendar year 2015. However, on December 14, 2015, the IBLA denied the coal company’s motion for temporary relief because, it said, the coal company had almost no chance of succeeding in the merits of its appeal. The arguments the coal company made in its motion for temporary relief are substantially the same ae the arguments made in the other two appeals to the IBLA. . OSMRE participated in one briefing for staff members of the entire Oklahoma Congressional delegation during EY 2014. The information provided in the briefing explained that inspection and enforcement methods used by OSMRE in Oklahoma and elsewhere have not changed since the early 1980s. iv P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................. 2 II. OVERVIEW OF COAL MINING INDUSTRY IN OKLAHOMA ........................................ 3 III. OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND OUTREACH EFFORTS ........... 4 IV. MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND INNOVATIONS ...................................................... 6 V. A. Title V Regulatory Program ............................................................................................... 7 B. Title IV Abandoned Mine Land Program ........................................................................... 8 SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING THE PURPOSES OF SMCRA .................................................. 8 A. Off-site Impacts ................................................................................................................. 8 B. Reclamation Success ........................................................................................................ 12 C. Customer Service ............................................................................................................. 16 VI. NATIONAL PRIORITY AND GENERAL OVERSIGHT TOPIC REVIEWS ................... 20 A. National Priority Reviews ................................................................................................ 20 B. General Oversight Topic Reviews .................................................................................... 23 VII. PROGRAM PROBLEMS AND ISSUES ............................................................................... 26 A. Department of the Interior Litigation ................................................................................ 30 B. Department of the Interior, Administrative Reviews......................................................... 31 C. Congressional Letters and Congressional Staff Briefings ................................................. 31 VIII OSMRE ASSISTANCE .......................................................................................................... 31 v Page OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior (This page is left intentionally blank) vi P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior I. INTRODUCTION The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) created the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) in the Department of the Interior. SMCRA provides authority to OSMRE to oversee the implementation of and provide federal funding for the state and tribal regulatory programs and abandoned mine land (AML) programs that have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the minimum standards for primacy specified by SMCRA. OSMRE and the states have a shared commitment to ensure the success of SMCRA through the development and implementation of a Performance Agreement (PA). In addition to conducting oversight of approved state programs, OSMRE provides technical assistance, staff training, financial grants and assistance, as well as management assistance to each state program. The Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC) and the Oklahoma Department of Mines (ODM) are the agencies responsible for administering Oklahoma’s regulatory and AML programs. This report contains summary information regarding Oklahoma’s programs and the effectiveness of the Oklahoma programs in meeting the applicable purposes of SMCRA as specified in Section 102. This annual report covers both Evaluation Year (EY) 2014 and EY 2015; a time period from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015. OSMRE’s oversight is a continuous and ongoing process. This annual report is structured to report on OSMRE's and Oklahoma’s progress in conducting evaluations and completing oversight activities, and on their accomplishments at the end of the evaluation period. Detailed background information and comprehensive reports for the program elements evaluated during the EY are available for review and copying at: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Tulsa Field Office, 1645 South 101st East Avenue, Suite 145, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128-4629. To arrange an appointment time, contact Randall R. Greene via telephone (918581-6430 ext. 270) or email (rgreene@osmre.gov). The reports and PA are also available at the OSMRE Oversight Documents website at http://odocs.osmre.gov/. Adobe Acrobat Reader® is needed to view these documents. Acrobat Reader® is free and can be downloaded at http://get.adobe.com/reader/. Follow these steps to gain access to the document of interest: Select “Oklahoma” from the drop down box labeled “State”. Select “2014” or “2015” as the “Evaluation Year”, and then click “Submit”. Select “View” for the document that is of interest and the report will appear for viewing, saving, and/or printing The search can be narrowed by choosing selections under the “Keyword” or “Category” headings. The oversight documents and reports matching the selected state and evaluation year will appear at the bottom of the page. The Oklahoma authorities that also maintain these reports are: Oklahoma Department of Mines, 2915 N. Classen Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73106 and Oklahoma Conservation Commission, AML Reclamation Program, 2800 North Lincoln Blvd., Suite 160, Oklahoma City, 1 Page OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Oklahoma 73105. The following abbreviations and acronyms are used in this report: AML AOC CC eAMLIS EY FTE FY IUL MCR NOV NTTP OAC OCC ODM OHA OMC OSI OSMRE Secretary SMCRA TDN TFO TIPS Abandoned Mine Land Approximate Original Contour Citizen Complaint Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (electronic database) Evaluation Year Full-Time Equivalent Fiscal Year Inspectable Unit List OSMRE Mid-Continent Regional Office Notice of Violation National Technical Training Program Oklahoma Administrative Code Oklahoma Conservation Commission Oklahoma Department of Mines Office of Hearings and Appeals Oklahoma Mining Commission Off-Site Impacts Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 Ten-Day Notice Tulsa Field Office Technical Innovation and Professional Services 2 Page OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior OVERVIEW OF COAL MINING INDUSTRY IN OKLAHOMA Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel in the world. The United States holds the world’s largest estimated recoverable reserves of coal at approximately 27 percent. Based on current production levels, the United States has enough estimated recoverable reserves of coal to last more than 200 years. Coal is classified into four main types or ranks (anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite), depending on the amounts and types of carbon it contains and on the amount of heat energy it can produce. Oklahoma has approximately 1.6 billion tons or 0.3 percent of the nation’s recoverable reserves of bituminous coal. The coal-bearing strata in Oklahoma are located in the eastern portion of the State. The coal is bituminous and is Middle and Late Pennsylvanian in age. About 8,000 square miles in Oklahoma have coal-bearing strata that are considered to be of commercial value with seams ranging from 10 inches to 8 feet thick. Between calendar years 2007 and 2010, coal production in Oklahoma declined considerably. Production rose slightly in 2011 and remained close to the same level in 2013 (see Figure 1 below). The 2014 production total was 0.927 million tons, with 0.4 million tons of the production from underground mines. For 2015 production dropped to 0.796 million tons, with 0.407 million tons of the production from underground mines. Six permits were producing coal at the end of EY 2014 and EY 2015. One of the six producing permits is an underground mine and the remaining five are area surface mines. At the end of EY 2014, Oklahoma had 58 permits that included approximately 22,067 acres; whereas Oklahoma had 57 permits with 22,195 acres of land under permit at the end of EY 2015. Coal Production Tonnage (in millions) II. 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Calendar Year Figure 1 Oklahoma Coal Production from 2004 through 2015 3 Page OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior III. OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND OUTREACH EFFORTS The term “public” includes all stakeholders (i.e., citizenry at large, environmental groups, industry, and federal, state or local agencies). OSMRE’s Directive on Oversight of State Programs (REG-8) states that public participation is an integral part of the implementation of an approved state program. The oversight guidance in REG-8 calls for evaluating the state’s performance on public participation and customer service annually. Opportunities for public participation occur at significant points in the Oklahoma regulatory program and involve the ability of the public to: Request that areas be designated as unsuitable for mining; Receive notification by advertisement of permit application receipt; Review permit and revision applications; Contest the decision of ODM on permit applications and revisions; Request an inspection of a mine site; Submit blasting, groundwater well and/or general permit complaints if a stakeholder believes a violation of regulations is taking place; Object to proposed bond releases; Initiate civil suits; Petition to initiate rulemaking. Each year, OSMRE contacts interested parties such as watershed groups, environmental organizations, industry representatives, private citizens, and government agencies to solicit input into OSMRE’s oversight process. Through the oversight process, OSMRE performs studies of the state coal mine regulatory program administered by ODM, to determine if the agency is adhering to its approved state mining regulations and internal operating procedures. The purpose of oversight is to identify problem areas, document the success of the state program, and to provide assistance in areas where improvement is needed. Any interested party may make a request to the TFO to be added to an email list that was developed and maintained by the TFO. OSMRE uses this list to contact interested stakeholders when the agency begins the process of developing the annual Performance Agreements with the state. The Oklahoma AML program also provides opportunities for public participation and the AML program staff interacts with local associations, citizens, environmental organizations, and other groups to: Determine areas of concern and receive suggestions relative to AML reclamation; Provide timely information about OSMRE activities to interested groups. The public can access OSMRE annual reports and Performance Agreements via the internet for Oklahoma’s AML and regulatory programs at the OSMRE Oversight Documents website at http://odocs.osmre.gov/. The introduction section of the report (page 5) details how to access information using this website. The Oklahoma regulatory program web site can be accessed via the internet at: http://www.ok.gov/mines/Coal_Program/index.html. 4 Page OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Title V Regulatory Program ODM regulations provide for public input into the state regulatory process in several ways. Citizens may comment on or object to permit applications, significant revisions, changes to the state program regulations, and proposed bond releases. They may also file complaints on mining and reclamation operations and participate in "Citizen Complaint" inspections. Also, ODM inspectors invite landowners to participate in pre-permit inspections where they can review the permit application with a State inspector to identify future permanent pond locations, planting mixtures, and other proposed postmining land-use information. Landowners are also invited to participate in Phase I, II and III bond release inspections. In addition, the Oklahoma Mining Commission (OMC) holds six regular meetings throughout the year, and can call special sessions if necessary. It was created by Title 45 Oklahoma Statutes, Section 45-1 and is a public body subject to the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act as described in Title 25 Oklahoma Statutes, Sections 301 – 314. The OMC Meetings are open to the public and the meeting dates are on ODM's website. The meetings are a forum for Mining Commissioners to discuss current coal and non-coal program issues, to receive comments from the public, government agencies, and the mining industry and to provide advice and direction to the ODM Director. The ODM staff was involved in several student outreach and public information presentations during EY 2014. ODM staff participated in Sciencefest at the Oklahoma City Zoo where they presented a hands-on demonstration of seismographs, and explained how seismographs are used to monitor blasting associated with mining. Sciencefest was attended by several thousand fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-graders. ODM employees also made one-day presentations at the Tahlequah Rock & Mineral Show and at the Sparrow Hawk Camp, both of which are located in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. ODM provided the public and other state agencies with information on its mission and services at the Water Appreciation Day and the Aggregate Industry Day in the Oklahoma State Capitol. At the beginning of EY 2015, in response to a negative public perception of the department, ODM took the initiative to enhance its public outreach program. To overcome this perception ODM listed a number of goals to achieve, and then took action to reach those goals. ODM’s goals are to: Increase public awareness and understanding of Oklahoma coal mining; Explain and where possible, streamline the citizen complaint process; Increase opportunities for public input and ask questions; Ensure that the public knows who regulates coal mining in Oklahoma, and how to contact ODM; Increase awareness of ODM’s website. To reach these goals ODM is producing flyers, brochures and rack cards to utilize the use of printed media, covering a variety of coal mining related subjects, the coal 5 Page OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior permitting process, reclamation and bond release activities, and both the citizen complaint and informal conference processes. ODM is also using this approach to raise awareness of their web site and the information available to the public through the site. As an added part of the permitting process, ODM has instituted a practice of holding prepermit public meetings, along with the pre-permit inspections, where the public can voice concerns and ask questions about permitting and mine reclamation. These public meetings are to be hosted by, and under the direction of, ODM. The applicant, usually the mine operator, will be required to make a presentation on the proposed mine. Staff from ODM will be available to answer questions, and address concerns as they are raised. Title IV Abandoned Mine Land Program Each public notice of an AML project in Oklahoma includes an invitation for members of the public to provide input on the need for the proposed project, how the proposed project should be carried out, what the post reclamation use of the land should be, and suggestions of other possible coal-related sites in Oklahoma that may be candidates for reclamation. Public notices are placed in a newspaper local to the project site. In addition, OCC has a website that contains information such as: AML Background Information Project Selection Emergency Program Achievements and Highlights Coal Regions Hazards Oklahoma's Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program (brochure) The OCC website provides the public with immediate information regarding the state’s AML program. The link to the OCC website is as follows: http://www.ok.gov/conservation/Agency_Divisions/Abandoned_Mine_Land_Rec lamation_Division/index.html. IV. MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND INNOVATIONS This year marks the 28th and 29th anniversaries of Oklahoma receiving full approval of its permanent regulatory program and the 32nd and 33rd anniversaries of the AML program approval from the Secretary. Both programs have helped to protect the public and minimize environmental impacts from coal mining within Oklahoma. Over the past two years, OSMRE has monitored ODM’s and OCC’s performance in meeting the goals and objectives of the approved state programs. The Oklahoma regulatory program has maintained a presence in the coal fields that has helped to minimize the adverse impacts of surface coal mining operations. OCC’s reclamation of 6 Page OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior AML emergencies and routine AML projects has resulted in the successful implementation of the AML program. OSMRE looks forward to working cooperatively with both ODM and OCC during the next evaluation year. Major accomplishments and innovations for this year include: A Title V Regulatory Program During EY 2014, Oklahoma approved one new exploration permit and one new surface coal mining permit. These permits added 898 acres to the acreage permitted by ODM for mining activity. Sixteen permit revisions and two incidental boundary revisions to existing permits were also approved. The permit revisions and incidental boundary revisions increased permitted areas by 39 acres (EY 2014 - Table 4). Phase I bond releases in EY 2014, were approved on 451 acres, Phase II bond releases were approved on 367 acres, and Phase III releases were approved on 518 acres – totaling 1,336 acres of bond and liability releases during (EY 2014- Table 6). During EY 2015, Oklahoma approved only one new exploration permit. This permit only added 49 acres to the acreage permitted by ODM for mining activity. Three incidental boundary revisions to existing permits were also approved. The permit revisions and incidental boundary revisions increased permitted areas by 210.3 acres (EY 2015 - Table 4). Phase I bond releases were approved on 160.1acres, Phase II bond releases were approved on 464.3 acres, and Phase III releases were approved on 32.1 acres – totaling 656.5 acres of bond and liability releases during the evaluation year (EY 2015 - Table 6). There were two permits that did a multi-phase bond release. This is where the permittee applies for Phase I, Phase II, Phase III Bond Release, or a combination thereof on the same acreage, at the same time; thereby, the same amount of acreage can be counted more than once. This is the reason for the difference between the figure of 656.5 mentioned above, and the figure of 518 shown below. In the past seven years ODM has approved for all three phases of bond and liability releases on the following acreage: 2,461 acres in EY 2009; 2,287 acres in EY 2010; 1,448 acres in EY 2011; 1,115 acres in EY 2012; 2,726 acres in EY 2013; 1,336 acres in EY 2014; 518 acres in EY 2015. 7 Page OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior ODM’s inspection and enforcement division continued to operate under an organization whereby coal inspectors also perform inspections of non-coal mines and conduct safety inspections on both coal and non-coal mining operations. In EY 2014, ODM operated with a Federal grant of $1,260,918.00, which covered the cost of 62 percent of Oklahoma’s regulatory program, and with a staff of 20.15 full-time equivalents (FTE). For EY 2015, ODM operated with a Federal grant of $1,161,039.00, which covered the cost of 71 percent of Oklahoma’s regulatory program, and with a staff of 19.8 FTE’s. B Title IV Abandoned Mine Land Program Overall, during EY 2014, OCC was successful in implementing its AML program. In EY 2014, OCC operated with a grant of $2,784,000 and a total staff of 6.60 FTE’s. In EY 2015, OCC operated with a grant of $2,781,000 and a total staff of 7.23 FTE’s. AML project selection is based on a system that considers protection of the public health, safety and property from dangers of the adverse effects of past coal mining practices. OCC solicited citizen input for projects selected for construction. V. SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING THE PURPOSES OF SMCRA Title V Regulatory Program To further the concept of reporting end-results and on-the-ground success, the findings from performance reviews and public participation evaluations are collected by OSMRE for a national perspective on the number and extent of observed off-site impacts, the number of acres that have been mined and reclaimed to meet bond release requirements for the various phases of reclamation, and the effectiveness of customer service provided by the state. Individual topic-specific reports that provide additional details on how the following evaluations and measurements were conducted are available at the TFO or online at: http://odocs.osmre.gov/ A. Off-Site Impacts There were a reported 14 OSI’s observed by either ODM or OSMRE on 8 of the active inspectable units; in other words, 21 of the 29 active inspectable units, or 72 percent of the inspectable units were free from OSI’s during EY 2014. This is a decline from the 85 percent of active inspectable units that were reported as free of OSI’s in EY 2013. However, ODM failed to recognize and report an OSI that was identified and observed by an OSMRE authorized representative in the fourth quarter of EY2014. Therefore, only 20, not 21 of the 29 active inspectable units were free from OSI. This drops the percentage from 72 to 69; a greater decline than originally reported. In EY 2015, there 8 Page OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior were 4 OSI’s observed by either ODM or OSMRE representatives at two of the 33 permits listed on the IUL. This calculates to 94 percent of the permits were free of OSI’s. Active IUs Free of OSIs (EY 2008 - EY 2015) 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% EY2008 EY2009 EY20010 EY2011 EY2012 EY2013 EY2014 EY2015 Figure 2 – Active Inspectable Units Free of Off Site Impacts This is an improvement over the 72 percent of active inspectable units that were reported as free of OSI’s in EY 2014. Graphic representations of the changes in OSI occurrences over the past eight years are shown in Figures 2 above, and Figure 3 below. 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% ABANDONED ACTIVE COMBINED AVERAGE Figure 3 – Inspectable Units Free of Off-Site Impacts The number of OSI’s identified during the last four years is not indicative of a pattern either in the number of violations or the number of impacts. The cyclical increases and decreases in OSI’s is common in a state with a small number of inspectable units like 9 Page OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Oklahoma. The percentage of permits free of OSI’s is easily skewed by events such as a sudden change in weather patterns such as a tropical depression that negatively affects hydrologic impacts. Therefore, the increases and decreases in the number of permits free of OSI’s are fairly minor. ODM has improved its reporting of OSI’s. The distribution of OSI’s on active permits is as follows for EY 2014: 49 percent of impacts were related to land disturbances; 44 percent of impacts were related to hydrology; 7 percent of impacts were related to human activity. In EY 2015, it can easily be seen how weather patterns can skew the percentages, when compared to the previous year. The distribution of OSI’s on active permits is as follows for EY 2015: 50 percent of impacts were related to hydrology; 25 percent of impacts were related to land disturbances; 25 percent of impacts were related to human activity. It is evident that an increase in precipitation can contribute to an increase in the number of hydrological impacts on all active permits. The majority of the OSI’s, including those related to land disturbances, involve surface water hydrology. The cause of these impacts is usually poor maintenance or poor construction of drainage control structures. These occurrences have been documented in many inspection reports by ODM and OSMRE inspectors. The implementation of effective measures to reduce hydrologic violations such as erosion and sediment control would prevent an array of OSI’s. In EY 2014 and EY 2015, ODM reported that 89 percent, and 88 percent respectively, of abandoned/bond-forfeiture inspectable units were free of off-site impacts. For either year, this represents no change from EY 2013. For EY 2014, two of the OSI’s were related to surface water hydrology, while the other two impacts resulted from instability of land due to unabated erosion. This holds true for the number of OSI’s in EY 2015 as well. OSMRE has provided ODM with documentation since the mid-1990’s that the lack of funds to complete reclamation of abandoned/bond-forfeiture permits is the cause of these long-standing OSI’s. To reduce or eliminate these ongoing OSI’s on abandoned permits, ODM should use the mechanisms available to each state program to abate outstanding violations. For example, ODM can work with the OCC to abate violations on Title V permits that qualify for AML funds. ODM can also apply to OSMRE for civil penalty funds to abate violations on abandoned permits and can follow the statutory and regulatory mechanisms of the Oklahoma program to seek reclamation of abandoned mine sites using alternative enforcement actions. 10 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Off-Site Impacts - EY 2014 Hydrologic major impact Hydrologic minor impact Land Stability major impact Land Stability minor impact Encroachment moderate impact Encroachment minor impact Other moderate impact Figure 4a- EY 2014 Off-Site Impacts In all, there were 18 OSI’s at 11 inspectable units on abandoned/bond-forfeiture sites and on active/bonded sites in EY 2014 (EY 2014 - Table 5). In EY 2015, there were seven OSI’s at 11 inspectable units that were either abandoned, bond forfeited or an active/bonded site (EY 2015 - Table 5). The nature of these occurrences for both evaluation years is summarized in the pie charts labeled Figure 4a-EY 2014 above (see page 11), and Figure 4b-EY 2015 below (see page 12). Among the 55 inspectable units for EY 2014, 80 percent were free of observed OSI’s. These results are a decline from EY 2013 when 85 percent of all Oklahoma inspectable units were free of impacts. In EY 2015, as compared to EY 2014, 91 percent of the 57 permits on the inspectable units list were free of OSI’s. This is an increase over EY 2014 when 80% of inspectable units were free of OSI’s. In EY 2011, ODM began using OSI information reporting forms. In EY 2014 and EY 2015, ODM provided these forms to OSMRE for inspections where OSI’s were observed. ODM completed and attached the OSI information forms to the corresponding inspection reports or notice of violation. ODM’s use of these forms has improved the process of reporting and reviewing OSI’s in Oklahoma. 11 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior A yearly review of OSI’s is one of OSMRE’s means of measuring the success of regulatory programs. Overall, OSMRE found that Oklahoma was successful in preventing OSI’s on most permits in EY 2014 and EY 2015. OSMRE recommends that ODM consider the cause of each OSI with the intent of determining if there is some action the state and or permittees can take to prevent future OSI’s. To reduce the number of OSI’s that have been ongoing from bond-forfeited permits for multiple years, ODM should make a concerted effort to obtain funds to complete reclamation of mine sites through alternative enforcement actions, where appropriate, or through some other means. Figure 4b - EY 2015 Off-Site Impacts A. Reclamation Success Reclamation Success in EY2014 The number of acres that are approved for Phase I, II, and III bond releases is one of OSMRE’s annual measures of state program effectiveness. This section lists data on bond releases approved during EY 2014 and EY 2015. ODM’s general requirements for the various phases of bond release are as follows: 12 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior At Phase I bond release, backfilling, grading, drainage control, and achieving Approximate Original Contour (AOC) have been completed. Topsoil or an approved alternative rooting medium may or may not be replaced. If significant quantities of topsoil are not replaced before application for a Phase I release, then ODM may recalculate the bond considering the topsoil that remains to be distributed on disturbed areas. All temporary structures, non-coal waste, temporary facilities, except temporary drainage control structures, are removed. At Phase II bond release, surface stability has been achieved and all topsoil that was not distributed during Phase I must be distributed before the Phase II release. The disturbed areas must be planted and successful vegetation standards must be attained. All drainage control structures and impoundments must be functioning as designed. Phase III bond release is the final step in the reclamation process with implementation of the post mining land use, return of vegetation productivity and restoration of surface- and ground-water hydrology. OSMRE generally evaluates state program effectiveness in four areas: Backfilling and grading is measured by the number of acres approved for Phase I bond releases. AOC is often reviewed during Phase I releases but can be reviewed during any of the phased bond releases when backfilling and grading have not been completed. Land capability is measured by the number of acres approved for Phase II and Phase III bond releases. Hydrologic reclamation is measured by the number of acres approved for Phase III bond releases. Contemporaneous reclamation is considered when evaluating the timeliness of Phase I, II, and III bond releases. Oklahoma acres approved for bond release during EY 2014 by phase are as follows: Phase I 197.6 Phase II 218.1 Phase III 518 The TFO did not participate in any ODM bond release inspections in EY 2014 or in EY 2015. At the beginning of the EY 2014, Oklahoma had 21,718 acres under permit. For EY 2014, ODM mistakenly reported the acreage as “Acres bonded for disturbance” instead of “under permit” (see Appendix 1 Part A, Data for States and Tribes, Table 6 EY 2014). Prior to the start of EY 2015, ODM had only kept track of current acres under 13 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior permit, and acres disturbed. It was not; until the start of EY 2015 that ODM started to track “Acres bonded for disturbance” as a separate category. At the conclusion of the evaluation period, there were 22,064 acres under permit. Based on the numbers of acres released for Phase I, II, and III, OSMRE concluded: Land Form/AOC During EY 2014, 451 acres were approved for Phase I releases. This is significantly less than the 937 newly bonded acres added during the same period. This limited comparison indicates that the number of bonded acres that is being added to permits is greater than the number of acres that is being backfilled and graded. However, during the previous two evaluation periods, more acres received Phase I releases than were added through new permitting actions. Backfilling and grading and AOC are interwoven throughout Oklahoma’s statute and regulations. The AOC requirements are contained in the backfilling and grading regulations. Backfilling and grading involves how a coal operator grades or reclaims the soils that were removed to access the coal seam. AOC is the surface configuration achieved by backfilling and grading of the mined area so that the final reclamation closely resembles the general surface configuration of the land prior to any mining. To determine if the regulations for backfilling and grading/AOC were being implemented in Oklahoma, OSMRE conducted an AOC review during the EY 2010 evaluation period and followed-up on that review through the end of this evaluation period. Since approximately 1988, OSMRE has had concerns about ODM’s effectiveness in implementing its program to achieve approximate pre-mining land forms that are in compliance with the Oklahoma statute and regulations. The AOC violations that have been identified in Oklahoma are being addressed through Ten Day Notices (TDN’s) issued to ODM, Federal Notices of Violation, appeals to the Office of Hearings and Appeals, meetings with ODM staff and management, and programmatically through an Action Plan OSMRE implemented in June 2012. Land Capability There were 367 acres approved for Phase II release and 518 acres for Phase III bond release during the evaluation period. ODM reported 937 newly bonded acres on coal mining permits in EY 2014. The greater number of newly bonded acres compared to acres approved for Phase II and Phase III bond releases suggests that land capability is being restored more slowly through reclamation than land that is being disturbed through mining activities. Hydrologic Reclamation There were 518 acres approved for Phase III bond release in EY 2013. The rate that hydrologic function was being restored compared to land disturbed by coal mining and reclamation activities was slower than the rate that the hydrologic function was being disturbed through mining and reclamation activities. 14 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Contemporaneous Reclamation Operators are required to reclaim contemporaneously with mining operations and to reclaim in accordance with a schedule that has been approved in the permit application package. A permittee’s compliance with the reclamation schedule is used by both the regulatory authority and the permittee to gauge contemporaneous reclamation throughout the life of the permit. Oklahoma permittees generally reclaim contemporaneously with mining operations; however, some mines that are in temporary cessation of operations have been unreclaimed for many years. Reclamation Success in EY2015 At the beginning of EY 2015, Oklahoma started to track the amount of acreage “bonded for disturbance” as a separate category on their IUL. ODM started EY 2015 with 10,036 acres bonded for disturbance. At the conclusion of the evaluation period there were 10,214 acres bonded for disturbance. The total of Oklahoma bonded acres reported as approved for bond release in EY 2015 by phase are listed below: Phase I Phase II Phase III 160.1 acres 464.3 acres 32.1 acres Based on the numbers of acres released for Phase I, II, and III, OSMRE it is concluded: Land Form/AOC ODM’s approval of Phase I Bond Release of 160.1 acres compared to the increase of 210 acres bonded for disturbance indicates that land form restoration is at a rate less than a 1:1 ratio. This also indicates that land is being restored to AOC at a rate that is 24 percent less than the addition of new acreage bonded for disturbance. In Oklahoma, reclaiming disturbed acres to AOC has been an issue of contention between OSMRE and ODM several times since 1993. A review by OSMRE in EY 2010 raised concerns about ODM’s effectiveness in implementing its program to achieve AOC on reclaimed areas. The dispute over AOC has resulted in OSMRE issuing three Ten-day notices, plus three Federal Notice of Violations, and litigation on these actions are ongoing. It is from these open and ongoing discussions that ODM and OSMRE were able to create an action plan that both parties signed on April 23, 2015. ODM and OSMRE continue to move forward and implement all parts of the AOC Action Plan, but there is more that needs to be accomplished. 15 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Land Capability Comparing the approval of 464.3 acres for Phase II bond release, and 32.1 acres for Phase III Bond Release to the addition of another 210 acres bonded for disturbance shows that progress is being made in achieving reclamation and restoring land capability. This progress also reveals that the Phase II and Phase III Bond Release of acreage compared to the increase of acreage bonded for disturbance is at a 2:1 ratio. In spite of the continuing drought cycle in Oklahoma, satisfactory re-vegetation at various levels of maturity was noted by ODM in the reports on bond release inspections. Hydrologic Reclamation In EY 2015, ODM’s approved final release of bond for 32.1 acres shows that hydrologic balance and hydrologic reclamation were successfully obtained. However, the release of 32.1 bonded acres compared to the addition of 210 acres newly bonded for disturbance in EY 2015 indicates hydrologic balance is being restored at a rate that is 85 percent less than the addition of new acreage to the inventory bonded for disturbance. Compared to previous evaluation years, this negative rate of 85 percent in EY 2015 is more the exception than the norm. Contemporaneous Reclamation An operator is required to contemporaneously reclaim areas as the mining operations progresses and in accordance with a schedule that is in the approved permit. However, once reclamation has been achieved for an area of the mine, there frequently are few incentives for the operator to apply for bond release. Due to the lack of State or Federal regulations that tie contemporaneous reclamation to Phase I, II, or III bond releases, there are few conclusions that can be made regarding how contemporaneous reclamation relates to bond releases. Operators often keep their permits and bonding increments in compliance with the State statutes and regulations while postponing bond releases for several years after an area qualifies for release. B. Customer Service Evaluation Year 2014 The topic of Customer Service is a national concern. OSMRE evaluated ODM’s interagency coordination, as required by Oklahoma’s statute and regulations. Interagency coordination encompasses communication between the permittee, ODM, local, state and federal government agencies regarding permitting activity. OSMRE reviewed permit files maintained by OSMRE and reviewed files located at ODM’s Wagoner Field office. These files documented EY 2014 coordination activity related to new permit, permit renewal permit transfer and bond release applications. ODM approved one new coal mining permit, one exploration permit, four permit renewals, 16 permit revisions, and two incidental boundary permit revisions in EY 2014. OSMRE found that appropriate public notices and comments from landowners and 16 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior government entities were generally available. ODM has proof of public notifications on file, along with copies of letters to landowners and government agencies, in accordance with the State regulations. Necessary approvals from county commissioners and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were reviewed. For a bond release application, an announcement of the application and the required field inspection are to be advertised in a newspaper for public notification. Also, individual letters are to be sent to surface land owners of the permit area proposed for release, adjoining property owners, local government bodies, planning agencies, and sewage- and water-treatment authorities notifying them of the request for bond release. ODM’s records showed that notifications of bond release applications and the departmental decision by ODM were sent to the appropriate parties. Notarized statements certifying that reclamation has been accomplished were reviewed. For permit renewals, the applicant is required to submit a complete application to ODM 120 days before the end of the permit term. The application must include proof of advertisement that provided opportunity for public comment. OSMRE reviewed files for four approved permit renewals. The files included complete applications and records of ODM sending notices of the applications to the appropriate entities as required by the State regulations. ODM sent notices of renewed permits to the required parties after approving the renewal applications. OSMRE determined that ODM’s efforts to achieve interagency coordination are satisfactory and meet the requirements of the State regulations. Notifications to the public and to necessary government agencies are conducted in a timely manner. Evaluation Year 2015 For this evaluation year OSMRE evaluation of ODM’s customer service focused on their handling of a citizen’s request for a State Inspection, or commonly known as Citizen Complaint (CC). The OAC outlines the rights of a person who may request a State inspection by furnishing a signed, written statement giving ODM a reason to believe that a violation exists. These rights are available to any person filing a CC and include a provision that the identity of a complainant shall remain confidential with the ODM, if requested. The citizen has the right to accompany ODM’s authorized representative during the inspection; the right to request a review of adequacy and completeness of the inspection; and the right to request a review of a decision not to inspect or enforce should ODM’s authorized representative decline to do so. In other words, the complainant can request a review of the action, or inaction, taken. Furthermore the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) stipulates that ODM shall respond to the complainant within a specified time period whether an inspection is, or is not conducted. For EY 2015, ODM reported seven citizen complaints; four of which were written, and the remaining three were submitted orally. ODM chooses to service oral complaints in a 17 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior manner that is above and beyond that required by the approved State program. In essence, ODM handles an oral complaint as if it were a written complaint. One of the four complaints was submitted as a bond release objection; however, since the bond objection is being handled by ODM’s legal department and is involved in legal proceedings; it was not reviewed by OSMRE for the EY 2015 annual review. ODM responded within ten days, as required, for two of the three written complaints where an inspection was conducted. For all three complaints, ODM notified each complainant of their decision to take, or not to take enforcement action. A violation did exist at one permitted site. ODM informed all complainants that their complaints were closed and informed the complainants of their right to appeal ODM’s decision. However, due to the number and timing of inspections and observations made by the State inspector to close one CC, the process took 67 days to complete. Three reviewed oral complaints were made to ODM during EY 2015. The first complaint alleged fugitive dust and excessive equipment noise, specifically mobile equipment backing-up beepers. The second complaint alleged water running off the permit area and damaging crops. The third complaint alleged excessive blasting. ODM completed its review on all three oral complaints during the EY 2015. No NOVs were issued as the result of the complaints. Two violations were identified at one mine site. Since both of the violations were abated during the inspection and the surface drainage leaving the permitted area was in compliance with effluent limits, the State inspector did not take any enforcement action. Even though no enforcement action was taken, ODM identified one violation as an off-site impact. All of the oral complaints were responded to in a timely manner. ODM should continue to implement the established policy of handling oral citizens’ complaints in the same manner as written complaints. ODM should also develop the means to document that it has informed all complainants of their rights as outlined in the OAC. Title IV Abandoned Mine Lands Since the Oklahoma AML program began in 1981, OCC has spent $34,739,506 reclaiming priority 1 and 2 AML hazards in the State. Figures 5 – 7 below give a graphical representation of OCC’s AML program and accomplishments over the past ten years. Currently OCC has an inventory of AML hazards that will require approximately $135,228,918 to reclaim. Evaluation Year 2014 OCC began work on one project addressing hazards from abandoned surface coal mining operations. The project will eliminate approximately 3,800 linear feet of dangerous highwall, two hazardous water bodies and approximately 75 acres of spoil. 18 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Full Time Employees (FTE's) 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 11.2 9 9 9 11.2 11.2 9 8 7.23 6.6 FTE's 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Evaluation Year Figure 5: Number of Full Time Employees OCC completed construction on two projects that eliminated 1,320 linear feet of dangerous highwall, one hazardous water body, two portals, one vertical opening, and 0.7 acre of subsidence and 19.1 acres of spoil. OCC also responded to three emergency complaints that addressed sinkholes on private property. After OCC conducted the necessary investigations and exploratory drilling, it determined that one of the sinkholes was not coal related. AML Emergency Projects 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 7 7 5 5 4 3 3 3 2 Emergency Projects 1 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Evaluation Year Figure 6: Number of AML Emergency Projects 19 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Completed AML Projects 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 Completed Projects 1 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Evaluation Year Figure 7: Number of Completed AML Projects Evaluation Year 2015 OCC completed construction on one project that eliminated 4,600 linear feet of dangerous highwall, one hazardous water body, and 0.5 acres of industrial/residential waste and 93.6 acres of spoil. OCC also completed to three emergency complaints that addressed subsidence and vertical openings on private property. For each project OCC followed standard construction practices using State contracting procedures. VI. NATIONAL PRIORITY AND GENERAL OVERSIGHT TOPIC REVIEWS National priority reviews and general oversight topic reviews can be located and reviewed at OSMRE’s website as listed in the Introduction (page 1) of this report. Individual reports prepared by OSMRE are part of the oversight process of each state and contain findings and details regarding the evaluation of specific elements of the state program. A. National Priority Reviews National Priority Reviews are oversight topics selected by OSMRE to review nationwide. There were no new National Priority Reviews during the 2014 evaluation period. During EY 2010, OSMRE conducted National Priority Reviews of Approximate Original Contour and State Calculations of Bond Amounts. Both of the National Priority Review reports were finalized in EY 2010, but problems identified in both reviews have carried over into EY 2014 and EY 2015. 20 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Approximate Original Contour During the 2010 National Priority Review, OSMRE evaluated ODM’s implementation of its approved program requirements for AOC where active surface coal mining is taking place. OSMRE and ODM have agreed to the definition of AOC but have not agreed on how to interpret the definition. The AOC review involved three aspects of the State program: 1. Compliance with permitting requirements for AOC and documentation of the permitting process, 2. Compliance with the performance standards for AOC on-the-ground, 3. Field verification that backfilling and grading was in compliance with the approved plan. These three aspects were used to determine if a mine site’s final reclaimed configuration achieved AOC, as defined by the State statute and regulations, and if backfilling and grading were completed in accordance with a plan permitted by ODM. OSMRE reviewed permitting documentation for five mines, looking at pre-mining and postmining topography, drainage, and slope. OSMRE found that permitting documentation for three of the five mines reviewed did not meet the AOC requirements of the State’s approved program. ODM’s initial reviews of permit application packages indicated that it is capable of evaluating permit documents to ensure AOC. However, there was a breakdown in ODM’s permitting processes when, in two of the three cases, the permittee did not follow the approved mining and reclamation plans and ODM allowed the permittee to continue mining while revisions that did not meet AOC requirements were reviewed and approved. Allowing operators to implement mining plans that the regulatory authority has not approved has resulted in reclaimed topographic configurations that do not approximate the topography prior to any mining and also circumvents the public participation process as required by the Oklahoma regulations. The reclamation plan for the third mine did not meet the permitting or performance standard requirements of the Oklahoma statute and regulations for AOC in the original permit application package. The mines identified by OSMRE as not meeting the State’s statutory and regulatory requirements for AOC will require additional earthmoving to restore the disturbed areas to AOC. Substantial spoil is available and adjacent to the final pits. The final report for the 2010 National Priority Review on AOC reported the following: “The pattern of AOC deficiencies described in this oversight report indicates a critical need for the State to reassess both its permitting and onground implementation of AOC determinations. In accordance with OAC 460:20-43-38 and associated statutes and regulations, the permittee needs to comply with all requirements for AOC. In order to determine compliance, the State needs to develop procedures, processes, and 21 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior guidance that will allow for reproducible and consistent interpretations of AOC. This includes the permitting and inspection processes.” OSMRE has conducted follow-up reviews since EY 2010 that consist primarily of working with ODM to resolve AOC issues raised by the 2010 National Priority Review and to implement an AOC Action Plan that was established on June 26, 2012. ODM indicated it was open to discussing ways to improve future AOC permitting decisions, but would not take actions to correct existing AOC violations on permits with backfilling and grading plans, which ODM approved, that do not comply with AOC requirements. The TFO has issued TDNs on three permits identified in the National Priority Review that violated Oklahoma’s permitting and performance standards regulations relative to AOC. The TFO determined ODM’s responses to the three TDNs were inappropriate and ODM requested an informal review of the TFO’s determinations. The TFO’s TDNs were upheld by the OSMRE Mid-Continent Regional Director and three Federal Notices of Violation have been issued. After those NOVs were issued, the permittee requested administrative review for each NOV. Hearings before administrative law judges on all three reviews were conducted over several months in 2012, 2013 and 2014. The hearings for all three of the administrative appeals of the NOVs concluded before the end of EY 2014.Decisions for two of the cases were handed down in September and December of 2014. Both of these decisions were appealed to the IBLA by OSMRE. A decision on the third case was rendered in OSMRE’s favor after the end of EY 2015. The individual cases are discussed in greater detail in section VII – Problems and Issues, subpart B – Department of Interior Litigation. OSMRE acknowledges that ODM does not agree with all the 2010 National Priority Review findings and the State’s position is detailed in its August 2010 response to the EY 2010 National Priority Review on AOC. OSMRE’s position is that the findings of the 2010 National Priority Review are based on a review of permitting documents and field conditions and that the problems noted with ODM’s implementation of its approved regulatory program are real and significant. Per OSMRE Directive REG-23, OSMRE consulted with ODM in the development of a proposed Action Plan in EY 2011 and EY 2012 for resolving outstanding issues identified during the EY 2010 National Priority Review on AOC. However, ODM disagreed with the content of the AOC Action Plan and elected to not sign the Action Plan for which OSMRE and ODM had corresponded throughout 2011 and 2012. Therefore, OSMRE implemented the AOC Action Plan in June 2012. Additional correspondence regarding the Action Plan occurred during the 2013 and 2014 evaluation periods, but ODM again declined to sign the Action Plan contending that reclamation plans in permits amount to contracts with coal companies; therefore, ODM would not require revisions of existing permits or cite violations of permitting and performance standard regulations on existing permits. Finally in EY 2015, after continuous open communication between OSMRE and ODM, the Approximate Original Contour Action Plan OK-2015-001 was signed by both parties. 22 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 1. Calculation of Required Bond Amounts The EY 2010 National Priority Review Calculation of Required Bond Amounts report was finalized during the 2011 evaluation period. OSMRE is conducting an updated review of Oklahoma bonds and has carried that review through the 2015 evaluation period; with results projected to be reported in EY2016. The 2010 review involved an evaluation on the implementation of the approved Oklahoma program requirements for adequacy of reclamation bonds on active surface coal mines. Review of the bond amounts was conducted on a sample population of five permits. ODM reviews bonds on a periodic basis (i.e., mid-term reviews, renewals and major revisions) using updated costs in order to ensure that the amount of bond is adequate to cover increased reclamation costs. OSMRE determined that in most instances ODM satisfactorily accounts for indirect costs related to mobilization and demobilization of equipment, engineering activities, and third-party contractor profit and contingency factors. However, based on OSMRE’s bond calculations, the bond amounts held by ODM were not adequate at each of the five sites reviewed. ODM bond calculations ranged from 50 to 75 percent of OSMRE’s calculated bonds. For example, ODM’s bond amounts for an active underground portal and associated facilities was 74.6 percent of OSMRE’s calculated bond amount or $526,521 versus $705,520. Discrepancies between OSMRE and ODM calculations were primarily related to direct costs such as differences from using higher ownership and operating costs for the earthmoving equipment, water treatment, and sediment removal from ponds and facilities demolition and debris removal. The State does not have a methodology to provide other financial assurance in the event of unanticipated post-mining pollution discharges. A follow-up evaluation of ODM’s bond amounts commenced during EY 2014, and it was projected to conclude near the end of EY 2015; however, due to internal reviews at the local field office, regional office, and the Solicitor’s Office, the completion was delayed till EY2016. B. General Oversight Topic Reviews General Oversight Topic Reviews are conducted as specified in ODM’s and OCC’s respective Performance Agreement/Evaluation Plan. Detailed background information and comprehensive reports for the program elements evaluated during the period are available for review and copying at the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Tulsa Field Office and are available at the OSMRE Oversight Documents website (http://odocs.osmre.gov/). 23 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Title V Regulatory Program State Inspection Frequency ODM’s required inspection frequency is determined from the status of permits identified on its inspectable units list throughout the evaluation year. ODM regulations do not require monthly partial inspections on permits that have been released from Phase II bonding or on abandoned permits that meet the requirements of 30 CFR 840.11(g). In EY 2014, ODM had 26 abandoned permits, 1 inactive permit and 28 active permits as shown in the attached Table 10. ODM conducted a total of 515 inspections (226 complete and 289 partial inspections) on 55 permits, excluding exploratory permits that received 12 complete and 8 partial inspections. At the beginning of EY 2015, ODM listed 58 permits on its inspectable units list (IUL). These 58 permits include active, actively removing coal, in-reclamation (in-active), abandoned, and bond forfeited mine sites; however, only 55 operations required inspections. ODM issued one new permit during EY 2015 increasing the number of permits to 59 on its inspect-able units list; this total number of permits also includes 2 test burn sites, 3 Exploration sites. During EY 2015, there were 2 permits, one surface mine and one exploratory site, with an approved Phase III bond release totaling 32.1 acres. Therefore, after the Phase III bond release, 57 permits remained on the IUL at the close of EY 2015. ODM conducted a total of 535 inspections (240 complete and 295 partial inspections) on 57 permits, excluding exploratory permits that received 11 complete and 3 partial inspections. Oklahoma had one unpermitted site on which coal mining occurred that was identified by OSMRE in January 2014. ODM’s inspection conducted on this unpermitted site is included in the tally above and is shown in the attached Table 10. ODM did not meet the required inspection frequency for this site. The coal mining occurred in 2012 and was conducted by an Oklahoma company that is owned by an Oklahoma Mining Commissioner. The unpermitted mine site was created as a result of construction of a pond on private property when coal was encountered during excavation of the pond. Both State and Federal regulations require each active or inactive surface coal mining and reclamation operation under ODM’s jurisdiction to receive regulatory inspections in accordance with the frequency required by the State regulations. Also, in accordance with the definition of “Surface coal mining operations” at OAC 460:20-1-5, the unpermitted operation is regulated by both SMCRA and the Oklahoma Statute at Title 45; therefore, the inspection requirements of OAC 460:20-57-2 apply. Oklahoma’s regulation pertaining to inspection requirements does not differentiate between permitted and unpermitted mining operations. Since the unpermitted coal mine was identified by OSMRE in late January 2014, ODM should have conducted monthly inspections, starting in February 2014 for a total of five State inspections during EY 2014. However, ODM conducted one inspection in February 2014 and has not included the unpermitted mine on its inspectable units list. 24 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Partial Evaluation Inspections Year Required ODM Inspections Conducted Complete Partial Complete Inspections Inspections Inspections Required Total Inspections Required Yearly Total 2012 280 301 222 226 502 527 2013 224 287 216 227 440 514 2014 224 289 220 226 366 515 2015 300 298 230 251 530 549 Figure 8 – Oklahoma Inspection Frequency Overall, for EY 2014 and EY 2015, ODM exceeded its inspection frequency requirements for mine sites listed on its inspectable units list. ODM routinely exceeds the number of required inspections as shown in Figure 8 above. ODM exceeded the required inspection frequency by conducting complete and partial inspections on abandoned post-SMCRA and inactive permits, as well as, investigating citizen complaints and reviewing abatement actions for cited violations. Oversight Inspection Activity During EY 2014 and EY 2015, the TFO conducted oversight inspections in Oklahoma to evaluate the effectiveness of the State’s program in implementing its rules and regulations that specifically target performance standards required of mining operations. Information gathered from these inspections indicates how well the State program is ensuring environmental protection, reclamation success and prevention of off-site impacts. Figure 4 below shows the number and types of inspections conducted by the TFO. EY Complete Partial Random Focused Joint 2014 2015 0 2 4 23 0 0 4 14 0 7 NonJoint 4 18 Independent 0 0 Total Inspections 4 25 Figure 9 – Oklahoma Oversight Inspection Activity In order to maximize the efficient use of the TFO’s resources, all OSMRE inspections were focused, meaning the sites were specifically selected. This approach allowed inspectors to target their efforts as effectively as possible. 25 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior For independent inspections, OSMRE selects the permits to inspect and schedules when the inspection will take place. Oklahoma is normally given the opportunity to accompany OSMRE on the independent inspections with short notice (generally less than 24 hours). If an Oklahoma inspector cannot accompany OSMRE on the inspection, OSMRE will conduct the oversight inspection without rescheduling. When Oklahoma does not accompany OSMRE on its inspection, OSMRE notifies the State of its inspection findings prior to completing the inspection report. Title IV Abandoned Mine Lands OSMRE’s oversight of State AML Programs serves to provide information, assistance, and feedback to States, and the public and to ensure the purposes and goals of the AML program are being responsibly, efficiently, and effectively met. The PA for EY 2014 and 2015 includes a review of OCC’s AML program. The purpose of the review is to determine if OCC is properly implementing is AML program. OSMRE found that projects selected for construction met eligibility requirements under the approved AML program and that OCC followed standard construction practices, using State-approved contracting procedures. OSMRE requires all AML contractors are entered into the Applicant Violator System (AVS) to determine if they have outstanding coal related violations. All AVS checks were completed on successful bidders prior to award of the contracts. OSMRE also requires that the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (eAMLIS) is updated to reflect the number of AML hazards that have been abated. OSMRE found that eAMLIS was updated for all of the emergency and non-emergency projects that were processed during EY 2014 and EY 2015. During EY 2014, two non-emergency AML projects and three emergency AML projects were completed; one non-emergency AML project was started, but not completed. During EY 2015, one non-emergency AML project and three emergency projects were completed; including the one that began at the end of EY 2014. The completed projects met the goals of the project designs. Also a review of projects completed during past evaluation years revealed that the project designs have resulted in projects that have demonstrated long-term success. VII. PROGRAM PROBLEMS AND ISSUES OSMRE has initiated a corrective action process that applies when problems are identified with a state’s approved regulatory program or when the state’s actions under that program, if left unaddressed, could result in a failure by the state to effectively implement, administer, enforce or maintain its approved regulatory program. 26 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Title V Regulatory Program A. Approximate Original Contour Action Plan OSMRE consulted with ODM in the development of a proposed Action Plan for resolving outstanding issues on AOC. However, ODM disagreed with the content of the AOC Action Plan and elected to not sign it. Therefore, OSMRE unilaterally implemented the AOC Action Plan in June 2012. Additional correspondence regarding the Action Plan continued into the 2014 evaluation period, but ODM again declined to sign the Action Plan. Finally in EY 2015, after continuous open communication between OSMRE and ODM, the Approximate Original Contour Action Plan OK-2015-001 was signed by both parties. B. Identifying and Citing Violations Ten Day Notices OSMRE issued six TDNs in Oklahoma containing ten violations during EY 2014. The TDNs were all the result of Citizen Complaints. For EY 2015, OSMRE issued only one TDN containing only one violation. This TDN, like those in the prior evaluation year, was the result of a Citizen Complaint. The outcome for one CC received in EY 2015, was still pending at the end of the EY 2015 evaluation period. All of the complaints are being processed by ODM and/or OSMRE through the TDN process. Evaluation Year Total TDNs Issued TDNs from Citizen Complaints TDNs - not Citizen Complaints Total TDN Violations TDN Violations from Citizen Complaints TDN Violationsnot Citizen Complaints 2012 7 3 4 24 8 16 2013 5 2 3 6 2 4 2014 6 6 0 7 7 0 2015 1 1 0 1 1 0 Figure 10 – Ten Day Notice Enforcement Action Federal Enforcement Actions The issuance of Federal NOVs in Oklahoma is not a common occurrence. Two Federal NOVs were issued in Oklahoma during EY 2012 and one Federal NOV was issued in EY 27 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 2014. All three Federal NOVs were issued for a failure to comply with the State’s permitting and performance standard regulations regarding approximate original contour. Those Federal NOVs were litigated during the 2012, 2013 and 2014 evaluation periods. See the Litigation and Administrative Reviews sections below. No Federal NOVs were issued in EY 2015. Mining without a Permit In January 2014, OSMRE’s Fee Compliance Branch determined during an audit of an Arkansas company that this company had purchased approximately 1,792 tons of Oklahoma coal from a construction company that did not have a permit to mine the coal. OSMRE later determined that the construction company that mined the coal without a permit is owned by a member of the Oklahoma Mining Commission which supervises and sets policy for ODM. The coal mined without a permit by the mining commissioner was owned by a member of the regulated coal mining community. The State has, after the fact, required the Oklahoma Mining Commissioner to grade the highwall and the slopes of the embankment associated with a final pit impoundment and to revegetate the areas disturbed by the mining operation. Investigation of the circumstances surrounding the money paid to the Oklahoma Mining Commissioner for the illegally mined coal was on-going at the end of EY 2014 through EY 2015 and into EY2016. C. Department of the Interior Litigation Background In 2010, OSMRE’s Mid-Continent Region conducted a National Priority Review on Oklahoma’s compliance with the AOC requirements, consistent with identical reviews conducted in all other primacy States. OSMRE found a pattern of AOC deficiencies that indicated a critical need for ODM to reassess both its permitting and on-ground implementation of AOC. The TFO conducted follow-up inspections on the three mines where AOC issues were noted in the National Priority Review Report. TDN’s were issued to ODM as a result of those inspections. The TFO determined ODM’s responses to the TDN’s to be arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. ODM contended that (1) OSMRE should address the AOC issue programmatically, (2) the TDN’s were premature, (3) it disagreed with OSMRE’s interpretation of AOC on previously-mined areas, and (4) the word “original” as used in the definition of “approximate original contour” did not refer to the condition of the land before any mining but rather the condition of the land when mining begins under the Oklahoma approved permit. ODM appealed the TFO’s TDN determinations to the MCR Regional Director. The Regional Director issued decisions on the appeals that 28 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior upheld the TFO’s determinations. OSMRE then conducted inspections and issued Federal NOV’s on the three mines. During EY 2011 and EY 2012, ODM and Farrell-Cooper Mining Company (FCMC), the mining company that was issued the AOC NOV’s, entered into what was initially described to OSMRE as a “Joint Legal Representation Agreement.” August 12, 2012, transcript of the deposition of Darrell Shults at 7, line 18. Counsel for Farrell-Cooper contended that this Joint Representation Agreement extended the attorney-client privilege to Mr. Shults and other ODM employees, and instructed ODM employees not to answer questions posed by OSMRE’s attorneys on more than one occasion. In 2013, counsel for Farrell-Cooper called this agreement “a mutual defense agreement with the Oklahoma Department of Mines and the Oklahoma Attorney General providing that the attorney/client privilege extends from attorneys for both parties to the clients of the other parties.” Transcript of day three of the hearing on the NOV issued for the Liberty 6 Mine, at 516, lines 12 – 16. Subsequently this agreement was referred to as an “information sharing agreement.” Because the existence of such an agreement (by whatever name) implicates ethical issues for ODM and its employees, OSMRE requested a copy of the agreement through the discovery process and through a subpoena. ODM has refused to provide OSMRE with a copy of the agreement. Farrell-Cooper Mining Co. v. OSMRE, No. 11-428-FHS (E.D. Okla.) On November 29, 2011, FCMC initially filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Oklahoma for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of OSMRE. On January 6, 2012, an amended complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court naming ODM as a defendant in the lawsuit. ODM answered that amended complaint on January 31, 2012, and filed a cross-claim against OSMRE. In its answer to the amended complaint, ODM agreed with the allegations of fact and law made by Farrell-Cooper in the amended complaint. In its counterclaim against OSMRE, the state regulatory authority alleged, among other things, that “OSMRE is attempting to unlawfully usurp Oklahoma's exclusive jurisdiction of regulation of surface coal mining in Oklahoma, without following the express procedures established by SMCRA. This attempted action by OSMRE is a violation of federal law and a violation of Oklahoma's right to due process.” OSMRE filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and the cross-claim on April 2, 2012, alleging that the district court lacked jurisdiction because all of OSMRE’s actions in issuing the TDN and replying to ODM’s response to the TDN were taken in accordance with SMCRA and its implementing regulations. OSMRE’s motion to dismiss further alleged that the original and amended complaints were premature since the coal company had not exhausted its administrative remedies. As for the cross-claim, OSMRE said it had to be dismissed because ODM was attacking an administrative action taken in accordance with the Secretary’s regulations, which amounts to an attack on the regulations themselves, and only the District Court for the District of Columbia has 29 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior jurisdiction over attacks on the Federal regulations implementing SMCRA. The original suit was dismissed in May 2012 by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The coal company, ODM, and the Oklahoma Attorney General appealed the decision of the U.S. District Court to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court. In September of 2013, the Tenth Circuit sustained the District Court ruling that the State and coal company lawsuit was not ripe for review, as OSMRE pointed out in its motion to dismiss. B. Department of the Interior Administrative Reviews Farrell-Cooper Mining Co. v. OSMRE, OHA Docket No. DV-2012-1-R. On January 3, 2012, FCMC filed for administrative review of a Federal NOV issued by OSMRE on December 13, 2011, for the AOC violations on the Liberty 5 mine in Oklahoma. This NOV is included in the FCMC v. OSMRE Federal lawsuit discussed in Section B. Department of the Interior Litigation above. FCMC argued in its petition for review that the NOV is invalid for the same reasons stated in the district court complaints. FCMC asked the administrative law judge (ALJ) to stay all proceedings before the OHA until the district court rules on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and on the plaintiff’s request for an injunction and a declaratory judgment. OSMRE opposed temporary relief. On January 30, 2012, the ALJ granted temporary relief from the NOV, but denied FCMC’s request that the proceedings before OHA be stayed. Hearings on FCMC’s appeal of the NOV for the Liberty 5 Mine were held in November of 2012 and January of 2013. On September 10, 2014, the ALJ ruled against OSMRE and vacated the NOV. OSMRE promptly appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). At the end of EY 2015, the appeal to the IBLA was still under review. Farrell-Cooper Mining Co. v. OSMRE, OHA Docket No. DV-2012-5-R. On June 12, 2012, FCMC filed for administrative review of a Federal NOV issued by OSMRE on May 18, 2012, for the AOC violations on the Liberty 6 mine in Oklahoma. The NOV was also part of the Federal lawsuit - see Section B. Department of the Interior Litigation above. FCMC alleged that the NOV is invalid for the same reasons it identified in the Liberty 5 case and as stated in the district court complaints. The hearing on FCMC’s appeal of the Second NOV were held in November of 2013 before the same ALJ that heard the first appeal. On December 23, 2014, the ALJ ruled against OSMRE and vacated the NOV for the Liberty 6 Mine. OSMRE promptly appealed the ALJ’s decision to the IBLA. At the end of EY 2015, the appeal to the IBLA is still under review. 30 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Farrell-Cooper Mining Co. v. OSMRE, OHA Docket No. DV-2013-1-R. On November 11, 2013, FCMC filed for administrative review of a Federal NOV issued by OSMRE on August 19, 2013, for the AOC violations on the Rock Island mine in Oklahoma. FCMC alleged that the NOV is invalid for the same reasons it cited in the Liberty 5 and 6 cases, including the arguments made before the district court and the court of appeals. The hearing on this administrative appeal commenced in May of 2014 and concluded in July of 2014. Shortly after the hearings concluded, the ALJ that heard the case retired. After that, the case was referred to another ALJ for review, and all parties were waiting for a decision at the end of EY 2015. A decision favorable to OSMRE was handed down in September of 2015. C. Congressional Letters and Congressional Staff Briefings OSMRE received two Congressional letters during the 2014 evaluation period. The letters requested information on OSMRE’s oversight techniques in Oklahoma. OSMRE provided a written response to the first letter and met with Oklahoma Congressional staff members. OSMRE also participated in one briefing for Oklahoma Congressional staff during the evaluation year. OSMRE addressed several questions from the Congressional staff regarding alleged changes in oversight practices. The information provided in the briefing explained that inspection and enforcement methods used in Oklahoma have not changed since the early 1980s. For example, TDN’s have been used as a method of communicating identified violations of state regulatory regulations to the states since 1981 and SMCRA is the foundation for this method of communication with the states. Furthermore, OSMRE can demonstrate that AOC has been measured against the contours that existed prior to any mining since the beginning of regulation under SMCRA began in 1978. Title IV ABANDONED MINE LANDS The TFO did not find any major problems with OCC’s implementation of its AML program. VIII OSMRE ASSISTANCE OSMRE provides technical assistance and technology support to state Regulatory and AML Programs at the state level on project specific efforts and at the national level in the form of national meetings, forums, and national initiatives. OSMRE provides direct technical assistance in project and problem investigation, design and analysis, permitting assistance, developing technical guidelines, training and support. OSMRE initiated a regional Technology Transfer Team in 2004 to support and enhance the technical skills needed to operate regulatory and reclamation programs and each state, including Oklahoma, has an OSMRE representative assigned to it. 31 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior OSMRE’s National Technical Training Program (NTTP) provides training that is available to ODM and OCC employees throughout the year. ODM and OCC employees can attend courses that address various technical aspects of mining and reclamation. These courses are provided to state employees at no cost to the state on a space-available basis. OSMRE also offers Technical Innovation and Professional Services (TIPS). TIPS provides off-the-shelf scientific and engineering modeling software to the state, tribal, and federal offices that administer SMCRA. Title V Regulatory Assistance to ODM During EY 2014, one ODM employee took two NTTP classes. In EY 2015, no ODM employee attended a NTTP course. During EYs 2014 and 2015, OSMRE provided ODM with updates and helpdesk assistance for TIPS provided software as requested. ODM did not have any staff attend TIPS training during EY 2014 or EY 2015. Through the Administrative and Enforcement and Federal Lands Cooperative Agreement grants, OSMRE provided ODM with $ 1,260,918, which was 62 percent of its operating costs for administration of its regulatory program for EY 2014. Title IV Abandoned Mine Lands Assistance to OCC During EY’s 2014 and 2015, OSMRE provided OCC with updates and helpdesk assistance for TIPS provided software. OCC did not have any staff attend TIPS training during EY 2014; however, during EY 2015, three OCC employees attended TIPS training. The following courses were taken: • • • Introduction to ArcGIS for Mining and Reclamation I CAD101: AutoCAD Map for Permitting and Reclamation CAD200: AutoCAD Map 3D for Permitting and Reclamation No OCC employee attended any NTTP courses during EY 2014 or 2015. OSMRE provided technical assistance and support during consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the endangered American Burying Beetle and Northern Long-eared Bat, and also the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. OSMRE also provided assistance with the National Environmental Policy Act and environmental requirements on AML projects. Through the AML grant, OSMRE provided OCC with $2.78 million in Federal funding for its AML program in both FY 2014 and 2015. 32 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Title V: Summary of Core Data to Characterize the Regulatory Program Oklahoma Annual Evaluation Report Evaluation Year 2014 APPENDIX 1, Part A Summary of Core Data to Characterize the Regulatory Program The following tables present summary data pertinent to abandoned mine land activities under the Oklahoma regulatory program. Unless otherwise specified, the reporting period for the data contained in the tables is the Evaluation Year. Other data and information used by OSMRE in its evaluation of Oklahoma performance are available for review in the evaluation file maintained by the TFO. Because of the enormous variations from state to state and the differences between state programs, the summary data should not be used to compare one state to another. List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Coal Produced for Sale, Transfer, or Use Permanent Program Permits, Initial Program Sites, Inspectable Units, and Exploration Permits Allowing Special Categories of Mining Permitting Activity Off-site Impacts Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Activity Bond Forfeiture Activity Regulatory and AML Programs Staffing Funds Granted to State by OSMRE State Inspection Activity State Enforcement Activity Lands Unsuitable Activity OSMRE Oversight Activity Status of Action Plans Land Use Acreage (Optional) 33 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior APPENDIX 1, Part A TABLE FOOTNOTES The table data is provided as an attachment to the Annual Evaluation Report. There are some data sets that were not available this EY and were recorded as a null value or other data sets might require additional description. The following are explanations for the null data sets or other data provided: Table 6 Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Activity - Acreage values for areas bonded for disturbance are slightly different from those in Table 2 because of the inclusion of the acreages on exploration permits. EY 2014 – The value for “Area Bonded for Disturbance without Phase I Bond Release, Total Acres at End of EY” should read 18,995; the value for “Change in Acres During EY” should read ‘0’. EY 2015 – Prior to the commencement of EY 2015, the total amount of ‘Permitted Acres’ or ‘Acreage Under Permit’ was reported as “Total Area Bonded for Disturbance”. ODM did not start tracking and recording ‘Area Bonded for Disturbance’ as separate category till the start of EY 2015. Therefore, the value for “Area Bonded for Disturbance – Total Acres at Start of EY” was not known at the start of EY 2015. All other values are correct, and are carried over from the previous evaluation year in the respective placements. Table 10 State or Tribal Inspection Activity – Though inspections were conducted on a total of 55 permits during EY 2014, and 59 permits during EY 2015; this table only counts inspections on the permits that existed at the end of EY 2014, and EY 2015 respectively. Number of Inspections Required Annually – Though ODM has set the inspection frequency for its abandoned and bond forfeited sites at either one complete per calendar quarter, or one complete inspection and at least two partial inspection per calendar quarter; the number of complete and partial required annually is automatically calculated according to the minimum standards no less than one complete inspection per calendar year, as stated in CFR §840.11(h). This standard applies to both EY-2014 and EY-2015. Table 12 Lands Unsuitable Activity - There are no lands unsuitable activity in the state of Oklahoma. Therefore this table is not applicable to the state program. Table 13 Oversight Inspections and Site Visits - OSMRE could not complete the required nine inspections for EY 2014 due to highly constrained resources and time. 34 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior APPENDIX 1, Part A Table 14 TABLE FOOTNOTES (continued) Status of Action Plans – As of 1/31/2011, ODM and OSMRE had initiated discussions on the milestones and other measures needed to implement an Action Plan for “Failure to implement Oklahoma approved Regulatory Program Requirements for AOC.” Discussions and correspondence regarding an AOC Action Plan were ongoing during the 2011, 2012, and 2013 evaluation periods. Discussions were ongoing in EY 2014 though OSMRE considered the Action Plan implemented as of June 2012. Finally in EY 2015, after continuous open communication between OSMRE and ODM, the Approximate Original Contour Action Plan OK-2015-001 was signed by both parties. 35 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 36 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 37 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 38 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 39 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 40 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 41 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 42 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 43 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 44 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 45 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 46 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 47 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 48 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 49 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 50 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 51 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Title IV: Summary of Core Data to Characterize the AML Program Oklahoma Annual Evaluation Report Evaluation Year 2014 APPENDIX 1, Part B Summary of Core Data to Characterize the AML program The following tables present summary data pertinent to abandoned mine land activities under the Oklahoma AML program. Unless otherwise specified, the reporting period for the data contained in the tables is the Evaluation Year. Other data and information used by OSMRE in its evaluation of Oklahoma performance are available for review in the evaluation file maintained by the TFO. Because of the enormous variations from state to state and the differences between state programs, the summary data should not be used to compare one state to another. List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Status of AML Inventory All Priority 1, 2, and 3 Hazards Accomplishments in Eliminating Health and Safety Hazards Related to Past Mining Priority 1 and 2 Hazards Accomplishments in Eliminating Health and Safety Hazards Related to Past Mining Priority 3 and SMCRA Section 403(b) Hazards Public Well-Being Enhancement Partnership Financial Resources Dedicated to Protecting the Public from Adverse Effects of Past Mining Reclamation Projects Started and/or Completed AML Program Grant Awards and Staffing 52 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 53 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 54 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 55 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 56 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 57 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 58 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 59 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Title V: Summary of Core Data to Characterize the Regulatory Program Oklahoma Annual Evaluation Report Evaluation Year 2015 APPENDIX 2, Part A Summary of Core Data to Characterize the Regulatory Program The following tables present summary data pertinent to abandoned mine land activities under the Oklahoma regulatory program. Unless otherwise specified, the reporting period for the data contained in the tables is the Evaluation Year. Other data and information used by OSMRE in its evaluation of Oklahoma performance are available for review in the evaluation file maintained by the TFO. Because of the enormous variations from state to state and the differences between state programs, the summary data should not be used to compare one state to another. List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Coal Produced for Sale, Transfer, or Use Permanent Program Permits, Initial Program Sites, Inspectable Units, and Exploration Permits Allowing Special Categories of Mining Permitting Activity Off-site Impacts Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Activity Bond Forfeiture Activity Regulatory and AML Programs Staffing Funds Granted to State by OSMRE State Inspection Activity State Enforcement Activity Lands Unsuitable Activity OSMRE Oversight Activity Status of Action Plans Land Use Acreage (Optional) 60 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 61 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 62 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 63 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 64 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 65 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 66 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 67 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 68 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 69 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 70 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 71 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 72 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 73 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 74 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 75 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 76 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Title IV: Summary of Core Data to Characterize the AML Program Oklahoma Annual Evaluation Report Evaluation Year 2015 APPENDIX 1, Part B Summary of Core Data to Characterize the AML program The following tables present summary data pertinent to abandoned mine land activities under the Oklahoma AML program. Unless otherwise specified, the reporting period for the data contained in the tables is the Evaluation Year. Other data and information used by OSMRE in its evaluation of Oklahoma performance are available for review in the evaluation file maintained by the TFO. Because of the enormous variations from state to state and the differences between state programs, the summary data should not be used to compare one state to another. List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Status of AML Inventory All Priority 1, 2, and 3 Hazards Accomplishments in Eliminating Health and Safety Hazards Related to Past Mining Priority 1 and 2 Hazards Accomplishments in Eliminating Health and Safety Hazards Related to Past Mining Priority 3 and SMCRA Section 403(b) Hazards Public Well-Being Enhancement Partnership Financial Resources Dedicated to Protecting the Public from Adverse Effects of Past Mining Reclamation Projects Started and/or Completed AML Program Grant Awards and Staffing 77 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 78 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 79 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 80 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 81 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 82 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 83 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior 84 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior (This page is left intentionally blank) 85 P a g e OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Oklahoma Annual Evaluation Report Evaluation Year 2014 & Evaluation 2015 APPENDIX 3 Comments of State of Oklahoma on the Report Title V: Oklahoma Department of Mines Comments Title IV: Oklahoma Conservation Commission Comments 86 P a g e