This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-21 
entitled 'Surface Coal Mining: Characteristics of Mining in Mountainous 
Areas of Kentucky and West Virginia' which was released on December 9, 
2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

December 2009: 

Surface Coal Mining: 

Characteristics of Mining in Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and West 
Virginia: 

GAO-10-21: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-10-21, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Surface coal mining in the mountainous areas of Appalachia—often 
called “mountaintop mining”—generates controversy, in part because of 
its scale and the post-mining appearance of the land. Yet there is 
limited public access to information on the size, location, and life 
span of these operations, or on how the land can be expected to look 
afterward. GAO was asked to report on the characteristics of (1) 
surface coal mining and (2) reclaimed lands that were disturbed by 
surface coal mining in the mountainous, eastern part of Kentucky and in 
West Virginia, where most such mining occurs. 

Federal and state law requires mining operators to obtain permits 
before mining. Among other things, the permits identify the acres under 
open permit (the acres subject to mining associated with a permit that 
has not been closed) and how the land will be reclaimed—including the 
post-mining land use, whether the approximate original contour (AOC) of 
the land will be restored, and the extent to which excess earth, rock, 
and other materials (known as “spoil”) are placed in nearby valleys. 
For this study, GAO relied on electronic databases of mining permits 
maintained by Kentucky and West Virginia. This report makes no 
recommendations. In commenting on a draft of this report, the 
Department of the Interior and the two state mining agencies generally 
agreed with our findings. 

What GAO Found: 

Surface coal mining in Kentucky and West Virginia had the following 
important characteristics, based on permits issued from January 1990 
through July 2008: 

* The number of acres under open permit increased by an average annual 
rate of 2.2 percent in Kentucky and 1.7 percent in West Virginia. 

* The number of acres under open permit became more geographically 
concentrated. 

* The length of time that permits were open varied from less than a 
year to more than 18 years. 

* In West Virginia, 28 contiguously permitted areas contained nearly 
half of the permitted acres, as of July 2008. 

Reclaimed lands had the following important characteristics, based on 
permits issued from January 2000 through July 2008: 

* The most common type of post-mining land use in Kentucky was fish and 
wildlife habitat and, in West Virginia, it was forestland. 

* Most permits required operators to reclaim the land to AOC, but there 
were some exceptions (called variances). Most of the variances were for 
lands where there was insufficient spoil to restore AOC because the 
land had been previously mined but not reclaimed. 

* Kentucky and West Virginia collectively approved nearly 2,000 fills 
to store at least 4.9 billion cubic yards of excess spoil in nearby 
valleys. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

View GAO-10-21 or key components. For more information, contact Robin 
Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Characteristics of Surface Coal Mining in Mountainous Areas in Kentucky 
and West Virginia: 

Characteristics of Reclaimed Lands That Were Disturbed by Surface Coal 
Mining in Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and West Virginia: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Kentucky Department for Natural 
Resources: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the West Virginia Department of 
Environmental Protection: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

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

Table 2: The 10 Counties in Kentucky with the Largest Number of Open 
Acres in July 2008 and the Number of Open Acres in Those Counties in 
1990: 

Table 3: The 10 Counties in West Virginia with the Largest Number of 
Open Acres in July 2008 and the Number of Open Acres in Those Counties 
in 1990: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Contour, Auger, and Highwall Mining: 

Figure 2: Area Mining on a Mountaintop: 

Figure 3: Acres in Kentucky Associated with Issued, Released, or 
Forfeited Permits, by Year the Permit Was Issued, Released, or 
Forfeited, 1970-July 2008: 

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

Figure 5: Acres in West Virginia Associated with Issued, Released, or 
Forfeited Permits, by Year the Permit Was Issued, Released, or 
Forfeited, 1961-July 2008: 

Figure 6: Cumulative Number of Acres in West Virginia Associated with 
Open, Released, and Forfeited Permits, 1961-July 2008: 

Figure 7: Acres in Kentucky under Open Permit as a Percentage of All 
Acres under Open Permit in the 10 Counties with the Largest Number of 
Open Acres in July 2008: 

Figure 8: Acres in West Virginia under Open Permit as a Percentage of 
all Acres under Open Permit in the 10 Counties with the Largest Number 
of Open Acres in July 2008: 

Figure 9: Average Length of Time Kentucky Permits Issued Since 1990 
Were Open, by Size and Status, as of July 2008: 

Figure 10: Average Length of Time West Virginia Permits Issued Since 
1990 Were Open by Size and Status, as of July 2008: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 17: An Illustration of a Reclaimed Site Meeting the AOC 
Requirement, Compared with the Original, Pre-Mining Contour: 

Figure 18: Number of Permits in Kentucky Issued to Be Reclaimed to AOC, 
Compared with Permits Issued with AOC Variances, 1970-2008: 

Figure 19: Number of Permits in West Virginia Issued to Be Reclaimed to 
AOC, Compared with Permits Issued with AOC Variances, 1970-2008: 

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

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

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

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

Figure 24: Fills Approved in Kentucky, 1970-2008: 

Figure 25: Storage Volume of Fills Approved in Kentucky, 1970-2008: 

Figure 26: Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970-2008: 

Figure 27: Storage Volume of Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970- 
2008: 

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

Abbreviations: 

AOC: approximate original contour: 

EIA: Energy Information Administration: 

ERIS: Environmental Resources Information System: 

OSM: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement: 

PMLU: post-mining land use: 

SMCRA: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977: 

SMIS: Surface Mining Information System: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

December 9, 2009: 

The Honorable Norm D. Dicks: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Michael K. Simpson: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: 
United States Senate: 

Surface mining for coal in the mountainous areas of Appalachia--often 
referred to as mountaintop mining--generates controversy due to the 
scale of mining operations and concern about the post-mining appearance 
of reclaimed lands, among other issues. Mountaintop mining operations 
can involve thousands of acres and take a decade or more to complete. 
During this time, the land is cleared of forests and other vegetation, 
and explosives or other techniques are used to break up the earth, 
rock, and other materials (known as "spoil"). The spoil is then removed 
to expose the underlying coal seams and allow for its extraction. 
[Footnote 1] Once the coal has been extracted, some or most of the 
spoil is placed back on top of the mined-out area. Excess spoil is 
often placed in adjacent valleys. The area is then prepared for its 
post-mining land use. 

Surface mining is an important source of coal production in Appalachia, 
accounting for about 40 percent of the coal produced in the region in 
2008, the most recent data available.[Footnote 2] In 2008, Kentucky and 
West Virginia accounted for about 76 percent of the coal produced from 
surface mines in Appalachia, producing about 120 million tons, making 
them the third-and second-largest surface coal-producing states in the 
nation.[Footnote 3] Almost all surface mining in Appalachia occurs on 
private land. 

Surface mining of coal is regulated by the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), which created the Department of the 
Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) 
to implement and enforce the act. SMCRA allows an individual state to 
develop its own program to implement SMCRA if that program is in 
accordance with federal law and is approved by OSM. OSM is charged with 
enforcing states' adherence to their approved programs or implementing 
a federal program in accordance with SMCRA if the state fails to 
submit, implement, or enforce its own program. OSM has approved 
programs for 24 states, including Kentucky and West Virginia in 1982 
and 1981, respectively. 

Despite the public scrutiny that surface mining in mountainous areas 
has received, the public is limited in its ability to access 
information on the scope of these operations--their size, location, and 
how long they have been in operation--and on what the mountain can be 
expected to look like after mining operations have ceased and the land 
has been reclaimed. Although this information is available to the 
public, the public cannot readily aggregate these data over time to 
perform trend analyses, which is a key component to understanding the 
characteristics of surface mining in these states since mining 
operations can last a decade or more. In response to your request, this 
report provides information on the characteristics, over time, of (1) 
surface coal mining in mountainous areas in Kentucky and West Virginia 
and (2) reclaimed lands disturbed by surface coal mining in mountainous 
areas in Kentucky and West Virginia. 

This report focuses on surface coal mining in the mountainous areas of 
Kentucky and West Virginia because these are the states in which the 
majority of mountaintop mining that is the source of controversy in 
Appalachia occurs. These areas accounted for about 73 percent of 
Appalachia's surface coal production in 2008. For Kentucky, we included 
in our analysis surface mining permits in the mountainous, eastern part 
of the state, which accounted for most of the state's surface coal 
production. We excluded permits in the flatter, western part of 
Kentucky, which accounted for about 9 percent of Kentucky's surface 
coal production in 2008. We included surface mining permits from all of 
West Virginia in our analysis. To address our objectives, we relied 
extensively on the two states' electronic databases, which contain 
select information from the states' surface mining permit files. The 
permit files provide detail on mining operations that are not contained 
in these databases. The Kentucky database is called the Surface Mining 
Information System (SMIS). The West Virginia database is called the 
Environmental Resources Information System (ERIS). Through extensive 
discussion with state officials familiar with these electronic 
databases, and our analysis of the information from the databases, we 
determined that specific data elements are sufficiently reliable within 
certain time frames. Specifically, due to limits on data reliability 
and to be consistent between the states, we are reporting on the 
characteristics of surface mining in Kentucky and West Virginia from 
January 1990 through July 2008 and on the characteristics of reclaimed 
lands that were disturbed by surface mining from January 2000 through 
July 2008, except for Kentucky's data on variances, for which we are 
reporting from January 2002 through July 2008. However, SMIS and ERIS 
also contain data on these characteristics for prior years, in some 
cases dating to 1961. For some of these years, for some data elements, 
we determined that the data is reliable; in other instances, we 
identified specific data limitations. Although the general public has 
access to data from all years--the surface mining permit files in 
Kentucky and West Virginia are public documents--the data are readily 
accessible to the public by electronically accessing SMIS and ERIS. We 
include data from all years in many of the graphics in our report in 
order to provide a comprehensive overview of the data in SMIS and ERIS 
that clearly identifies the years for which there are data limitations 
and what those data limitations are. We believe that presenting data 
from the earlier years--and its limitations--decreases the likelihood 
of misuse or misinterpretation because the limitations on the data are 
not disclosed on the Web sites from which the public accesses SMIS and 
ERIS. Additionally, for West Virginia, we combined data from ERIS with 
electronic geospatial files of permit boundaries from the West Virginia 
Department of Environmental Protection to determine which permitted 
areas were adjacent to each other. From this information, we identified 
the largest, contiguously permitted areas in West Virginia. We had 
insufficient data to identify contiguously permitted areas in Kentucky. 
We also reviewed relevant federal and state laws, regulations, and 
policy guidance on surface coal mining and reclamation; visited several 
active mining operations and reclaimed sites in the two states; and met 
with officials from OSM, the West Virginia Department of Environmental 
Protection, and the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources. A more 
detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in 
appendix I. We conducted our work from March 2008 to December 2009 in 
accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that 
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to 
meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. 
We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions 
in this report. 

Background: 

This section provides background on surface coal mining techniques used 
in Kentucky and West Virginia, coal production data, and SMCRA's 
requirements for coal mining operations. 

Surface Coal Mining Methods Used in Kentucky and West Virginia: 

A number of different surface mining methods are used to mine coal in 
Appalachia--including in Kentucky and West Virginia. The method used 
depends largely on the geology, terrain, and the accessibility of the 
underlying coal seam. Three of the most commonly used methods are 
contour mining, auger/highwall mining, and area mining. What is 
conventionally referred to as mountaintop mining is typically mining 
using one or more of these methods in mountainous areas. 

Contour mining is typically used where coal seams are exposed in 
outcrops on hillsides and mountainsides. A cut is first made in the 
hillside above a coal seam to remove the overburden--the dirt and rock 
above a coal seam. This further exposes the coal seam and creates a 
flat area, called a bench, and a highwall--a cliff of exposed rock left 
after a surface mining operation has cut into the landscape. The mine 
is then enlarged by successive cuts that follow the coal seam around 
the side of the hill. The mining extends into the hill to the point 
where the overburden is too thick to make further exposure of the coal 
seam economic. The overburden--which is called spoil once it has been 
removed--can be placed back on top of the mined-out area. Any excess 
spoil that is not replaced because of stability or other reasons is 
placed in nearby valleys and hollows. Additionally, auger mining often 
is used at this stage to maximize the amount of coal recovered. Auger 
mining involves drilling into an exposed coal seam at the highwall, 
from the bench--much like a carpenter drills through wood. If coal seam 
characteristics permit, a "highwall miner" may be used in place of an 
auger. A highwall miner typically uses rotary cutting heads to extract 
the coal from the exposed coal seam. Both methods are secondary methods 
that permit the recovery of additional coal that would not be 
economically recovered through surface or underground mining. Figure 1 
depicts contour, auger, and highwall mining. 

Figure 1: Contour, Auger, and Highwall Mining: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Depicted on the illustration are the following: 

Original contour; 
Overburden; 
Highwall; 
Coal seam; 
Bench; 
Auger and highwall mining. 

Source: GAO depiction of an OSM figure. 

[End of figure] 

To recover additional coal that cannot be recovered through contour and 
auger mining, some or all of a mountaintop can be area mined. To 
provide a flat surface for the operation of equipment, a first cut is 
made parallel to the top of the ridge after vegetation and topsoil have 
been removed. The overburden is loosened by blasting and removed. Once 
the coal seam is uncovered, the coal can be removed. As with contour 
mining, the overburden can be placed back on top of the mined-out area 
or in nearby valleys and hollows. Figure 2 depicts area mining on a 
mountaintop. 

Figure 2: Area Mining on a Mountaintop: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Depicted on the illustration are the following: 

Original contour; 
Overburden; 
Highwall; 
Coal seam; 
Bench; 
Spoil. 

Source: GAO depiction of an OSM figure. 

[End of figure] 

Surface Coal Production in Kentucky and West Virginia: 

In 2008, Kentucky and West Virginia accounted for about 76 percent of 
the coal produced from surface mines in Appalachia and are the states 
with the third-and second-largest surface coal production totals in the 
country, respectively. Wyoming is the largest. See table 1. 

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

State/region: All U.S. surface mines; 
Production (thousands of short tons): 813,322; 
Percentage of production of total U.S. surface mines: 100%. 

State/region: Appalachia (including eastern Kentucky and West 
Virginia); 
Production (thousands of short tons): 157,705; 
Percentage of production of total U.S. surface mines: 19.4. 

State/region: Kentucky (east and west); 
Production (thousands of short tons): 50,849; 
Percentage of production of total U.S. surface mines: 6.3. 

State/region: Kentucky (east only); 
Production (thousands of short tons): 46,116; 
Percentage of production of total U.S. surface mines: 5.7. 

State/region: West Virginia; 
Production (thousands of short tons): 69,409; 
Percentage of production of total U.S. surface mines: 8.5. 

State/region: Wyoming; 
Production (thousands of short tons): 464,143; 
Percentage of production of total U.S. surface mines: 57.1%. 

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

Note: EIA defines Appalachia for purposes of compiling data on coal 
production to include Alabama, eastern Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

[End of table] 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Requirements for Regulating 
Coal Mining Operations: 

SMCRA and its implementing rules set national standards for regulating 
the surface impact from both surface and underground mines. States with 
their own programs are to set standards in accordance with federal 
standards, and the requirements of Kentucky and West Virginia are 
generally similar to federal requirements.[Footnote 4] In some 
instances, the wording of Kentucky and West Virginia's state 
requirements is identical to the federal requirements. OSM oversight 
focuses on assuring that state regulating agencies comply with the 
requirements of the approved state program. SMCRA requires OSM to make 
such inspections as are necessary to evaluate how well state programs 
are administered. 

Under approved state programs, state regulatory agencies review and 
approve surface mining permits. The permitting process requires 
operators to submit detailed plans that describe the extent of the 
proposed mining operations and how reclamation will be achieved. 
[Footnote 5] For example, operators must identify the area to be 
permitted, provide technical descriptions of how mining operations will 
be conducted, and describe how the land will be reclaimed. In 
reclaiming the land, operators generally must backfill, compact, and 
grade the mined-out area and eliminate all highwalls[Footnote 6], spoil 
piles, and depressions. Operators are also required to comply with 
standards that govern, among other things, the post-mining use(s) for 
which the reclaimed land will be prepared, the final contour of the 
reclaimed land, and how spoil that is not deposited back onto the mined-
out area will be handled. 

To help ensure that operators comply with regulatory requirements and 
permit provisions, including a site's reclamation plan, SMCRA requires 
operators to post a bond (or bonds). States are also authorized to set 
up an alternative system if it will achieve the same objectives and 
purposes as the bonding requirements of SMCRA. For example, West 
Virginia imposes a tax on coal production, the proceeds of which are 
used to reclaim forfeited sites instead of requiring a bond reflecting 
the full projected cost of site reclamation. Once a state bond release 
specialist determines that all reclamation standards identified in the 
permit have been met, the bond is "released," meaning the money put up 
for bond is returned to the operator. Once the bond has been released, 
state jurisdiction over the mining operation ceases. If an operator 
fails to comply with applicable provisions, it may forfeit the bond, in 
which case the state becomes responsible for reclaiming the land to the 
reclamation standards found in the operator's permit. 

When a permit is issued, it is considered an open permit until the bond 
associated with it is completely released or forfeited, at which time 
it is considered a closed permit. Permits are not actively mined during 
the entire period that the permit is open. For example, mining might 
not have begun, or the land could be in the process of being reclaimed 
prior to bond release. In this report, the acres associated with issued 
permits (whether open or closed) are sometimes referred to as "issued 
acres" for the purposes of brevity and readability. Similarly, the 
acres associated with open permits are sometimes referred to as "acres 
under open permit" or "open acres." If a permit is closed because the 
bond associated with it was completely released, the permit is referred 
to as a "released permit," and the acres associated with the released 
permit are sometimes referred to as "released acres." If the permit is 
closed because the bond was forfeited, the permit is referred to as a 
"forfeited permit," and the acres associated with the permit are 
sometimes referred to as "forfeited acres." 

Characteristics of Surface Coal Mining in Mountainous Areas in Kentucky 
and West Virginia: 

Based on data provided to us by Kentucky and West Virginia, we are 
reporting on three characteristics in surface mining in the mountainous 
areas of these two states. We identified a fourth characteristic in 
West Virginia using electronic geospatial files of permit boundaries 
provided to us by the state. These data were not available from 
Kentucky. In summary: 

* First, the number of acres under open permit increased because the 
number of acres issued grew faster than the number of acres released or 
forfeited. The average annual growth rate from January 1990 through 
July 2008 was about 2.2 percent in Kentucky and 1.7 percent in West 
Virginia. 

* Second, acres under open permit have become more concentrated in 
specific counties since 1990. About 44 percent of the acres under open 
permit in Kentucky, as of July 2008, were located in three counties-- 
Pike County, Perry County, and Knott County. In 1990, the three 
counties with the most acres under open permit accounted for only 28 
percent of the total. Similarly, in West Virginia, as of July 2008, 
Boone County, Logan County, and Mingo County accounted for about 48 
percent of all acres under open permit at that time, compared with 33 
percent for the three counties with the most acres under open permit in 
1990. 

* Third, the length of time that permits were open varied. In Kentucky, 
for permits issued since 1990, the length of time a permit was open-- 
from issuance to release--ranged from less than 1 year to more than 18 
years and averaged about 7-1/2 years. In West Virginia, the length of 
time from issuance to release ranged from less than 1 year to almost 17 
years and averaged about 8-1/2 years. Moreover, both states have a 
substantial number of permits that were issued since 1990 that were 
still open as of July 2008. The average length of time these permits 
were open was nearly 5 years in Kentucky and more than 8-1/2 years in 
West Virginia. 

* Fourth, nearly half of the permitted acres in West Virginia are 
concentrated in 28 contiguously permitted areas. We identified these 
areas using available electronic geospatial files of West Virginia 
permit boundaries for permits that were open in July 2008 or that were 
released or forfeited since 1990. These 28 contiguously permitted areas 
account for 178,600 acres, or about 47 percent of all the acreage that 
is either currently open or that was released or forfeited since 1990. 
The largest of these contiguously permitted areas is 21,700 acres and 
is made up of 37 permits. About 89 percent of the acreage in the 28 
contiguously permitted areas is under open permit as of July 2008. 

Both states' databases provide data on acres under open permit and 
related data for years prior to 1990. However, for some of these 
earlier years, the data understates or overstates mining activity. 
Because of these data limitations, and to be consistent between the 
states, we base our analysis on data from January 1990 through July 
2008. We present the results of this analysis in the text of this 
section of the report. However, we include data from the earlier years 
in some of the figures in this section and identify the data 
limitations for these years in order to provide a comprehensive 
overview of the data in the states' databases that clearly identify the 
years for which there are data limitations and what those data 
limitations are. We believe that presenting data from the earlier 
years--and its limitations--decreases the likelihood for misuse or 
misinterpretation because the data is publicly available, but its 
limitations are not disclosed on the Web sites from which the public 
can access the data. Data from the earlier years should not be relied 
upon to convey a representative picture of past mining characteristics 
or decisions. 

Acres Under Open Permit Have Increased in Kentucky and West Virginia: 

The two states' databases show that the number of acres associated with 
open permits has increased from 1990 through 2008. Kentucky provided us 
with data on the number of permits and their associated acres that were 
issued, released, and forfeited from 1970 through July 2008. However, 
data from the 1980s double counts some issued and released permits (and 
associated acreage). A Kentucky state official told us that all permits 
open in the mid-1980s were reissued to comply with revisions to state 
regulations. However, the number of reissued permits and their 
associated acres cannot be distinguished from other permits that were 
issued during that time frame. A state official knowledgeable about the 
reissuing effort told us that it was completed by 1990 and that 
subsequent data should therefore generally be considered reliable. 
Additionally, data from the 1970s undercounts some permits (and 
associated acreage) because not all permits of that era are included in 
the SMIS database. Figure 3 shows the number of acres for which permits 
were issued, released, and forfeited by year, and includes the spike in 
permitted acres that resulted not from new mining but from the permit 
reissuing effort in the 1980s. 

Figure 3: Acres in Kentucky Associated with Issued, Released, or 
Forfeited Permits, by Year the Permit Was Issued, Released, or 
Forfeited, 1970-July 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph and subgraph] 

Data undercounts issued, released, and forfeited acres in the 1970s and 
double counts some acres in the 1980s. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1970; 
Acres released:	0; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres issued: 246. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1971; 
Acres released:	0; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres issued: 1,139. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1972; 
Acres released:	0; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres issued: 14. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1973; 
Acres released:	0; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres issued: 993. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1974; 
Acres released:	0; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres issued: 2,157. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1975; 
Acres released:	0; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres issued: 2,467. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1976; 
Acres released:	0; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres issued: 2,122. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1977; 
Acres released:	0; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres issued: 6,374. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1978; 
Acres released:	27; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres issued: 8,857. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1979; 
Acres released:	425; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres issued: 10,826. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1980; 
Acres released:	879; 
Acres forfeited: 3; 
Acres issued: 14,995. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1981; 
Acres released:	964; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres issued: 3,621. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1982; 
Acres released:	3,916; 
Acres forfeited: 94; 
Acres issued: 40,792. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1983; 
Acres released:	6,235; 
Acres forfeited: 309; 
Acres issued: 14,808. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1984; 
Acres released:	12,811; 
Acres forfeited: 868; 
Acres issued: 93,689. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1985; 
Acres released:	7,182; 
Acres forfeited: 643; 
Acres issued: 37,320. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1986; 
Acres released:	8,160; 
Acres forfeited: 806; 
Acres issued: 29,983. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1987; 
Acres released:	7,257; 
Acres forfeited: 2,524; 
Acres issued: 34,852. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1988; 
Acres released:	8,723; 
Acres forfeited: 1,454; 
Acres issued: 31,577. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1989; 
Acres released:	5,916; 
Acres forfeited: 9,215; 
Acres issued: 21,158. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1990; 
Acres released:	5,232; 
Acres forfeited: 2,481; 
Acres issued: 20,678. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1991; 
Acres released:	7,056; 
Acres forfeited: 1,779; 
Acres issued: 25,509. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1992; 
Acres released:	8,753; 
Acres forfeited: 1,008; 
Acres issued: 24,393. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1993; 
Acres released:	11,430; 
Acres forfeited: 1,560; 
Acres issued: 21,568. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1994; 
Acres released:	12,903; 
Acres forfeited: 1,196; 
Acres issued: 15,045. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1995; 
Acres released:	18,025; 
Acres forfeited: 2,251; 
Acres issued: 24,932. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1996; 
Acres released:	24,090; 
Acres forfeited: 0,874; 
Acres issued: 22,010. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1997; 
Acres released:	28,392; 
Acres forfeited: 798; 
Acres issued: 25,102. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1998; 
Acres released:	21,912; 
Acres forfeited: 348; 
Acres issued: 24,668. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1999; 
Acres released:	21,847; 
Acres forfeited: 196; 
Acres issued: 33,583. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2000; 
Acres released:	16,875; 
Acres forfeited: 512; 
Acres issued: 13,995. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2001; 
Acres released:	15,601; 
Acres forfeited: 809; 
Acres issued: 21,169. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2002; 
Acres released:	11,867; 
Acres forfeited: 554; 
Acres issued: 19,474; 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2003; 
Acres released:	10,229; 
Acres forfeited: 597; 
Acres issued: 18,390. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2004; 
Acres released:	11,614; 
Acres forfeited: 905; 
Acres issued: 16,794. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2005; 
Acres released:	11,103	
Acres forfeited: 0,333	
Acres issued: 19,029 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2006; 
Acres released:	7,466; 
Acres forfeited: 372; 
Acres issued: 28,695. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2007; 
Acres released:	8,865; 
Acres forfeited: 1,916; 
Acres issued: 23,380. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2008; 
Acres released:	5,461; 
Acres forfeited: 2,006; 
Acres issued: 22,276. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts acres associated with permits issued, released, or 
forfeited in the 1970s because not all permits of that era are included 
in the SMIS database. Data double counts some acres associated with 
permits issued or released in the 1980s because of state administrative 
actions to reissue previously issued permits. 

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

[End of figure] 

From January 1990 through July 2008, the number of acres under open 
permit in Kentucky grew from 292,400 acres to 420,900 acres--an average 
annual increase of about 2.2 percent. The difference between the number 
of acres for which permits have been issued and the number of acres 
that have been released or forfeited is the number of acres under open 
permit. From 1990 through July 2008, the number of acres associated 
with issued permits grew from 378,800 acres to 778,800 acres, and the 
number of acres associated with released and forfeited permits grew 
from 86,400 acres to 357,900 acres.[Footnote 7] Figure 4 illustrates 
the growth in acres associated with issued permits relative to acres 
associated with released or forfeited permits. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph and subgraph] 

Data undercounts open, released, and forfeited acres in the 1970s and 
double counts some acres in the 1980s. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1970; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres:	0; 
Acres under open permit: 246. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1971; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres:	0; 
Acres under open permit: 1,385. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1972; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres:	0; 
Acres under open permit: 1,525. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1973; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres:	0; 
Acres under open permit: 2,518. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1974; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres:	0; 
Acres under open permit: 4,675. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1975; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres:	0; 
Acres under open permit: 7,142. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1976; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres:	0; 
Acres under open permit: 9,264. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1977; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres:	0; 
Acres under open permit: 15,638. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1978; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres: 27; 
Acres under open permit: 24,468. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1979; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres:	452; 
Acres under open permit: 34,870. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1980; 
Forfeited acres: 3; 
Released acres:	1,331; 
Acres under open permit: 48,685. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1981; 
Forfeited acres: 3; 
Released acres:	2,295; 
Acres under open permit: 51,343. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1982; 
Forfeited acres: 394; 
Released acres:	6,211; 
Acres under open permit: 88,124. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1983; 
Forfeited acres: 703; 
Released acres:	12,446; 
Acres under open permit: 96,388. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1984; 
Forfeited acres: 1,571; 
Released acres:	25,257; 
Acres under open permit: 176,398. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1985; 
Forfeited acres: 2,214; 
Released acres:	32,439; 
Acres under open permit: 205,892. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1986; 
Forfeited acres: 3,020; 
Released acres:	40,599; 
Acres under open permit: 226,909. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1987; 
Forfeited acres: 5,544; 
Released acres:	47,856; 
Acres under open permit: 251,979. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1988; 
Forfeited acres: 6,998; 
Released acres:	56,579; 
Acres under open permit: 273,379. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1989; 
Forfeited acres: 16,213; 
Released acres:	62,495; 
Acres under open permit: 279,407. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1990; 
Forfeited acres: 18,694; 
Released acres:	67,727; 
Acres under open permit: 292,373. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1991; 
Forfeited acres: 20,473; 
Released acres:	4,783; 
Acres under open permit: 309,046. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1992; 
Forfeited acres: 21,481; 
Released acres:	83,536; 
Acres under open permit: 323,677. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1993; 
Forfeited acres: 23,041; 
Released acres:	94,966; 
Acres under open permit: 332,255. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1994; 
Forfeited acres: 24,237; 
Released acres:	107,869; 
Acres under open permit: 333,200. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1995; 
Forfeited acres: 26,488; 
Released acres:	125,894; 
Acres under open permit: 337,857. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1996; 
Forfeited acres: 27,362; 
Released acres:	149,984; 
Acres under open permit: 334,903. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1997; 
Forfeited acres: 28,160; 
Released acres:	178,376; 
Acres under open permit: 330,815. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1998; 
Forfeited acres: 28,508; 
Released acres:	200,288; 
Acres under open permit: 333,224. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1999; 
Forfeited acres: 28,704; 
Released acres:	222,135; 
Acres under open permit: 344,764. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2000; 
Forfeited acres: 29,216; 
Released acres:	239,010; 
Acres under open permit: 341,371. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2001; 
Forfeited acres: 30,025; 
Released acres:	254,611; 
Acres under open permit: 346,131. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2002; 
Forfeited acres: 30,579; 
Released acres:	266,478; 
Acres under open permit: 353,183. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2003; 
Forfeited acres: 31,176; 
Released acres:	276,707; 
Acres under open permit: 360,747. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2004; 
Forfeited acres: 32,081; 
Released acres:	288,321; 
Acres under open permit: 365,022. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2005; 
Forfeited acres: 32,414; 
Released acres:	299,424; 
Acres under open permit: 372,616. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2006; 
Forfeited acres: 32,786; 
Released acres:	306,890; 
Acres under open permit: 393,473. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2007; 
Forfeited acres: 34,702; 
Released acres:	315,755; 
Acres under open permit: 406,072. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2008; 
Forfeited acres: 36,708; 
Released acres:	321,216; 
Acres under open permit: 420,882. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts acres associated with permits issued, released, or 
forfeited in the 1970s because not all permits of that era are included 
in the SMIS database. Data double counts some acres associated with 
permits issued or released in the 1980s because of state administrative 
actions to reissue previously issued permits. 

[End of figure] 

West Virginia provided us with data on the number and size of permits 
that were issued from January 1984 through July 2008 and on permits 
that were already open in 1984. These data are presented in figure 5. 
One official told us that, when the West Virginia Department of 
Environmental Protection upgraded its computer system, it didn't 
systematically update electronic permit files that were closed prior to 
1984. As figure 5 shows, there is very little data on the number of 
acres released and forfeited prior to 1984.[Footnote 8] 

Figure 5: Acres in West Virginia Associated with Issued, Released, or 
Forfeited Permits, by Year the Permit Was Issued, Released, or 
Forfeited, 1961-July 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph and subgraph] 

Data undercounts issued, released, and forfeited acres prior to 1984. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1961; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 5. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1962; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 0. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1963; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 6. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1964; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 0. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1965; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 6. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1966; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 0. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1967; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 293. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1968; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 360. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1969; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 6; 
Acres issued: 330. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1970; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 2,793. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1971; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 30; 
Acres issued: 1,970. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1972; 
Acres forfeited: 2; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 2,815. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1973; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 3,126. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1974; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 37; 
Acres issued: 6,939. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1975; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 6,956. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1976; 
Acres forfeited: 0; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 12,307. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1977; 
Acres forfeited: 902; 
Acres released: 5; 
Acres issued: 11,721. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1978; 
Acres forfeited: 72; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 13,663. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1979; 
Acres forfeited: 570; 
Acres released: 1; 
Acres issued: 11,220. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1980; 
Acres forfeited: 340; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 13,805. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1981; 
Acres forfeited: 658; 
Acres released: 0; 
Acres issued: 15,830. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1982; 
Acres forfeited: 921; 
Acres released: 52; 
Acres issued: 17,530. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1983; 
Acres forfeited: 202; 
Acres released: 400; 
Acres issued: 14,593. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1984; 
Acres forfeited: 746; 
Acres released: 9,352; 
Acres issued: 10,061. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1985; 
Acres forfeited: 1,323; 
Acres released: 7,853; 
Acres issued: 16,495. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1986; 
Acres forfeited: 593; 
Acres released: 8,567; 
Acres issued: 19,256. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1987; 
Acres forfeited: 1,520; 
Acres released: 8,718; 
Acres issued: 12,352. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1988; 
Acres forfeited: 563; 
Acres released: 5,256; 
Acres issued: 18,779. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1989; 
Acres forfeited: 1,971; 
Acres released: 4,157; 
Acres issued: 21,592. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1990; 
Acres forfeited: 1,480; 
Acres released: 4,296; 
Acres issued: 8,889. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1991; 
Acres forfeited: 2,627; 
Acres released: 4,270; 
Acres issued: 11,515. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1992; 
Acres forfeited: 5,233; 
Acres released: 5,161; 
Acres issued: 12,034. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1993; 
Acres forfeited: 3,625; 
Acres released: 4,393; 
Acres issued: 8,728. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1994; 
Acres forfeited: 4,104; 
Acres released: 4,729; 
Acres issued: 11,597. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1995; 
Acres forfeited: 1,086; 
Acres released: 6,542; 
Acres issued: 12,831. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1996; 
Acres forfeited: 709; 
Acres released: 7,969; 
Acres issued: 15,604. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1997; 
Acres forfeited: 1,104; 
Acres released: 5,485; 
Acres issued: 17,451. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1998; 
Acres forfeited: 1,305; 
Acres released: 9,664; 
Acres issued: 7,625. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1999; 
Acres forfeited: 848; 
Acres released: 9,278; 
Acres issued: 4,969. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2000; 
Acres forfeited: 3,633; 
Acres released: 8,548; 
Acres issued: 8,455. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2001; 
Acres forfeited: 3,876; 
Acres released: 5,343; 
Acres issued: 13,094. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2002; 
Acres forfeited: 124; 
Acres released: 4,743; 
Acres issued: 6,013. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2003; 
Acres forfeited: 870; 
Acres released: 3,976; 
Acres issued: 20,896. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2004; 
Acres forfeited: 1,748; 
Acres released: 3,680; 
Acres issued: 12,291. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2005; 
Acres forfeited: 625; 
Acres released: 1,727; 
Acres issued: 3,643. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2006; 
Acres forfeited: 1,535; 
Acres released: 1,858; 
Acres issued: 9,768. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2007; 
Acres forfeited: 842; 
Acres released: 3,326; 
Acres issued: 8,303. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2008; 
Acres forfeited: 604; 
Acres released: 4,902; 
Acres issued: 6,685. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts acres associated with permits issued, released, or 
forfeited prior to 1984 because permits closed prior to 1984 are not 
included in ERIS. 

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

[End of figure] 

According to ERIS data, from January 1990 through July 2008, the number 
of acres under open permit in West Virginia grew from 183,700 acres to 
245,200 acres--an average annual increase of about 1.7 percent. The 
difference between the number of acres for which permits have been 
issued, and the number of acres that have been released or forfeited, 
is the number of acres under open permit. From 1990 through July 2008, 
the number of acres associated with issued permits grew from 243,700 
acres to 435,200 acres, and the number of acres associated with 
released and forfeited permits grew from 60,000 acres to 190,000 acres. 
Figure 6 illustrates the growth in acres associated with issued permits 
relative to acres associated with released or forfeited permits. 

Figure 6: Cumulative Number of Acres in West Virginia Associated with 
Open, Released, and Forfeited Permits, 1961-July 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph and subgraph] 

Data undercounts open, released, and forfeited acres in the 1970s and 
double counts some acres in the 1980s. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1961; 
Acres under open permit: 5; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres: 0. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1962; 
Acres under open permit: 5; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres: 0. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1963; 
Acres under open permit: 11; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres: 0; 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1964; 
Acres under open permit: 11; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres: 0; 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1965; 
Acres under open permit: 17; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres: 0. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1966; 
Acres under open permit: 17; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres: 0. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1967; 
Acres under open permit: 310; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres: 0. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1968; 
Acres under open permit: 671; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres: 0. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1969; 
Acres under open permit: 995; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres: 69. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1970; 
Acres under open permit: 3,789; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres: 69. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1971; 
Acres under open permit: 5,728; 
Forfeited acres: 0; 
Released acres: 37. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1972; 
Acres under open permit: 8,524; 
Forfeited acres: 2; 
Released acres: 37. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1973; 
Acres under open permit: 11,650; 
Forfeited acres: 2; 
Released acres: 37. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1974; 
Acres under open permit: 18,553; 
Forfeited acres: 2; 
Released acres: 74. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1975; 
Acres under open permit: 25,510;	
Forfeited acres: 2; 
Released acres: 74. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1976; 
Acres under open permit: 37,817; 
Forfeited acres: 2; 
Released acres: 74. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1977; 
Acres under open permit: 49,399; 
Forfeited acres: 110; 
Released acres: 124. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1978; 
Acres under open permit: 62,990; 
Forfeited acres: 182; 
Released acres: 124. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1979; 
Acres under open permit: 73,5399	
Forfeited acres: 0,75324	
Released acres: 0,22443 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1980; 
Acres under open permit: 87,005; 
Forfeited acres: 1,093; 
Released acres: 224. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1981; 
Acres under open permit: 102,177	
Forfeited acres: 1,752; 
Released acres: 224. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1982; 
Acres under open permit: 118,733	
Forfeited acres: 2,67396	
Released acres: 0,27668 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1983; 
Acres under open permit: 132,724; 
Forfeited acres: 2,876; 
Released acres: 0,677 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1984; 
Acres under open permit: 132,686; 
Forfeited acres: 3,622; 
Released acres: 10,029. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1985; 
Acres under open permit: 140,005; 
Forfeited acres: 4,946; 
Released acres: 17,883. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1986; 
Acres under open permit: 150,100; 
Forfeited acres: 5,540; 
Released acres: 26,450. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1987; 
Acres under open permit: 152,214; 
Forfeited acres: 7,060; 
Released acres: 35,169. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1988; 
Acres under open permit: 165,173; 
Forfeited acres: 7,624; 
Released acres: 40,425. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1989; 
Acres under open permit: 180,636; 
Forfeited acres: 9,595; 
Released acres: 44,583. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1990; 
Acres under open permit: 183,748; 
Forfeited acres: 11,075; 
Released acres: 48,879. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1991; 
Acres under open permit: 188,365; 
Forfeited acres: 13,703; 
Released acres: 53,150; 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1992; 
Acres under open permit: 190,004; 
Forfeited acres: 18,937; 
Released acres: 58,311. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1993; 
Acres under open permit: 190,714; 
Forfeited acres: 22,562; 
Released acres: 62,705. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1994; 
Acres under open permit: 193,477; 
Forfeited acres: 26,667; 
Released acres: 67,435. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1995; 
Acres under open permit: 198,680; 
Forfeited acres: 27,754; 
Released acres: 73,977. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1996; 
Acres under open permit: 205,605; 
Forfeited acres: 28,463; 
Released acres: 81,946. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1997; 
Acres under open permit: 216,467; 
Forfeited acres: 29,5678; 
Released acres: 87,4323. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1998; 
Acres under open permit: 213,123; 
Forfeited acres: 30,872; 
Released acres: 97,096. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 1999; 
Acres under open permit: 207,966; 
Forfeited acres: 31,721; 
Released acres: 106,375. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2000; 
Acres under open permit: 204,239; 
Forfeited acres: 35,354; 
Released acres: 114,924. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2001; 
Acres under open permit: 208,114; 
Forfeited acres: 39,231; 
Released acres: 120,267. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2002; 
Acres under open permit: 209,259; 
Forfeited acres: 39,356; 
Released acres: 125,010. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2003; 
Acres under open permit: 225,309; 
Forfeited acres: 40,226; 
Released acres: 128,987. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2004; 
Acres under open permit: 232,172; 
Forfeited acres: 41,974; 
Released acres: 132,667. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2005	
Acres under open permit: 233,463; 
Forfeited acres: 42,600. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2006; 
Acres under open permit: 239,838; 
Forfeited acres: 44,135; 
Released acres: 136,253. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2007; 
Acres under open permit: 243,973; 
Forfeited acres: 44,978; 
Released acres: 139,579. 

Year issued, released, or forfeited: 2008; 
Acres under open permit: 245,151; 
Forfeited acres: 45,582; 
Released acres: 144,481. 

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts acres associated with permits issued, released, or 
forfeited prior to 1984 because permits closed prior to 1984 are not 
included in ERIS. 

[End of figure] 

Not all acres that are permitted are disturbed--that is, cleared of 
vegetation as part of the mining operation. Typically, areas are 
disturbed when they are mined for coal, used for roads, or to 
temporarily or permanently store spoil. Sometimes operators will leave 
relatively large portions of a permitted area undisturbed if, for 
example, market conditions do not support mining an area where it is 
relatively expensive to extract the coal. A Kentucky official said that 
SMIS does not contain data on disturbed acres and that he and other 
officials he spoke with do not believe they can provide a sufficiently 
accurate estimate. A West Virginia official said that data from ERIS on 
disturbed acres is not reliable. However, he estimated that about 25 
percent of permitted acres are never disturbed. 

Mining in Kentucky and West Virginia Has Become More Geographically 
Concentrated: 

According to the two states' databases, mining activity in the 
mountainous areas of Kentucky is concentrated in the southeastern part 
of the state, while mining in West Virginia is concentrated in the 
southwestern part of the state. In both states, mining has become more 
concentrated over the last 19 years, according to data provided by 
state agencies. In Kentucky, the 420,900 acres that were under open 
permit, as of July 2008, in the mountainous, eastern portion of the 
state constitute about 1.6 percent of the state's total land mass. 
[Footnote 9] However, as figure 7 indicates, about 44 percent (186,600 
acres) of the 420,900 acres under open permit in mountainous areas are 
located in three counties: Pike, Perry, and Knott.[Footnote 10] 
Collectively, the open acres account for 20 percent of these counties' 
total land mass. 

Figure 7: Acres in Kentucky under Open Permit as a Percentage of All 
Acres under Open Permit in the 10 Counties with the Largest Number of 
Open Acres in July 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of Kentucky with inset of counties in 
Eastern Kentucky] 

Bell: 6%; 
Breathitt: 6%; 
Floyd: 4%; 
Harlan: 9%; 
Knott: 10%; 
Leslie: 5%; 
Letcher: 7%; 
Martin: 8%; 
Perry: 12%; 
Pike: 23%. 

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

[End of figure] 

In 1990, the acreage under open permit in Kentucky was less 
concentrated in individual counties than it was in 2008. As table 2 
shows, the three counties with the greatest acreage under open permit 
in 1990--Pike, Martin, and Breathitt--accounted for about 28 percent 
(82,400 acres) of the 292,400 acres under open permit. Collectively, 
these open acres accounted for about 8 percent of the total area of the 
three counties. Table 2 also shows the 10 counties in Kentucky with the 
most acres under open permit in 2008 and the number of acres under open 
permit in 1990 for those same counties. 

Table 2: The 10 Counties in Kentucky with the Largest Number of Open 
Acres in July 2008 and the Number of Open Acres in Those Counties in 
1990: 

County: Pike; 
Size of county (acres): 504,858; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 96,300; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
Kentucky: 23%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 27,500; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in Kentucky: 9%. 

County: Perry; 
Size of county (acres): 219,290; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 50,100; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
Kentucky: 12%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 25,000; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in Kentucky: 9%. 

County: Knott; 
Size of county (acres): 225,926; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 40,200; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
Kentucky: 10%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 17,300; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in Kentucky: 6%. 

County: Harlan; 
Size of county (acres): 299,501; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 37,700; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
Kentucky: 9%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 16,100; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in Kentucky: 6%. 

County: Martin; 
Size of county (acres): 147,718; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 34,300; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
Kentucky: 8%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 29,000; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in Kentucky: 10%. 

County: Letcher; 
Size of county (acres): 217,037; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 28,100; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
Kentucky: 7%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 11,800; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in Kentucky: 4%. 

County: Breathitt; 
Size of county (acres): 316,986; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 26,000; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
Kentucky: 6%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 25,900; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in Kentucky: 9%. 

County: Bell; 
Size of county (acres): 231,264; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 25,800; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
Kentucky: 6%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 20,600; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in Kentucky: 7%. 

County: Leslie; 
Size of county (acres): 258,790; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 21,700; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
Kentucky: 5%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 12,400; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in Kentucky: 4%. 

County: Floyd; 
Size of county (acres): 253,094; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 15,600; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
Kentucky: 4%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 16,500; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in Kentucky: 6%. 

County: All other counties; 
Size of county (acres): 23,187,309; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 45,000; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
Kentucky: 11%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 90,300; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in Kentucky: 31%. 

County: Total; 
Size of county (acres): 25,861,773; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 420,900; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
Kentucky: 100%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 292,400; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in Kentucky: 100%. 

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

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

[End of table] 

In West Virginia, the 245,200 acres that were under open permit, as of 
July 2008, constitute 1.6 percent of the state's total land mass, the 
same percentage as in Kentucky. As figure 8 indicates, about 48 percent 
(118,600 acres) of the 245,200 acres are located in three counties: 
Boone, Logan, and Mingo. Collectively, the open acres account for about 
13 percent of these counties' total land mass. 

Figure 8: Acres in West Virginia under Open Permit as a Percentage of 
all Acres under Open Permit in the 10 Counties with the Largest Number 
of Open Acres in July 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of West Virginia with inset may of 
counties in southwestern West Virginia] 

Clay: 4%; 
Fayette: 6%; 
Kanawha: 10%; 
Logan: 15%; 
McDowell: 4%; 
Mingo: 13%; 
Nicholas: 7%; 
Raleigh: 4%; 
Wyoming: 4%. 

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

[End of figure] 

In 1990, the acreage under open permit was less concentrated in 
individual counties than it was in 2008. As table 3 shows, the three 
counties with the greatest amount of acreage under open permit in 1990--
Logan, Boone, and Nicholas--accounted for 33 percent (61,000 acres) of 
the 183,700 acres under open permit in 1990. Collectively, these open 
acres accounted for about 6 percent of the total area of these 
counties. Similar to table 2, this table shows the 10 counties in West 
Virginia with the most acres under open permit in 2008 and the number 
of acres under open permit in 1990 for those same counties. 

Table 3: The 10 Counties in West Virginia with the Largest Number of 
Open Acres in July 2008 and the Number of Open Acres in Those Counties 
in 1990: 

County: Boone; 
Size of county (acres): 322,035; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 48,000; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
West Virginia: 20%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 20,400; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in West Virginia: 11%. 

County: Logan; 
Size of county (acres): 291,590; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 37,800; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
West Virginia: 15%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 21,500; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in West Virginia: 12%. 

County: Mingo; 
Size of county (acres): 271,130; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 32,900; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
West Virginia: 13%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 16,900; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in West Virginia: 9%. 

County: Kanawha; 
Size of county (acres): 583,034; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 25,000; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
West Virginia: 10%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 18,900; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in West Virginia: 10%. 

County: Fayette; 
Size of county (acres): 427,750; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 16,400; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
West Virginia: 7%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 13,800; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in West Virginia: 8%. 

County: Nicholas; 
Size of county (acres): 418,816; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 15,900; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
West Virginia: 6%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 19,100; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in West Virginia: 10%. 

County: Raleigh; 
Size of county (acres): 389,978; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 11,000; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
West Virginia: 4%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 2,200; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in West Virginia: 1%. 

County: Wyoming; 
Size of county (acres): 321,165; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 10,900; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
West Virginia: 4v; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 4,100; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in West Virginia: 2%. 

County: Clay; 
Size of county (acres): 220,045; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 8,900; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
West Virginia: 4%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 2,400; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in West Virginia: 1%. 

County: McDowell; 
Size of county (acres): 342,336; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 8,600; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
West Virginia: 4%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 6,200; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in West Virginia: 3v. 

County: All other counties; 
Size of county (acres): 11,919,168; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 29,800; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
West Virginia: 12%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 58,200; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in West Virginia: 32%. 

County: Total; 
Size of county (acres): 15,507,046; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: Number of acres: 245,200; 
Acres under open permit in July 2008: County's share of open acres in 
West Virginia: 100%; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: Number of acres: 183,700; 
Acres under open permit in January 1990: County's share of open acres 
in West Virginia: 100%. 

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

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

[End of table] 

The Length of Time That Permits Were Open in Kentucky and West Virginia 
Varies: 

The two states' databases show that the length of time that permits 
were open varied. In Kentucky, of the 1,075 permits issued since 1990, 
362 were subsequently released, as of July 2008. The length of time 
these permits were open ranged from less than 1 year to more than 18 
years and averaged about 7-1/2 years. However, 680 of the permits 
issued since 1990 were still open, as of July 2008, and the average 
length of time these permits were open was about 7 years. Additionally, 
33 of the permits issued since 1990 have been forfeited. As figure 9 
shows, the length of time that permits were open did not vary 
substantially by their size or status--open, released, or forfeited-- 
with one exception.[Footnote 11] 

Figure 9: Average Length of Time Kentucky Permits Issued Since 1990 
Were Open, by Size and Status, as of July 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Size of permit: 3,000 plus acres; 
Open permit: 9.8 years. 

Size of permit: 1,000-2,999 acres; 
Open permit: 10.0 years; 
Released permit: 10.7 years; 
Forfeited permit: 17.2 years. 

Size of permit: 500-999 acres; 
Open permit: 8.2 years; 
Released permit: 9.8 years; 
Forfeited permit: 8.0 years. 

Size of permit: 100-499 acres; 
Open permit: 6.6 years; 
Released permit: 8.8 years; 
Forfeited permit: 7.6 years. 

Size of permit: Less than 100 acres; 
Open permit: 5.4 years; 
Released permit: 6.2 years; 
Forfeited permit: 5.3 years. 

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

Notes: 

For forfeited acres, the length of time the permit was open is from the 
issue date to the forfeiture date; additional reclamation work occurs 
after forfeiture. 

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

[End of figure] 

The situation is similar in West Virginia. Of the 637 permits issued 
since 1990, 171 were subsequently released, as of July 2008. The length 
of time these permits were open ranged from less than a year to almost 
17 years and averaged about 8-1/2 years. However, 397 of the permits 
issued since 1990 were still open, as of July 2008, and the average 
length of time these permits were open was about 8-1/2 years. 
Additionally, 69 of the permits issued since 1990 have been forfeited. 
As figure 10 shows, the length of time that permits were open did not 
vary substantially by their size. There is greater variation by status--
open, released, or forfeited. 

Figure 10: Average Length of Time West Virginia Permits Issued Since 
1990 Were Open by Size and Status, as of July 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Size of permit: 1,000-2,999 plus acres; 
Open permit: 8.9 years. 

Size of permit: 500-999 acres; 
Open permit: 9.1 years; 
Released permit: 11 years; 
Forfeited permit: 0 years. 

Size of permit: 100-499 acres; 
Open permit: 8.6 years; 
Released permit: 9.6 years; 
Forfeited permit: 5.3 years. 

Size of permit: Less than 100 acres; 
Open permit: 8.0 years; 
Released permit: 8.0 years; 
Forfeited permit: 5.9 years. 

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

Note: For forfeited acres, the length of time the permit was open is 
from the issue date to the forfeiture date; additional reclamation work 
occurs after forfeiture. 

[End of figure] 

Many Permitted Acres in West Virginia Are Concentrated in a Few Large, 
Contiguously Permitted Areas: 

We obtained from the West Virginia Department of Environmental 
Protection Web site all available electronic geospatial files of permit 
boundaries. For permits that were open, as of July 2008, or released or 
forfeited since 1990, the permits with permit boundary files are 
associated with 317,600 acres--or 83 percent of the 381,000 acres 
associated with all open permits and permits released or forfeited 
since 1990.[Footnote 12] Using the permit boundary files, we determined 
that there were 559 separate, permitted areas. We defined these as 
areas that were covered by either (1) a single permit that was not 
contiguous with any other permit or (2) two or more contiguous permits. 
The larger areas tended to consist of contiguous permits. Figure 11 
shows 559 permitted areas in West Virginia, as of July 2008. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: map of West Virginia depicting 559 permitted 
areas] 

Sources: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database and 
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection GIS data; Map Info 
(map). 

[End of figure] 

A few of the contiguously permitted areas are much larger than most of 
the other permitted areas. The largest 5 percent of permitted areas--28 
areas of the 559 we identified--are groups of contiguous permits and 
cover 178,600 acres, or 47 percent of the 381,000 acres associated with 
open permits or permits released or forfeited since 1990. Additionally, 
we found that about 89 percent (159,200 acres) of the 178,600 acres 
that constitute these 28 permitted areas were under open permit. This 
contrasts with the 139,000 acres that make up the remaining 531 
permitted areas, which have 85,000 acres (61 percent) under open 
permit. Figure 12 shows open and closed (released and forfeited) 
permits for these 28 permitted areas. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: map of West Virginia depicting The 28 largest 
permitted areas] 

Both open permits and closed permits are depicted in counties in 
southwestern West Virginia. 

Sources: GAO analysis of data from West Virginia’s ERIS database and 
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection GIS data; Map Info 
(map). 

[End of figure] 

Characteristics of Reclaimed Lands That Were Disturbed by Surface Coal 
Mining in Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and West Virginia: 

In summary, the states' data for permits issued from January 2000 
through July 2008 provides information on three important 
characteristics of land reclaimed after being disturbed by surface 
mining: the approved post-mining land use (PMLU), the extent to which 
the land is restored to its original contour, and the number and size 
of fills created from excess spoil. First, fish and wildlife habitat 
and forestland were the most common types of PMLU approved in Kentucky 
and West Virginia, respectively. Forestland was the most common type of 
land use prior to mining in both states. Second, while most operations 
have been issued permits in recent years requiring them to reclaim the 
land to its approximate original contour (AOC), some were granted 
exceptions, referred to as AOC variances.[Footnote 13] Specifically, 76 
percent (294 permits) of the 388 permits issued in Kentucky from 
January 2002 through July 2008 were required to reclaim the land to 
AOC. In West Virginia, 85 percent (181 permits) of the 212 permits 
issued from January 2000 through July 2008 were required to be 
reclaimed to AOC. Most of the AOC variances granted were "remining" 
variances, meaning that the variance was granted because the land had 
been previously mined but not reclaimed, leaving insufficient spoil to 
restore AOC. Finally, Kentucky and West Virginia collectively approved 
nearly 2,000 fills to be placed in nearby valleys and hollows, with a 
storage volume of at least 4.85 billion cubic yards of excess spoil, on 
permits issued from January 2000 through July 2008. 

Both states' databases provide data on pre-mining land uses and PMLUs, 
AOC variances, and fills for permits issued in years prior to 2000. 
However, for many of these years, the data understates or overstates 
mining activity and, consequently, characteristics of reclaimed lands. 
Because of these data limitations, and to be consistent between the two 
states, we base our analysis on data from January 2000 through July 
2008, with the exception of AOC variances in Kentucky, where the data 
is complete only for permits issued starting in 2002. We present the 
results of this analysis in the text of this section of the report. 
However, we include data from the earlier years in the figures of this 
section and identify the data limitations associated with these years 
in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the data in the states' 
databases, and we clearly identify the data limitations and the years 
to which they apply. We believe that presenting data from the earlier 
years--and its limitations--decreases the likelihood for misuse or 
misinterpretation because the data is publicly available, but its 
limitations are not disclosed on the Web sites from which the public 
can access the data. Data from the earlier years should not be relied 
upon to convey a representative picture of past mining characteristics 
or decisions. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Forestland Were the Most Common Post- 
Mining Land Uses Approved, While Forestland Was the Most Common Land 
Use Prior to Mining: 

During the permitting process, operators designate one or more types of 
PMLU, although the approved PMLU(s) may later be changed through a 
permit revision. If an operator does not plan to return an area to its 
pre-mining land use, the operator must propose an alternative PMLU for 
approval. State approval of an alternative PMLU requires consultation 
with the landowner.[Footnote 14] In general, the PMLU must be either a 
use the land could have supported before any mining, or a "higher or 
better" use.[Footnote 15] Under SMCRA, once mining has been completed, 
operators are required to reclaim all disturbed lands in a timely 
manner to a condition capable of supporting the approved PMLU(s). 
[Footnote 16] However, once the bond has been released, state 
jurisdiction over the mining operation ceases, and landowners can use 
the land at their own discretion following bond release. Additionally, 
even in cases where the PMLU(s) is fully implemented after bond 
release, some land use types, such as forestland, can take years--even 
decades--to achieve their intended appearance and productivity. 

The two states' data show that, for permits issued from January 2000 
through July 2008, the most common PMLU type approved was fish and 
wildlife habitat in Kentucky and forestland in West Virginia. Our 
analysis of the data revealed that both states' databases improved over 
time in the percentage of permits that captured information on PMLU 
types and, by 1995 and 1998, respectively, the data indicates that all 
new permits issued had at least one PMLU type approved in Kentucky and 
West Virginia. 

Specifically, in Kentucky, of the 481 permits issued from January 2000 
through July 2008, 216 permits were approved for fish and wildlife 
habitat as a PMLU, followed by 209 permits approved for hay or 
pastureland, and 109 permits approved for forestland.[Footnote 17] 
Fifty-nine permits issued during that time were approved for other PMLU 
types, including 22 residential, 19 industrial, and 12 commercial. 
[Footnote 18] Figure 13 shows these data, including the number of 
permits that did not identify a PMLU type. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Data undercounts the number of PMLU types approved on permits issued 
prior to 1995, and data from some permits was double counted in the 
1980s. 

Year permit issued: 1970; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0; 	
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
Forestland: 0; 
All other PMLU types: 0; 
No PMLU type identified: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1971; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
Forestland: 1; 
All other PMLU types: 0; 
No PMLU type identified: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1972; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 1; 
Forestland: 0; 
All other PMLU types: 0; 
No PMLU type identified: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1973; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
Forestland: 3; 
All other PMLU types: 0; 
No PMLU type identified: 13. 

Year permit issued: 1974; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 1; 
Forestland: 3; 
All other PMLU types: 0; 
No PMLU type identified: 31. 

Year permit issued: 1975; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
Forestland: 6; 
All other PMLU types: 0; 
No PMLU type identified: 30. 

Year permit issued: 1976; 	
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 3; 
Forestland: 8; 
All other PMLU types: 3; 
No PMLU type identified: 31. 

Year permit issued: 1977; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 18; 
Forestland: 49; 
All other PMLU types: 10; 
No PMLU type identified: 45. 

Year permit issued: 1978; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 38; 
Forestland: 58; 
All other PMLU types: 6; 
No PMLU type identified: 81. 

Year permit issued: 1979; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 3; 
Hay or pastureland: 17; 
Forestland: 60; 
All other PMLU types: 22; 
No PMLU type identified: 158. 

Year permit issued: 1980; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 4; 
Hay or pastureland: 21; 
All other PMLU types: 10; 
No PMLU type identified: 65. 

Year permit issued: 1981; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 1; 
Hay or pastureland: 8; 
Forestland: 38; 
All other PMLU types: 6; 
No PMLU type identified: 70. 

Year permit issued: 1982; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 12; 
Hay or pastureland: 177; 
Forestland: 345; 
All other PMLU types: 103; 
No PMLU type identified: 168. 

Year permit issued: 1983; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 10; 
Hay or pastureland: 52; 
Forestland: 67; 
All other PMLU types: 23; 
No PMLU type identified: 529. 

Year permit issued: 1984; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 52; 
Hay or pastureland: 294; 
Forestland: 255; 
All other PMLU types: 134; 
No PMLU type identified: 755. 

Year permit issued: 1985; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 18; 
Hay or pastureland: 162; 
Forestland: 117; 
All other PMLU types: 72; 
No PMLU type identified: 296. 

Year permit issued: 1986; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 16; 
Hay or pastureland: 109; 
Forestland: 83; 
All other PMLU types: 41; 
No PMLU type identified: 95. 

Year permit issued: 1987; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 26; 
Hay or pastureland: 108; 
Forestland: 63; 
All other PMLU types: 45; 
No PMLU type identified: 19. 

Year permit issued: 1988; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 30; 
Hay or pastureland: 85; 
Forestland: 56; 
All other PMLU types: 30; 
No PMLU type identified: 8. 

Year permit issued: 1989; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 30; 
Hay or pastureland: 59; 
Forestland: 34; 
All other PMLU types: 18; 
No PMLU type identified: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1990; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 36; 
Hay or pastureland: 39; 
Forestland: 33; 
All other PMLU types: 6; 
No PMLU type identified: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1991; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 41; 
Hay or pastureland: 38; 
Forestland: 28; 
All other PMLU types: 7; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1992; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 39; 
Hay or pastureland: 18; 
Forestland: 16; 
All other PMLU types: 12; 
No PMLU type identified: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1993; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 46; 
Hay or pastureland: 28; 
Forestland: 13; 
All other PMLU types: 6; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1994; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 30; 
Hay or pastureland: 20; 
Forestland: 11; 
All other PMLU types: 4; 
No PMLU type identified: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1995; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 33; 
Hay or pastureland: 19; 
Forestland: 6; 
All other PMLU types: 2; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1996; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 33; 
Hay or pastureland: 26; 
Forestland: 8; 
All other PMLU types: 3; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1997; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 33; 
Hay or pastureland: 23; 
Forestland: 15; 
All other PMLU types: 4; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1998; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 29; 
Hay or pastureland: 26; 
Forestland: 14; 
All other PMLU types: 5; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1999; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 23; 
Hay or pastureland: 26; 
Forestland: 14; 
All other PMLU types: 9; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2000; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 17; 
Hay or pastureland: 15; 
Forestland: 7; 
All other PMLU types: 3; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2001; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 22; 
Hay or pastureland: 31; 
Forestland: 11; 
All other PMLU types: 11; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2002; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 27; 
Hay or pastureland: 32; 
Forestland: 11; 
All other PMLU types: 8; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2003; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 20; 
Hay or pastureland: 23; 
Forestland: 11; 
All other PMLU types: 10; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2004; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 28; 
Hay or pastureland: 22; 
Forestland: 11; 
All other PMLU types: 7; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2005; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 32; 
Hay or pastureland: 20; 
Forestland: 14; 
All other PMLU types: 7;	
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2006; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 29; 
Hay or pastureland: 27; 
Forestland: 17; 
All other PMLU types: 7; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2007; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 27; 
Hay or pastureland: 23; 
Forestland: 15; 
All other PMLU types: 4; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2008; 
Fish and wildlife habitat: 14; 
Hay or pastureland: 16; 
Forestland: 12; 
All other PMLU types: 2; 
No PMLU type identified: 0. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of PMLU types approved prior to 1995 
because this data element was not consistently recorded in the SMIS 
database for permits issued prior to that time, and because not all 
permits issued in the 1970s are included in SMIS. Data double counts 
the number of PMLU types approved for some permits issued in the 1980s 
because of state administrative actions to reissue previously issued 
permits. 

The total number of PMLUs approved might exceed the total number of 
permits issued because operators can designate more than one PMLU type. 
In addition, the data reflects the approved PMLU type and does not 
necessarily represent the actual land use after the permit has closed. 

[End of figure] 

In West Virginia, of the 212 permits issued from January 2000 through 
July 2008, 141 permits were approved for forestland as a PMLU, followed 
by 46 permits approved for fish and wildlife habitat/recreation and 34 
permits approved for hay or pastureland.[Footnote 19] Sixty permits 
issued during this time were approved for other PMLU types, including 
23 for commercial forestry or woodland, and 12 for industrial/ 
commercial.[Footnote 20] Figure 14 shows these data, including the 
number of permits that did not identify a PMLU type. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Data undercounts the number of PMLU types approved on permits issued 
prior to 1998. 

Year permit issued: 1970; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 1; 
Forestland: 0; 
All other PMLU types: 1; 
No PMLU type identified: 18. 

Year permit issued: 1971; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
Forestland: 2; 
All other PMLU types: 0; 
No PMLU type identified: 16. 

Year permit issued: 1972; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
Forestland: 1; 
All other PMLU types: 0; 
No PMLU type identified: 21. 

Year permit issued: 1973; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 0. 
Hay or pastureland: 1; 
Forestland: 1; 
All other PMLU types: 0; 
No PMLU type identified: 22. 

Year permit issued: 1974; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2; 
Hay or pastureland: 2; 
Forestland: 2; 
All other PMLU types: 0; 
No PMLU type identified: 63. 

Year permit issued: 1975; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2; 
Hay or pastureland: 2; 
Forestland: 1; 
All other PMLU types: 0; 
No PMLU type identified: 93. 

Year permit issued: 1976; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 5; 
Hay or pastureland: 4; 
Forestland: 10; 
All other PMLU types: 6; 
No PMLU type identified: 102. 

Year permit issued: 1977; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 7; 
Hay or pastureland: 3; 
Forestland: 3; 
All other PMLU types: 3; 
No PMLU type identified: 115. 

Year permit issued: 1978; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2; 
Hay or pastureland: 4; 
Forestland: 6; 
All other PMLU types: 3; 
No PMLU type identified: 113. 

Year permit issued: 1979; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 5; 
Hay or pastureland: 8; 
Forestland: 7; 
All other PMLU types: 4; 
No PMLU type identified: 83. 

Year permit issued: 1980; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 11; 
Hay or pastureland: 13; 
Forestland: 12; 
All other PMLU types: 8; 
No PMLU type identified: 91. 

Year permit issued: 1981; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 9; 
Hay or pastureland: 5; 
Forestland: 13; 
All other PMLU types: 6; 
No PMLU type identified: 117. 

Year permit issued: 1982; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 10; 
Hay or pastureland: 13; 
Forestland: 17; 
All other PMLU types: 7; 
No PMLU type identified: 127. 

Year permit issued: 1983; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 9; 
Hay or pastureland: 7; 
Forestland: 12; 
All other PMLU types: 3; 
No PMLU type identified: 138. 

Year permit issued: 1984; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 10; 
Hay or pastureland: 13; 
Forestland: 11; 
All other PMLU types: 1; 
No PMLU type identified: 80. 

Year permit issued: 1985; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 24; 
Hay or pastureland: 9; 
Forestland: 11; 
All other PMLU types: 6; 
No PMLU type identified: 90. 

Year permit issued: 1986; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 21; 
Hay or pastureland: 16; 
Forestland: 13; 
All other PMLU types: 8; 
No PMLU type identified: 85. 

Year permit issued: 1987; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 25; 
Hay or pastureland: 20; 
Forestland: 9; 
All other PMLU types: 6; 
No PMLU type identified: 83. 

Year permit issued: 1988; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 26; 
Hay or pastureland: 27; 
Forestland: 15; 
All other PMLU types: 4; 
No PMLU type identified: 69. 

Year permit issued: 1989; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 31; 
Hay or pastureland: 33; 
Forestland: 27; 
All other PMLU types: 6; 
No PMLU type identified: 52. 

Year permit issued: 1990; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 11; 
Hay or pastureland: 13; 
Forestland: 10; 
All other PMLU types: 1; 
No PMLU type identified: 25. 

Year permit issued: 1991; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 23; 
Hay or pastureland: 19; 
Forestland: 15; 
All other PMLU types: 6; 
No PMLU type identified: 12. 

Year permit issued: 1992; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 26; 
Hay or pastureland: 15; 
Forestland: 15; 
All other PMLU types: 12; 
No PMLU type identified: 14. 

Year permit issued: 1993; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 19; 
Hay or pastureland: 8; 
Forestland: 11; 
All other PMLU types: 6; 
No PMLU type identified: 9. 

Year permit issued: 1994; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 16; 
Hay or pastureland: 14; 
Forestland: 12; 
All other PMLU types: 10; 
No PMLU type identified: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1995; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 15; 
Hay or pastureland: 9; 
Forestland: 12; 
All other PMLU types: 10; 
No PMLU type identified: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1996; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 20; 
Hay or pastureland: 11; 
Forestland: 16; 
All other PMLU types: 8; 
No PMLU type identified: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1997; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 19; 
Hay or pastureland: 10; 
Forestland: 19; 
All other PMLU types: 14; 
No PMLU type identified: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1998; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 6; 
Hay or pastureland: 9; 
Forestland: 9; 
All other PMLU types: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1999; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 6; 
Hay or pastureland: 5; 
Forestland: 9; 
All other PMLU types: 4. 

Year permit issued: 2000; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 3; 
Hay or pastureland: 5; 
Forestland: 10; 
All other PMLU types: 8. 

Year permit issued: 2001; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 6; 
Hay or pastureland: 3; 
Forestland: 23; 
All other PMLU types: 14. 

Year permit issued: 2002; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 4; 
Hay or pastureland: 6; 
Forestland: 8; 
All other PMLU types: 7. 

Year permit issued: 2003; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 8; 
Hay or pastureland: 1; 
Forestland: 25; 
All other PMLU types: 10. 

Year permit issued: 2004; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 7; 
Hay or pastureland: 2; 
Forestland: 19; 
All other PMLU types: 3. 

Year permit issued: 2005; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2; 
Hay or pastureland: 5; 
Forestland: 10; 
All other PMLU types: 4. 

Year permit issued: 2006; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 9; 
Hay or pastureland: 5; 
Forestland: 21; 
All other PMLU types: 7. 

Year permit issued: 2007; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 5; 
Hay or pastureland: 6; 
Forestland: 16; 
All other PMLU types: 3. 

Year permit issued: 2008; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2; 
Hay or pastureland: 1; 
Forestland: 9; 
All other PMLU types: 4. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of PMLU types approved prior to 1998 
because this data element was not consistently recorded in the ERIS 
database for permits issued prior to that time, and because permits 
closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS. 

The total number of PMLUs approved might exceed the total number of 
permits issued because operators can designate more than one PMLU type. 
In addition, the data reflects the approved PMLU type and does not 
necessarily represent the actual land use after the permit has closed. 

[End of figure] 

While the state and federal agencies are not required to oversee a 
PMLU's implementation once a permit has been released, OSM and several 
Appalachian states have recognized that past practices have not always 
established healthy, productive forests on reclaimed lands. In June 
2008, OSM issued a policy directive to promote reestablishment of 
forestland where existing forests had been removed by surface mining. 
[Footnote 21] The OSM directive's purpose is to encourage 
reforestation, rather than past reclamation practices that led many 
operators and landowners to choose agricultural PMLUs that did not 
include trees, such as hay or pastureland. According to the directive, 
past reclamation practices led to low rates of tree survival and 
growth, forest fragmentation, reduced carbon sequestration, loss of 
wildlife habitat and forest products, and increased flood potential. To 
reverse this trend, the directive encourages the widespread and routine 
planting of native, high-value trees that will restore the uses and 
ecosystems provided by forests prior to mining. The OSM directive is 
part of a broader effort known as the Appalachian Regional 
Reforestation Initiative--formed in 2004 by federal and state agencies, 
the coal industry, environmental organizations, and others in the 
Appalachian region--to promote improved reforestation techniques on 
surface-mined lands. 

In addition to PMLU types, the states' databases contain information on 
the type of land use associated with the permitted area immediately 
prior to mining--the pre-mining land use. The most common types of pre- 
mining land use identified for permits issued from January 2000 through 
July 2008 were the same for both states: forestland and previously 
mined but unreclaimed lands. According to OSM, virtually all of the 
land that has been surface mined for coal over the past 30 years in 
Appalachia was forested before it was originally mined. The states' 
data indicate that other types of pre-mining land use--such as 
residential, commercial, or cropland--occurred infrequently or not at 
all. Our analysis of the data revealed that starting in 1989 in 
Kentucky, at least 97 percent of new permits issued identified at least 
one pre-mining land use type and starting in 1998 in West Virginia, all 
new permits issued identified at least one pre-mining land use type. 

Kentucky's data show that, of the 481 permits issued from 2000 through 
July 2008, 415 permits had a pre-mining land use of forestland, and 290 
were previously mined. (As with PMLU, permits can identify more than 
one pre-mining land use type). In addition, 44 permits identified hay 
or pastureland, and 43 permits identified other types of pre-mining 
land use, including 24 permits with undeveloped land.[Footnote 22] Two 
permits did not identify any pre-mining land use type. Figure 15 shows 
these data, including the number of permits that did not identify a pre-
mining land use type. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Data undercounts the number of pre-mining land use types identified on 
permits issued prior to 1989, and data from some permits was double 
counted in the 1980s. 

Year permit issued: 1970; 
Forestland: 0; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 0; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1971; 
Forestland: 1; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 0; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1972; 
Forestland: 1; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 0; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1973; 
Forestland: 3; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 0; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 13. 

Year permit issued: 1974; 
Forestland: 4; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 0; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 31. 

Year permit issued: 1975; 
Forestland: 6; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 1; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 30. 

Year permit issued: 1976; 
Forestland: 10; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 1; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 31. 

Year permit issued: 1977; 
Forestland: 62; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 7; 
Hay or pastureland: 1; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 2; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 45. 

Year permit issued: 1978; 
Forestland: 72; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 21; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 9; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 80. 

Year permit issued: 1979; 
Forestland: 74; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 7; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 15; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 159. 

Year permit issued: 1980; 
Forestland: 61; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 11; 
Hay or pastureland: 1; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 7; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 64. 

Year permit issued: 1981; 
Forestland: 41; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3; 
Hay or pastureland: 0; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 4; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 70. 

Year permit issued: 1982; 
Forestland: 475; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 97; 
Hay or pastureland: 6; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 49; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 168. 

Year permit issued: 1983; 
Forestland: 104; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 14; 
Hay or pastureland: 2; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 19; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 529. 

Year permit issued: 1984; 
Forestland: 499; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 74; 
Hay or pastureland: 13; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 129; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 757. 

Year permit issued: 1985; 
Forestland: 254; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 49; 
Hay or pastureland: 7; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 46; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 293. 

Year permit issued: 1986; 
Forestland: 170; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 37; 
Hay or pastureland: 8; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 33; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 91. 

Year permit issued: 1987; 
Forestland: 139; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 48; 
Hay or pastureland: 10; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 60; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 17. 

Year permit issued: 1988; 
Forestland: 121; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 27; 
Hay or pastureland: 4; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 57; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 9. 

Year permit issued: 1989; 
Forestland: 88; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 17; 
Hay or pastureland: 3; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 30; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1990; 
Forestland: 81; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 16; 
Hay or pastureland: 7; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 31; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1991; 
Forestland: 76; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 14; 
Hay or pastureland: 13; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 37; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1992; 
Forestland: 56; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 9; 
Hay or pastureland: 13; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 23; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1993; 
Forestland: 62; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 11; 
Hay or pastureland: 39; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 14; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1994; 
Forestland: 41; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 5; 
Hay or pastureland: 29; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 8; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1995; 
Forestland: 39; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 5; 
Hay or pastureland: 30; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 8; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1996; 
Forestland: 52; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 6; 
Hay or pastureland: 35; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 6; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1997; 
Forestland: 49; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2; 
Hay or pastureland: 35; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 3; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1998; 
Forestland: 45; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 5; 
Hay or pastureland: 33; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 4; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1999; 
Forestland: 44; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 5; 
Hay or pastureland: 30; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 1; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2000; 
Forestland: 27; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2; 
Hay or pastureland: 17; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 3; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2001; 
Forestland: 49; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 6; 
Hay or pastureland: 35; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 8; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 1. 

Year permit issued: 2002; 
Forestland: 49; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 7; 
Hay or pastureland: 42; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 9; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2003; 
Forestland: 44; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 8; 
Hay or pastureland: 26; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 5; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2004; 
Forestland: 49; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 5; 
Hay or pastureland: 37; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 5; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2005; 
Forestland: 54; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 4; 
Hay or pastureland: 36; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 5; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2006; 
Forestland: 58; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 7; 
Hay or pastureland: 40; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 2; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2007; 
Forestland: 51; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3; 
Hay or pastureland: 40; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 5; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2008; 
Forestland: 34; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2; 
Hay or pastureland: 17; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 1; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 1. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of pre-mining land use types identified 
prior to 1989 because this data element was not consistently recorded 
in the SMIS database for permits issued prior to that time, and because 
not all permits in the 1970s are included in SMIS. Data double counts 
the number of pre-mining land use types identified on some permits 
issued in the 1980s because of state administrative actions to reissue 
previously issued permits. 

The total number of pre-mining land uses identified might exceed the 
number of permits issued because operators can identify more than one 
pre-mining land use type. 

[End of figure] 

Over the same period, West Virginia's data show that of the 212 permits 
issued, 174 permits had a pre-mining land use of forestland, and 59 
were previously mined. Additionally, 43 permits had a pre-mining land 
use type of fish and wildlife/recreation, while 45 permits identified 
other types of pre-mining land use, including 23 for hay or 
pastureland.[Footnote 23] All permits issued since 2000 in West 
Virginia identified at least one pre-mining land use type. Figure 16 
shows these data, including the number of permits that did not identify 
a pre-mining land use type. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Year permit issued: 1970; 
Forestland: 1; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 0; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 0; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 18. 

Year permit issued: 1971; 
Forestland: 2; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 0; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 16. 

Year permit issued: 1972; 
Forestland: 1; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 0; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 0; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 21. 

Year permit issued: 1973; 
Forestland: 1; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 1; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 0; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 0; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 22. 

Year permit issued: 1974; 
Forestland: 4; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 1; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 1; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 63. 

Year permit issued: 1975; 
Forestland: 3; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 1; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 2; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 93. 

Year permit issued: 1976; 
Forestland: 15; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 5; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 3; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 102. 

Year permit issued: 1977; 
Forestland: 8; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 5; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 1; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 116. 

Year permit issued: 1978; 
Forestland: 11; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 1; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 0; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 113. 

Year permit issued: 1979; 
Forestland: 9; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 1; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 4; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 6; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 83. 

Year permit issued: 1980; 
Forestland: 21; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 12; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 11; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 91. 

Year permit issued: 1981; 
Forestland: 19; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 7; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 5; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 119. 

Year permit issued: 1982; 
Forestland: 26; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 5; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 7; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 12; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 127. 

Year permit issued: 1983; 
Forestland: 18; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 6; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 7; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 138. 

Year permit issued: 1984; 
Forestland: 18; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 10; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 8; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 80. 

Year permit issued: 1985; 
Forestland: 23; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 24; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 4; ;
No pre-mining land use type identified: 90. 

Year permit issued: 1986; 
Forestland: 28; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 23; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 9; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 86. 

Year permit issued: 1987; 
Forestland: 25; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 21; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 12; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 83. 

Year permit issued: 1988; 
Forestland: 28; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 24; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 16; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 70. 

Year permit issued: 1989; 
Forestland: 45; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 33; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 16; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 52. 

Year permit issued: 1990; 
Forestland: 20; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 0; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 9; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 7; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 25. 

Year permit issued: 1991; 
Forestland: 37; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 6; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 16; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 16; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 12. 

Year permit issued: 1992; 
Forestland: 31; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 4; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 19; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 12; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 14. 

Year permit issued: 1993; 
Forestland: 21; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 11; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 5; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 10. 

Year permit issued: 1994; 
Forestland: 28; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 6; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 9; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 8; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1995; 
Forestland: 22; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 4; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 11; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 7; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1996; 
Forestland: 31; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 7; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 12; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 8; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1997; 
Forestland: 32; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 17; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 7; 
No pre-mining land use type identified: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1998; 
Forestland: 14; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 1; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 5; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1999; 
Forestland: 13; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 4; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 3. 

Year permit issued: 2000; 
Forestland: 15; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 6. 

Year permit issued: 2001; 
Forestland: 32; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 6; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 4; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 6. 

Year permit issued: 2002; 
Forestland: 13; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 2; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 4; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 6. 

Year permit issued: 2003; 
Forestland: 29; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 9; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 11; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 2. 

Year permit issued: 2004; 
Forestland: 21; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 7; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 8; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 1. 

Year permit issued: 2005; 
Forestland: 12; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 4; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 2; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 6. ; 

Year permit issued: 2006; 
Forestland: 23; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 15; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 7; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 8. 

Year permit issued: 2007; 
Forestland: 18; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 11; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 4; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 7. 

Year permit issued: 2008; 
Forestland: 11; 
Previously mined but not reclaimed: 3; 
Fish and wildlife habitat/recreation: 1; 
All other pre-mining land use types: 3. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of pre-mining land use types identified 
prior to 1998 because this data element was not consistently recorded 
in the ERIS database for permits issued prior to that time, and because 
permits closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS. 

The total number of pre-mining land uses identified might exceed the 
number of permits issued because operators can designate more than one 
pre-mining land use type. 

[End of figure] 

Most Operations Are Required to Reclaim the Land to AOC, but There Are 
Exceptions: 

SMCRA generally requires surface-mined land to be reclaimed to AOC. The 
act defines AOC as closely resembling the general surface configuration 
of the land prior to mining and blending into and complementing the 
drainage pattern of the surrounding terrain. However, SMCRA does not 
require operators to duplicate the original contour or elevation of the 
mined area. Furthermore, according to OSM, it is often not physically 
possible to do so because of site-specific conditions and performance 
standards such as ensuring stability, controlling drainage, and 
preventing stream sedimentation. In addition, SMCRA allows exceptions 
to the AOC requirement--called AOC variances--under certain 
circumstances. 

Kentucky and West Virginia issued AOC policy guidance in 2001 and 1999, 
respectively, to help implement SMCRA. The states issued this guidance 
following special oversight reviews that OSM conducted on how the 
states applied standards and approved permits in reference to AOC 
requirements.[Footnote 24] In both states' permit applications, 
operators provide calculations, maps, and/or cross sections to 
illustrate and define the proposed post-mining contour of the permit 
area. This proposed contour becomes part of the reclamation plan for 
the site, fulfillment of which is a condition for release of the 
operator's bond. The OSM reports found, among other things, that some 
reclaimed sites where the operator was supposed to return the land to 
AOC differed little from sites that had been granted AOC variances. 
[Footnote 25] Both states agreed to apply their AOC policies 
prospectively for all new permits issued, as well as review all pre-
existing permits and correct deficiencies to the extent practicable. 
Kentucky's guidance states that, in general, approximately 80 percent 
of spoil volume should be returned to the mined-out area to achieve 
AOC, although site-specific flexibility is allowed.[Footnote 26] 
Kentucky's guidance also states that the post-mining contour must 
closely resemble, but does not need to exactly match the pre-mining 
contour, and the post-mining slopes do not necessarily have to be long 
and uninterrupted, even if the pre-mining slopes were. West Virginia's 
AOC guidance provides a technical model designed to maximize the amount 
and height of spoil placed back on the mined-out area and therefore 
minimize the amount of excess spoil placed in fills that can impact 
streams and terrestrial and aquatic habitats.[Footnote 27] In addition, 
the West Virginia model is designed to result in fills being placed as 
far upstream as possible. Like Kentucky's guidance, West Virginia's 
guidance allows site-specific flexibility for AOC determinations. 
Figure 17 illustrates what a reclaimed site could look like in meeting 
the AOC requirement, compared with the original, pre-mining contour. 

Figure 17: An Illustration of a Reclaimed Site Meeting the AOC 
Requirement, Compared with the Original, Pre-Mining Contour: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Depicted on the illustration are the following: 

Pre-mining contour; 
Post-mining contour; 
Coal seams; 
Excess spoil. 

Source: OSM. 

[End of figure] 

While the states' databases contain data on some permits issued with 
AOC variances as long ago as 1982 in Kentucky and 1976 in West 
Virginia, officials in both states stated that the reliability of data 
on AOC variances improved starting in 2002 and 2000, respectively. 
[Footnote 28] In addition, state officials told us that operators do 
not always use the variances they are granted, resulting in some of 
those sites being reclaimed to AOC, a fact that may not be reflected in 
the data. State officials also told us that an AOC variance may apply 
to the entire permitted area, or only a portion, and that a permit may 
contain more than one AOC variance. Finally, Kentucky officials told us 
that they have not consistently recorded reliable information in their 
database on the acres or PMLU types associated specifically with AOC 
variances, and West Virginia officials told us they have not recorded 
this information to any extent in their database, thus we are unable to 
provide that information. 

According to Kentucky's and West Virginia's data, most surface coal 
mining permits issued in recent years required the land to be reclaimed 
to AOC, although both states also granted some permits with AOC 
variances. Specifically, 76 percent (or 294 permits) of the 388 permits 
that Kentucky issued from January 2002 through July 2008 required the 
operator to reclaim the land to AOC. The remaining 24 percent (or 94 
permits) contained 99 AOC variances. Figure 18 shows the number of 
permits issued to reclaim the land to AOC, compared with permits issued 
with AOC variances. 

Figure 18: Number of Permits in Kentucky Issued to Be Reclaimed to AOC, 
Compared with Permits Issued with AOC Variances, 1970-2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Data undercounts permits issued in the 1970s, and some permits were 
double counted in the 1980s. In addition, data undercounts permits with 
AOC variances issued prior to 2002. 

Year permit issued: 1970; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1971; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1972; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1973; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 16. 

Year permit issued: 1974; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 35. 

Year permit issued: 1975; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 36. 

Year permit issued: 1976; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 42. 

Year permit issued: 1977; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 111. 

Year permit issued: 1978; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 169. 

Year permit issued: 1979; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 243. 

Year permit issued: 1980; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 134. 

Year permit issued: 1981; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 114. 

Year permit issued: 1982; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 680; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1983; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 644; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1984; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 1,300; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 10. 

Year permit issued: 1985; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 566; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1986; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 276; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1987; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 176; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1988; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 140; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1989; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 102. 

Year permit issued: 1990; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 85; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1991; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 72; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 6. 

Year permit issued: 1992; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 55; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 7. 

Year permit issued: 1993; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 65; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 6. 

Year permit issued: 1994; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 44; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1995; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 42; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1996; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 47; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 10. 

Year permit issued: 1997; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 45; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 8. 

Year permit issued: 1998; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 42; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 9. 

Year permit issued: 1999; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 41; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 8. 

Year permit issued: 2000; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 27; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4. 

Year permit issued: 2001; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 57; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5. 

Year permit issued: 2002; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 38; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 19. 

Year permit issued: 2003; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 39; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 12. 

Year permit issued: 2004; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 41; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 16. 

Year permit issued: 2005; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 41; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 18. 

Year permit issued: 2006; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 52; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 15. 

Year permit issued: 2007; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 51; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 9. 

Year permit issued: 2008; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 32; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts permits issued in the 1970s because not all permits of 
that era are included in the SMIS database, and some permits were 
double counted in the 1980s because of state administrative actions to 
reissue previously issued permits. In addition, data undercounts 
permits issued with AOC variances prior to 2002 because this data 
element was not consistently recorded in SMIS for permits issued prior 
to that time. 

A permit may contain more than one AOC variance. In addition, the data 
reflects the AOC variances that are approved, not necessarily the 
variances implemented. 

[End of figure] 

In West Virginia, 85 percent (or 181 permits) of the 212 permits issued 
from January 2000 through July 2008 required the operator to reclaim 
the land to AOC. The remaining 15 percent (or 31 permits) contained 33 
AOC variances. Figure 19 shows the number of permits issued to reclaim 
the land to AOC, compared with permits issued with AOC variances. 

Figure 19: Number of Permits in West Virginia Issued to Be Reclaimed to 
AOC, Compared with Permits Issued with AOC Variances, 1970-2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Data undercounts permits issued prior to 1984. In addition, data 
undercounts permits issued with AOC variances prior to 2000. 

Year permit issued: 1970; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 19; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1971; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 18; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1972; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 22; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1973; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 24; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1974; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 67; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1975; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 97; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1976; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 119; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1977; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 127; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1978; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 125; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1979; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 98; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1980; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 119; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1981; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 140; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1982; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 160; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1983; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 162; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1984; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 107; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1985; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 125; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1986; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 129; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1987; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 131; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1988; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 120; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1989; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 130; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1990; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 52; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1991; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 52; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 11. 

Year permit issued: 1992; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 53; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 12. 

Year permit issued: 1993; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 32; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 7. 

Year permit issued: 1994; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 38; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 6. 

Year permit issued: 1995; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 26; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 7. 

Year permit issued: 1996; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 37; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1997; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 39; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1998; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 19; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1999; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 16; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1. 

Year permit issued: 2000; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 14; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4. 

Year permit issued: 2001; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 28; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 6. 

Year permit issued: 2002; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 18; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1. 

Year permit issued: 2003; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 25; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 8. 

Year permit issued: 2004; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 23; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 3. 

Year permit issued: 2005; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 14; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 2. 

Year permit issued: 2006; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 27; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 4. 

Year permit issued: 2007; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 23; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 1. 

Year permit issued: 2008; 
Number of permits issued to be reclaimed to AOC: 9; 
Number of permits issued with an AOC variance: 2. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts permits issued prior to 1984 because permits closed 
prior to 1984 are not included in the ERIS database. In addition, data 
undercounts permits issued with AOC variances prior to 2000 because 
this data element was not consistently recorded in ERIS for permits 
issued prior to that time. 

A permit may contain more than one AOC variance. In addition, the data 
reflects the AOC variances that are approved, not necessarily the 
variances implemented. 

[End of figure] 

According to the two states' databases, Kentucky and West Virginia have 
approved three different types of AOC variances--remining, mountaintop 
removal, and steep slope. Remining AOC variances are used for certain 
lands that have been previously mined, but not reclaimed, and for which 
the regulatory agency deems there is insufficient spoil to return the 
remined land to the shape of the original mountain. A remining AOC 
variance simply requires the operator to return as much spoil as 
possible to the site. This type of AOC variance also allows the 
operator to keep a preexisting highwall intact, so long as it is 
stable. 

By contrast, the other two types of AOC variances--mountaintop removal 
and steep slope--may be approved for specific types of operations on 
land in mountainous areas, even though the land could physically be 
reclaimed to AOC.[Footnote 29] In these cases, federal and state 
regulations allow the operator to reclaim the land without regard to 
the AOC requirement if the land will be suitable for certain PMLUs. 
According to an OSM policy document on AOC variances issued in June 
2000,[Footnote 30] these types of AOC variances present an opportunity 
to create relatively flat, flood-free land capable of supporting 
residential and industrial development or other valuable land uses in 
mountainous Appalachia. However, the OSM policy advises that 
mountaintop removal and steep slope AOC variances should be granted 
"only in situations where beneficial land uses could compensate for the 
adverse effects of not returning the land to AOC." These adverse 
effects include increased excess spoil that can result in more and 
larger fills placed in adjacent valleys and hollows,[Footnote 31] 
compared with operations that comply with the AOC requirement.[Footnote 
32] The OSM policy also directs state regulatory agencies to approve 
mountaintop removal and steep slope AOC variances only in cases where 
the PMLU offers a net benefit to the public or the economy. An example 
of a reclaimed site with an AOC variance, used to build the Mount Olive 
Correctional Complex in Fayette County, West Virginia, appears in 
figure 20. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The types of mining operations and PMLU restrictions to which 
mountaintop removal and steep slope AOC variances apply are as follows: 
[Footnote 33] 

* A mountaintop removal operation involves the extraction of an entire 
coal seam or seams in the upper part of a mountain, ridge, or hill. 
Additionally, the land must be reclaimed to a condition suitable for 
agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential, or public facility 
(including recreational facilities) uses. 

* A steep slope operation is one conducted in an area with a slope 
exceeding 20 degrees (or less, if deemed appropriate by the state after 
considering soil, climate, and other site characteristics) that does 
not involve the removal of the entire mountaintop. Operators of steep 
slope AOC variances are restricted to the same PMLUs as for mountaintop 
removal variances, except that agricultural land use is not allowed. 

To help ensure the land is reclaimed to a condition capable of 
supporting the PMLU proposed by the operator, SMCRA and its 
implementing regulations also provide specific criteria for granting 
mountaintop removal and steep slope AOC variances. For example, for 
mountaintop removal AOC variances, the operator must provide assurance 
in the permit application that the PMLU will be: 

* compatible with adjacent land uses; 

* obtainable according to data regarding expected need and market; 

* assured of investment in necessary public facilities; 

* supported by commitments from public agencies, where appropriate; 

* practicable with respect to private financial capability for 
completion of the proposed use; 

* planned pursuant to a schedule attached to the reclamation plan so as 
to integrate the mining operation and reclamation with the PMLU; and: 

* designed by a registered engineer in conformance with professional 
standards established to ensure the stability, drainage, and 
configuration necessary for the intended use of the site. 

Kentucky's data indicate that, of the 99 AOC variances contained in 94 
permits issued from January 2002 through July 2008, 79 were for 
remining, while 5 were for mountaintop removal, and 15 were for steep 
slope AOC variances.[Footnote 34] Figure 21 shows the types of AOC 
variances approved in Kentucky, by year. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image; Vertical bar graph] 

Year permit issued: 1970; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1971; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1972; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1973; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1974; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1975; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1976; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1977; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1978; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1979; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1980; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1981; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1982; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1983; 
Remining: 1; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1984; 
Remining: 7; 
Steep slope: 5; 
Mountaintop removal: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1985; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1986; 
Remining: 1; 
Steep slope: 3; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1987; 
Remining: 2; 
Steep slope: 3; 
Mountaintop removal: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1988; 
Remining: 2; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1989; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1990; 
Remining: 2; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1991; 
Remining: 1; 
Steep slope: 6; 
Mountaintop removal: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1992; 
Remining: 1; 
Steep slope: 5; 
Mountaintop removal: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1993; 
Remining: 2; 
Steep slope: 5; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1994; 
Remining: 1; 
Steep slope: 2; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1995; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 4; 
Mountaintop removal: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1996; 
Remining: 2; 
Steep slope: 8; 
Mountaintop removal: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1997; 
Remining: 3; 
Steep slope: 4; 
Mountaintop removal: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1998; 
Remining: 5; 
Steep slope: 5; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1999; 
Remining: 4; 
Steep slope: 4; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 2000; 
Remining: 4; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2001; 
Remining: 4; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 2002; 
Remining: 15; 
Steep slope: 4; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 2003; 
Remining: 8; 
Steep slope: 4; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2004; 
Remining: 15; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 2005; 
Remining: 18; 
Steep slope: 2; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2006; 
Remining: 12; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 3. 

Year permit issued: 2007; 
Remining: 7; 
Steep slope: 2; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2008; 
Remining: 4; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of AOC variances approved on permits issued 
prior to 2002 because this data element was not consistently recorded 
in the SMIS database for permits issued prior to that time. 

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

[End of figure] 

In West Virginia, of the 33 AOC variances contained in 31 permits 
issued from January 2000 through July 2008, 9 were for remining, 18 
were for mountaintop removal, and 6 were for steep slope AOC variances. 
[Footnote 35] Figure 22 shows the types of AOC variances approved in 
West Virginia, by year. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Data undercounts AOC variances approved on permits issued prior to 
2002. 

Year permit issued: 1970; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1971; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1972; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1973; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1974; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1975; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1976; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1977; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1978; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1979; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1980; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1981; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1982; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1983; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1984; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 	
Mountaintop removal: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1985; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 3; 
Mountaintop removal: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1986; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1987; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1988; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1989; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1990; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 3; 
Mountaintop removal: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1991; 
Remining: 1; 
Steep slope: 7; 
Mountaintop removal: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1992; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 11; 
Mountaintop removal: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1993; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 4; 
Mountaintop removal: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1994; 
Remining: 1; 
Steep slope: 2; 
Mountaintop removal: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1995; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 6; 
Mountaintop removal: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1996; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 2; 
Mountaintop removal: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1997; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 3; 
Mountaintop removal: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1998; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1999; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 2000; 
Remining: 1; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 3. 

Year permit issued: 2001; 
Remining: 3; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 3. 

Year permit issued: 2002; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 2003; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 7. 

Year permit issued: 2004; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 2. 

Year permit issued: 2005; 
Remining: 2; 
Steep slope: 0; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2006; 
Remining: 3; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2007; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

Year permit issued: 2008; 
Remining: 0; 
Steep slope: 1; 
Mountaintop removal: 1. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of AOC variances approved on permits issued 
prior to 2000 because this data element was not consistently recorded 
in the ERIS database for permits issued prior to that time, and because 
permits closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS. 

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

[End of figure] 

Operators Were Approved to Construct Nearly 2,000 Valley and Hollow 
Fills from 2000 to 2008: 

As part of the permitting process, operators may be authorized to place 
excess spoil in fills in nearby valleys and hollows. OSM, Kentucky, and 
West Virginia regulations define these fills as structures consisting 
of any material, other than organic material, placed in a valley or the 
uppermost reaches of a hollow where either (1) the side slopes, 
measured at the steepest point, are greater than 20 degrees or (2) the 
average slope of the profile of the valley or hollow, from the bottom 
to the top of the fill, is greater than 10 degrees. In the permit 
application, operators justify the estimated number and size of these 
fills based on the amount of excess spoil they calculate will not be 
needed to achieve AOC or, in the case of an AOC variance, to support 
the proposed PMLU. The regulations further distinguish between valley 
fills and hollow fills, and Kentucky makes use of this distinction in 
its database. One official told us that in Kentucky, the difference 
between valley fills and hollow fills is that hollow fills tend to be 
smaller in size and located higher up in the valley than valley fills. 
West Virginia does not make use of this distinction in its database. 

According to OSM, the amount of excess spoil generated varies 
considerably depending on the nature of the rock and the mining method 
used, but the industry average is about 25 percent of material removed. 
[Footnote 36] Although fills are not subject to AOC requirements, the 
operator must ensure fills are safe and stable,[Footnote 37] compatible 
with the surrounding landscape, and suitable for the approved PMLU. In 
addition, among other requirements, operators must dispose of the 
excess spoil in designated areas within the permit boundaries; minimize 
the adverse effects of leaching and surface water runoff from the fill; 
and minimize adverse impacts on fish and wildlife to the extent 
possible, using the best technology currently available. Excess spoil 
that is acid-or toxic-forming must be adequately covered or treated to 
control the impacts on surface and groundwater, plant growth, and the 
approved PMLU.[Footnote 38] Terraces may be constructed if needed for 
stability, for control of erosion, to conserve soil moisture, or to 
facilitate the approved PMLU. Figure 23 shows a terraced fill on a 
reclaimed site in West Virginia. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The two states' databases indicate operators were collectively approved 
to construct nearly 2,000 fills from January 2000 through July 2008 to 
store at least 4.85 billion cubic yards of excess spoil. The data 
reflects the number and size of fills approved; the states do not keep 
electronic data on the number and size of fills that were actually 
constructed.[Footnote 39] According to state officials, operators may 
forgo constructing an approved fill, or they may construct a smaller 
fill than approved, without revising the permit. A permit can contain 
one or more fills, but an operator may only be authorized to increase 
the number or size of fills through a permit revision. Additionally, 
while both states have collected some information on fills in their 
databases since the late 1970s, Kentucky officials told us their fill 
data is less reliable prior to 2000. West Virginia officials also told 
us they did not consistently record information on fills in their 
database until the late 1990s. 

Kentucky approved 1,488 fills on permits issued from January 2000 
through July 2008, of which 94 percent of the fills were classified as 
hollow fills, and 6 percent were valley fills. Sixty-six percent (319 
permits) of the 481 permits issued during that time approved the 
construction of one or more fills. Figure 24 shows the total number of 
fills approved, and permits issued with fills, by year. 

Figure 24: Fills Approved in Kentucky, 1970-2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: combined line and vertical bar graph] 

Data undercounts fills approved on permits issued prior to 2000, and 
data from some permits was double counted in the 1980s. 

Year permit issued: 1970; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1971; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1972; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1973; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1974; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1975; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1976; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1977; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 10; 
Permits with fills: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1978; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1979; 
Valley fills: 3; 
Hollow fills: 9; 
Permits with fills: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1980; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 16; 
Permits with fills: 3. 

Year permit issued: 1981; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 10; 
Permits with fills: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1982; 
Valley fills: 21; 
Hollow fills: 193; 
Permits with fills: 48. 

Year permit issued: 1983; 
Valley fills: 2; 
Hollow fills: 168; 
Permits with fills: 40. 

Year permit issued: 1984; 
Valley fills: 27; 
Hollow fills: 716; 
Permits with fills: 179. 

Year permit issued: 1985; 
Valley fills: 40; 
Hollow fills: 736; 
Permits with fills: 176. 

Year permit issued: 1986; 
Valley fills: 38; 
Hollow fills: 449; 
Permits with fills: 118. 

Year permit issued: 1987; 
Valley fills: 19; 
Hollow fills: 482; 
Permits with fills: 112. 

Year permit issued: 1988; 
Valley fills: 18; 
Hollow fills: 319; 
Permits with fills: 90. 

Year permit issued: 1989; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 232; 
Permits with fills: 64. 

Year permit issued: 1990; 
Valley fills: 9; 
Hollow fills: 205; 
Permits with fills: 47. 

Year permit issued: 1991; 
Valley fills: 40; 
Hollow fills: 322; 
Permits with fills: 58. 

Year permit issued: 1992; 
Valley fills: 26; 
Hollow fills: 316; 
Permits with fills: 50. 

Year permit issued: 1993; 
Valley fills: 20; 
Hollow fills: 311; 
Permits with fills: 56. 

Year permit issued: 1994; 
Valley fills: 6; 
Hollow fills: 203; 
Permits with fills: 37. 

Year permit issued: 1995; 
Valley fills: 14; 
Hollow fills: 207; 
Permits with fills: 37. 

Year permit issued: 1996; 
Valley fills: 18; 
Hollow fills: 280; 
Permits with fills: 44. 

Year permit issued: 1997; 
Valley fills: 41; 
Hollow fills: 234; 
Permits with fills: 49. 

Year permit issued: 1998; 
Valley fills: 29; 
Hollow fills: 174; 
Permits with fills: 38. 

Year permit issued: 1999; 
Valley fills: 2; 
Hollow fills: 239; 
Permits with fills: 40. 

Year permit issued: 2000; 
Valley fills: 1; 
Hollow fills: 160; 
Permits with fills: 28. 

Year permit issued: 2001; 
Valley fills: 42; 
Hollow fills: 165; 
Permits with fills: 43. 

Year permit issued: 2002; 
Valley fills: 12; 
Hollow fills: 175; 
Permits with fills: 38. 

Year permit issued: 2003; 
Valley fills: 19; 
Hollow fills: 227; 
Permits with fills: 39. 

Year permit issued: 2004; 
Valley fills: 4; 
Hollow fills: 126; 
Permits with fills: 32. 

Year permit issued: 2005; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 144; 
Permits with fills: 38. 

Year permit issued: 2006; 
Valley fills: 6; 
Hollow fills: 158; 
Permits with fills: 38. 

Year permit issued: 2007; 
Valley fills: 0; 
Hollow fills: 158; 
Permits with fills: 42. 

Year permit issued: 2008; 
Valley fills: 2; 
Hollow fills: 89; 
Permits with fills: 21. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of fills approved prior to 2000 because 
this data element was not consistently recorded in the SMIS database 
for permits issued prior to that time, and because not all permits 
issued in the 1970s are included in SMIS. Data double counts the number 
of fills approved for some permits issued in the 1980s because of state 
administrative actions to reissue previously issued permits. 

The data reflects the number of fills approved, not the actual number 
of fills constructed. 

[End of figure] 

Of the 1,488 fills approved on permits issued from 2000 through July 
2008, Kentucky's database contains storage volume information on 1,485 
fills. In total, these 1,485 fills were approved to store up to 2.15 
billion cubic yards of excess spoil, averaging 1.4 million cubic yards 
and ranging from 564 cubic yards to 23.1 million cubic yards per fill. 
See figure 25 for the total storage volume approved, by year. 

Figure 25: Storage Volume of Fills Approved in Kentucky, 1970-2008 
(cubic yards in millions): 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Year permit issued: 1970; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1971; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1972; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1973; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1974; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1975; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1976; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1977; 
Hollow fills: 16.1; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1978; 
Hollow fills: 0; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1979; 
Hollow fills: 0.9; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1980; 
Hollow fills: 19.6; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1981; 
Hollow fills: 28.7; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1982; 
Hollow fills: 250.7; 
Valley fills: 6.4. 

Year permit issued: 1983; 
Hollow fills: 311.5; 
Valley fills: 1.0. 

Year permit issued: 1984; 
Hollow fills: 1,091.7; 
Valley fills: 23.7. 

Year permit issued: 1985; 
Hollow fills: 691.3; 
Valley fills: 89.2. 

Year permit issued: 1986; 
Hollow fills: 362.6; 
Valley fills: 7.6. 

Year permit issued: 1987; 
Hollow fills: 583.9; 
Valley fills: 15.7. 

Year permit issued: 1988; 
Hollow fills: 554.9; 
Valley fills: 14.7. 

Year permit issued: 1989; 
Hollow fills: 255.7; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1990; 
Hollow fills: 430.0; 
Valley fills: 4.7. 

Year permit issued: 1991; 
Hollow fills: 695.7; 
Valley fills: 25.8. 

Year permit issued: 1992; 
Hollow fills: 713.4; 
Valley fills: 27.6. 

Year permit issued: 1993; 
Hollow fills: 424.4; 
Valley fills: 25.7. 

Year permit issued: 1994; 
Hollow fills: 499.2; 
Valley fills: 5.1. 

Year permit issued: 1995; 
Hollow fills: 703.5; 
Valley fills: 47.6. 

Year permit issued: 1996; 
Hollow fills: 476.6; 
Valley fills: 20.0. 

Year permit issued: 1997; 
Hollow fills: 629.9; 
Valley fills: 64.0. 

Year permit issued: 1998; 
Hollow fills: 589.9; 
Valley fills: 23.3. 

Year permit issued: 1999; 
Hollow fills: 336.5; 
Valley fills: 4.4. 

Year permit issued: 2000; 
Hollow fills: 318.9; 
Valley fills: 0.4. 

Year permit issued: 2001; 
Hollow fills: 123.8; 
Valley fills: 13.8. 

Year permit issued: 2002; 
Hollow fills: 304.0; 
Valley fills: 2.9. 

Year permit issued: 2003; 
Hollow fills: 291.5; 
Valley fills: 2.8. 

Year permit issued: 2004; 
Hollow fills: 226.4; 
Valley fills: 8.6. 

Year permit issued: 2005; 
Hollow fills: 212.8; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2006; 
Hollow fills: 351.4; 
Valley fills: 0.4. 

Year permit issued: 2007; 
Hollow fills: 195.5; 
Valley fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 2008; 
Hollow fills: 96.3; 
Valley fills: 1.4. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the storage volume of fills approved prior to 2000 
because this data element was not consistently recorded in the SMIS 
database for permits issued prior to that time, and because not all 
permits issued in the 1970s are included in SMIS. Data double counts 
the storage volume of fills approved for some permits issued in the 
1980s because of state administrative actions to reissue previously 
issued permits. 

The data reflects the size of fills approved, not the actual size of 
fills constructed. 

[End of figure] 

West Virginia approved the construction of 511 fills on permits issued 
from January 2000 through July 2008. Unlike Kentucky, West Virginia 
does not make a distinction between valley and hollow fills in its 
database. Fifty-five percent (117 permits) of the 212 permits issued 
during this time approved the construction of one or more fills. Figure 
26 shows the total number of fills approved, and permits issued with 
fills, by year. 

Figure 26: Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970-2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: combination vertical bar and line graph] 

Year permit issued: 1970; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1971; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1972; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1973; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1974; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1975; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1976; 
Fills: 3; 
Permits with fills: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1977; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1978; 
Fills: 1; 
Permits with fills: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1979; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1980; 
Fills: 4; 
Permits with fills: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1981; 
Fills: 9; 
Permits with fills: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1982; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1983; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1984; 
Fills: 3; 
Permits with fills: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1985; 
Fills: 7; 
Permits with fills: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1986; 
Fills: 7; 
Permits with fills: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1987; 
Fills: 2; 
Permits with fills: 1. 

Year permit issued: 1988; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1989; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1990; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1991; 
Fills: 7; 
Permits with fills: 2. 

Year permit issued: 1992; 
Fills: 13; 
Permits with fills: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1993; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1994; 
Fills: 5; 
Permits with fills: 4. 

Year permit issued: 1995; 
Fills: 0; 
Permits with fills: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1996; 
Fills: 15; 
Permits with fills: 5. 

Year permit issued: 1997; 
Fills: 50; 
Permits with fills: 11. 

Year permit issued: 1998; 
Fills: 20; 
Permits with fills: 6. 

Year permit issued: 1999; 
Fills: 34; 
Permits with fills: 8. 

Year permit issued: 2000; 
Fills: 48; 
Permits with fills: 10. 

Year permit issued: 2001; 
Fills: 102; 
Permits with fills: 21. 

Year permit issued: 2002; 
Fills: 36; 
Permits with fills: 9. 

Year permit issued: 2003; 
Fills: 96; 
Permits with fills: 21. 

Year permit issued: 2004; 
Fills: 104; 
Permits with fills: 19. 

Year permit issued: 2005; 
Fills: 22; 
Permits with fills: 6. 

Year permit issued: 2006; 
Fills: 57; 
Permits with fills: 16. 

Year permit issued: 2007; 
Fills: 26; 
Permits with fills: 10. 

Year permit issued: 2008; 
Fills: 20; 
Permits with fills: 5. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the number of fills approved prior to 2000 because 
this data element was not consistently recorded in the ERIS database 
for permits issued prior to that time, and because permits closed prior 
to 1984 are not included in ERIS. 

The data reflects the number of fills approved, not the actual number 
of fills constructed. 

[End of figure] 

Of the 511 fills approved on permits issued from 2000 to 2008, West 
Virginia's database contains storage volume information on 506 fills. 
In total, these 506 fills were approved to store up to 2.7 billion 
cubic yards of excess spoil, averaging 5.4 million cubic yards and 
ranging from 6,932 cubic yards to 123.6 million cubic yards per fill. 
See figure 27 for the total storage volume approved, by year. 

Figure 27: Storage Volume of Fills Approved in West Virginia, 1970-
2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Year permit issued: 1970; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1971; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1972; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1973; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1974; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1975; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1976; 
Millions of cubic yards: 22.9. 

Year permit issued: 1977; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1978; 
Millions of cubic yards: 13.1. 

Year permit issued: 1979; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1980; 
Millions of cubic yards: 2.6. 

Year permit issued: 1981; 
Millions of cubic yards: 8.0. 

Year permit issued: 1982; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1983; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1984; 
Millions of cubic yards: 18.7. 

Year permit issued: 1985; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1986; 
Millions of cubic yards: 23.2. 

Year permit issued: 1987; 
Millions of cubic yards: 1.8. 

Year permit issued: 1988; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1989; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1990; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1991; 
Millions of cubic yards: 39.0. 

Year permit issued: 1992; 
Millions of cubic yards: 4.9. 

Year permit issued: 1993; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1994; 
Millions of cubic yards: 4.3. 

Year permit issued: 1995; 
Millions of cubic yards: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1996; 
Millions of cubic yards: 63.3. 

Year permit issued: 1997; 
Millions of cubic yards: 114.3. 

Year permit issued: 1998; 
Millions of cubic yards: 97.1. 

Year permit issued: 1999; 
Millions of cubic yards: 15.1. 

Year permit issued: 2000; 
Millions of cubic yards: 241.6. 

Year permit issued: 2001; 
Millions of cubic yards: 331.7. 

Year permit issued: 2002; 
Millions of cubic yards: 101.0. 

Year permit issued: 2003; 
Millions of cubic yards: 793.8. 

Year permit issued: 2004; 
Millions of cubic yards: 385.6. 

Year permit issued: 2005; 
Millions of cubic yards: 131.4. 

Year permit issued: 2006; 
Millions of cubic yards: 369.4. 

Year permit issued: 2007; 
Millions of cubic yards: 173.2. 

Year permit issued: 2008; 
Millions of cubic yards: 181.4. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercounts the storage volume of fills approved prior to 2000 
because this data element was not consistently recorded in the ERIS 
database for permits issued prior to that time, and because permits 
closed prior to 1984 are not included in ERIS. 

The data reflects the size of fills approved, not the actual size of 
fills. 

[End of figure] 

While both states collect data on the approved storage volume of fills, 
West Virginia also collects data on their approved length. Of the 511 
fills approved on permits issued from 2000 through July 2008, West 
Virginia's database contains length information on 496 fills. In total, 
these fills were approved to measure 933,487 feet (nearly 177 miles) in 
length. On average, these fills were approved to measure 1,882 feet 
(over one-third of a mile) in length and varied from 150 feet to 8,400 
feet (up to 1.6 miles) per fill. Figure 28 shows the total fill length 
approved, by year. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Year permit issued: 1970; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1971; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1972; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1973; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1974; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1975; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1976; 
Thousands of feet: 9.4. 

Year permit issued: 1977; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1978; 
Thousands of feet: 4.6. 

Year permit issued: 1979; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1980; 
Thousands of feet: 6.0. 

Year permit issued: 1981; 
Thousands of feet: 6.6. 

Year permit issued: 1982; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1983; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1984; 
Thousands of feet: 5.4. 

Year permit issued: 1985; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1986; 
Thousands of feet: 9.5. 

Year permit issued: 1987; 
Thousands of feet: 2.3. 

Year permit issued: 1988; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1989; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1990; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1991; 
Thousands of feet: 14.1. 

Year permit issued: 1992; 
Thousands of feet: 16.9. 

Year permit issued: 1993; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1994; 
Thousands of feet: 4.5. 

Year permit issued: 1995; 
Thousands of feet: 0. 

Year permit issued: 1996; 
Thousands of feet: 33.0. 

Year permit issued: 1997; 
Thousands of feet: 69.0. 

Year permit issued: 1998; 
Thousands of feet: 53.9. 

Year permit issued: 1999; 
Thousands of feet: 56.0. 

Year permit issued: 2000; 
Thousands of feet: 94.7. 

Year permit issued: 2001; 
Thousands of feet: 166.2. 

Year permit issued: 2002; 
Thousands of feet: 51.3. 

Year permit issued: 2003; 
Thousands of feet: 202.5. 

Year permit issued: 2004; 
Thousands of feet: 167.2. 

Year permit issued: 2005; 
Thousands of feet: 41.6. 

Year permit issued: 2006; 
Thousands of feet: 115.6. 

Year permit issued: 2007; 
Thousands of feet: 55.3. 

Year permit issued: 2008; 
Thousands of feet: 39.1. 

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

Notes: 

Data for 2008 is through July 30, 2008. 

Data undercount the length of fills approved prior to 2000 because this 
data element was not consistently recorded in the ERIS database for 
permits issued prior to this time and because permits closed prior to 
1984 are not included in ERIS. 

The data reflect the size of fills approved, not the actual size of 
fills. 

[End of figure] 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of the 
Interior, the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources, and the West 
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection for review and comment. 
The agencies generally agreed with our findings. However, all three 
agencies raised concerns about including the older data from SMIS and 
ERIS in our report, data for which there are known limitations. We 
share the agencies' concerns that these data could be misinterpreted or 
misused. However, we are including these data in our report, along with 
the appropriate caveats, in order to provide a comprehensive overview 
of the data in SMIS and ERIS that clearly identifies the years for 
which there are data limitations and the nature of those limitations. 
We believe that the extensive discussions we had with Kentucky and West 
Virginia officials brought to light for the first time, at least in a 
comprehensive fashion, the full extent of the data limitations, and 
that documenting the results of these discussions is an important 
aspect of this study. We believe that presenting the data from the 
earlier years--and their limitations--decreases the likelihood of 
misuse or misinterpretation because the limitations on the data are not 
disclosed on the Web sites from which the public accesses SMIS and 
ERIS. Further, we clearly identify the data for which there are 
limitations and state that they do not convey a representative picture 
of past mining characteristics or decisions. We present comments from 
the Department of the Interior, the Kentucky Department for Natural 
Resources, and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 
in appendixes II, III and IV, respectively. Our responses to the 
Department of the Interior and the Kentucky Department for Natural 
Resources are included in appendixes II and III, respectively. No 
response is warranted for the West Virginia Department of Environmental 
Protection's comments. The Department of the Interior and the West 
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection also provided technical 
comments that we incorporated into the report, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees; the Secretary of the Interior; the Director of the Office 
of Surface Mining, Enforcement and Reclamation; the Commissioner of the 
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources; and the Secretary for the 
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. The report also 
is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Robin M. Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This appendix details the methods we used to examine the 
characteristics, over time, of (1) surface coal mining in mountainous 
areas in Kentucky and West Virginia and (2) reclaimed lands that were 
disturbed by surface coal mining in mountainous areas in Kentucky and 
West Virginia. This report focuses on surface coal mining in the 
mountainous areas of Appalachia—often referred to as mountaintop mining—
because of the controversy that mountaintop mining generates. We 
focused specifically on surface mining in the mountainous, eastern part 
of Kentucky and all of West Virginia because the majority of 
mountaintop mining in the Appalachian region occurs in these areas. 
[Footnote 40] According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy 
Information Administration (EIA), nearly 73 percent of the surface coal 
produced in Appalachia in 2008 came from these areas. 

To respond to both objectives, we relied extensively on surface coal 
mining data provided by the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources 
and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Both of 
these departments maintain extensive electronic databases that contain 
select information from the states’ surface mining permit files. The 
permit files provide details on mining operations that are not 
contained in these databases. Kentucky describes its database, called 
the Surface Mining Information System (SMIS), as an extensive computer 
database that is used for tracking all permitting and enforcement 
actions on coal mining activity in the commonwealth of Kentucky. West 
Virginia describes its database, called the Environmental Resources 
Information System (ERIS), as a comprehensive information management 
system designed to track information about a variety of environmental 
regulatory activities. 

We worked with state officials to identify available data elements 
useful to our analysis and requested extracts containing those elements 
from the states’ databases. Kentucky provided us with data from surface 
mining permits issued from 1970 through July 2008, and West Virginia 
provided us with data from surface mining permits that were open, as of 
1984, or were issued from 1984 through July 2008. 

Based on discussions with Kentucky officials, we excluded from our 
analysis the following surface mining permits from the SMIS database 
extracts: 

* surface mining permits for the western portion of the state because 
this region is generally not considered mountainous; 

* combination permits (permits for both surface and underground mining) 
because SMIS does not provide data on the number of acres associated 
with each type of mining; and; 

* a type of permit that is designed for homeowners and issued for sites 
that are 2 acres or smaller because these permits are not industrial in 
nature. 

Based on discussion with West Virginia officials, we excluded from our 
analysis those permits that were closed by the state before the 
operator ever utilized the permit. 

For both states, we used the following data elements to address our 
objectives: 

* issued permits, including the permit identification number, the issue 
date, the original size of the permit (in acres) and any adjustments to 
its size, and the county in which the permitted area lies; 

* information on bonds associated with permits, as well as the status 
of the bonds and associated dates; 

* the pre- and post-mining land uses associated with permits; 

* information on approximate original contour variances, if any, 
associated with permits; and; 

* information on the number and size of fills, if any, associated with 
permits. 

We performed the following analysis of data from Kentucky’s SMIS 
database. We linked certain permits together under a unified 
identification number to more accurately reflect actual mining 
activity. Specifically, we linked renumbered permits, which are older 
permits that received a new identification number to conform to a new 
numbering system. We also linked transferred permits, which are permits 
that received a new identification number when they changed ownership. 
Despite the different identification numbers, the permits are 
essentially the same. Linking these permits prevents overcounting of 
the mining and reclamation activities associated with a specific 
geographic area. This issue did not arise with West Virginia’s ERIS 
database. 

We also took the following steps as part of our analysis of data from 
West Virginia’s ERIS database. First, because ERIS does not identify 
the date that a permit’s status changed from open to either released or 
forfeited, we used the most recent date that a corresponding bond was 
released or forfeited. This issue did not arise with Kentucky’s SMIS 
database. Second, to identify the largest permitted areas in West 
Virginia, we combined ERIS data with electronic geospatial files of 
permit boundaries from the West Virginia Department of Environmental 
Protection. We used ERIS data to identify when permits were issued and 
whether the permits were open, released, or forfeited, as of July 2008. 
We only included permits released or forfeited since January 1990, or 
permits that were still open as of July 2008, in this analysis. We 
excluded permits that were closed prior to 1990 because few of these 
older permits had associated geospatial files, and because the older 
permits were less likely to be associated with current mining activity. 
We used the electronic geospatial files to identify permitted areas, 
which we defined as either single, non-contiguous permits; or groups of 
contiguous permits, We then identified the size of the permitted areas 
and ranked them to identify the largest 5 percent. We did not perform 
this analysis with Kentucky permits because we did not have electronic 
geospatial files of their permit boundaries. 

To assess the reliability of SMIS and ERIS data, we (1) worked with 
state officials familiar with these systems to understand each data 
element and determine the time frames for the reliability of each 
element, (2) conducted extensive electronic and logic testing of the 
SMIS and ERIS data extracts we received, and (3) reviewed the SQL code 
for the states’ system extracts. We determined these data elements to 
be sufficiently reliable within certain time frames. Specifically, data 
related to characteristics in surface coal mining (for example, permits 
issued, released, and forfeited) is sufficiently reliable starting in 
1990 for Kentucky and in 1984 for West Virginia. For Kentucky, the 
extract provided to us double counts some issued and released permits 
(and associated acreage) in the 1980s because of administrative actions 
to reissue previously issued permits to comply with revisions to state 
regulations. The extract also undercounts some permits (and associated 
acreage) issued in the 1970s because not all permits of that era are 
included in the SMIS database. In West Virginia, the extract provided 
to us does not contain data from permits closed prior to 1984 and thus 
undercounts the number of issued and closed permits (and associated 
acreage) for prior years. Due to these data limitations, and to be 
consistent between the states, we are reporting on the characteristics 
of surface mining in Kentucky and West Virginia from January 1990 
through July 2008. With respect to characteristics of reclaimed lands—
pre- and post-mining land uses, approximate original contour (AOC) 
variances, and fill data—the data are sufficiently reliable by 2000 in 
both states, with the exception of AOC variances in Kentucky, which are 
sufficiently reliable starting in 2002. Prior to these times, the 
states did not always consistently record these data elements in their 
databases—they began to consistently record different data elements at 
different times. Consequently, both states’ data undercount these data 
elements prior to certain years. Due to these data limitations, and to 
be consistent between the states, we are reporting on the 
characteristics of reclaimed lands that were disturbed by surface 
mining from January 2000 through July 2008, except for Kentucky’s data 
on variances, for which we are reporting from January 2002 through July 
2008. 

However, in many of the graphics in this report, we include data on 
characteristics from all the years for which SMIS and ERIS contain 
data, in some cases dating back to 1961. We do this for two reasons. 
First, it allows us to include in our report the additional data that 
are sufficiently reliable, but that fall outside of our reporting time 
frames. Second, although the general public has access to data from all 
years—surface mining permit files in Kentucky and West Virginia are 
public documents—the data are readily accessible to the public by 
electronically accessing SMIS and ERIS. Thus, including the additional 
data in the graphics of our report allows us to provide a comprehensive 
overview of the data in SMIS and ERIS that clearly identifies the years 
for which there are data limitations and what those data limitations 
are. We believe that presenting data from the earlier years—and their 
limitations—decreases the likelihood of misuse or misinterpretation 
because the limitations on the data are not disclosed on the Web sites 
from which the public accesses SMIS and ERIS. 

In addition to our analysis of Kentucky’s SMIS database and West 
Virginia’s ERIS database, we took a number of other steps to gain an 
understanding of surface coal mining in Appalachia. Specifically, we 
reviewed relevant federal and state laws, regulations, and policy 
guidance on surface coal mining and reclamation and visited mining 
sites—both active and reclaimed—in Kentucky and West Virginia. We also 
met with officials from the Department of the Interior’s Office of 
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), including regional 
officials from their Charleston, West Virginia, and Lexington, 
Kentucky, field offices, as well as officials from the West Virginia 
Department of Environmental Protection, the Kentucky Department for 
Natural Resources, and others knowledgeable about coal mining in 
Appalachia. 

We conducted our work from March 2008 to December 2009 in accordance 
with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are 
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to 
meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. 
We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions 
in this report. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the 
end of this appendix. 

United States Department of the Interior: 
Office Of The Secretary: 
Washington, DC 20240: 

November 10, 2009: 

Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Nazzaro: 

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity 
to review and comment on the draft Government Accountability Office 
Report entitled, "Surface Coal Mining — Characteristics of Mining in 
Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and West Virginia" (GAO-10-21). 

We appreciate the diligent work of the team that prepared the report 
and the large amount of data collected, synthesized, and analyzed. In 
general, we believe that this report is an informative and fair 
characterization of surface coal mining in eastern Kentucky and
West Virginia. We do have several general and specific comments that, 
if addressed, will enhance the quality, clarity, and consistency of 
data in the report. Our comments are contained in the enclosure. 

If you have any questions, or need additional information, please 
contact Michael Robinson, Chief of the Office of Surface Mining 
Reclamation and Enforcement's Appalachian Region Technical Support 
Division, at (412) 937-2882. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Wilma A. Lewis: 
Assistant Secretary: 
Land and Minerals Management: 

Enclosure: 

[End of letter] 

Department of the Interior: 

Comments on Draft Report: 

Surface Coal Mining: Characteristics of Mining in Mountainous Areas of
Kentucky and West Virginia (GAO-10-21): 

General Comments: 

1. GAO discusses and displays data in the draft final report that was 
collected during earlier years of the SMCRA state programs. Kentucky 
and West Virginia regulatory program personnel and OSM staff advised 
GAO that the collected data should not be relied upon to convey a 
representative picture of past mining characteristics or decisions. DOI 
is concerned that the data from the earlier years (pre-1990) could 
affect the credibility of the more recent, reliable data presented in 
GAO graphs and figures, and, that following publication, the 
information may be presented elsewhere as factual, without proper 
context or qualification. [See comment 1] 

a. In the draft report, GAO gathered the West Virginia information from 
the pre1990 ERIS data. GAO may consider examining paper permitting 
records for the years prior to 1990 for its accurate tabulation. Should 
GAO conclude that the pre-1990 data should remain in the report, we 
suggest that the scale used on report charts be consistent for pre- and 
post-1990 time periods. The current draft uses a smaller y-axis scale 
for the earlier time frame and a larger y-axis scale for the more 
recent data. When using the y-axis scale, DOI recommends consistent 
presentation of the data. [See comment 2] 

b. Prior to 2002, the Kentucky state database (SMIS) includes 
inconsistently recorded information on AOC variances. DOI suggests 
excluding this data from the GAO charts and narrative. Rather, GAO may 
consider reviewing the individual permit files to compile its 
statistics, using the data for the period 1983 through 1998 which were 
compiled by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
staff from permit files as part of oversight activities in Kentucky in 
1999. This data is provided on pages 4 and 5 of this enclosure for 
consideration. [See comment 3] 

2. The scope of the draft report is intended to characterize surface 
coal mining in the mountainous areas of Kentucky and West Virginia. 
However, data from all of West Virginia coalfield counties are 
included. Most of the northern coal field of West Virginia is located 
outside of mountainous or steep slope terrain. While explanatory 
language is included in a footnote in Appendix I, the report's 
inclusion of the northern coal field inaccurately portrays the extent 
of "Mining in Mountainous Areas." GAO excluded data from the non-
mountainous areas of western Kentucky, and DOI suggests the data from 
northern West Virginia be extracted from the report as well. [See 
comment 4] 

The following are GAO’s comments on the letter dated November 10, 2009, 
from the Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. 

GAO Comments: 

1. We share the department’s concern that, following publication of our 
report, some of the data we present could be presented elsewhere 
without proper context or qualification. We include in our report—and 
clearly identify—data which we know do not convey a representative 
picture of past mining characteristics or decisions. (Some, but not all 
of these data were collected prior to 1990.) These data, along with 
most of the other data presented in our report, come from Kentucky’s 
and West Virginia’s publicly accessible databases. We believe that the 
extensive discussions that we had with Kentucky and West Virginia 
officials brought to light for the first time—at least in a 
comprehensive fashion—the full extent of the limitations associated 
with these data. Documenting the results of these discussions is an 
important aspect of this study. We believe that it is important to 
include in our report the data with known limitations, along with the 
appropriate caveats, in order to provide a comprehensive overview of 
the data that are in the states’ databases. Furthermore, because these 
data are publicly available, another party could present some or all of 
the problematic data without proper context or qualifications, 
regardless of what we present in our report. For this reason, we 
believe it is particularly important that the information on data 
limitations is made public. 

The department commented that including data in our report “from the 
earlier years”—that is, data with known limitations—could affect the 
credibility of the more recent, reliable data that we present. We 
believe that we have provided the appropriate caveats to ensure that 
the reader clearly understands which data have limitations and which do 
not. Nevertheless, the issue of including or excluding data with known 
limitations—even with appropriate caveats—has been discussed at length 
within GAO, with officials from the Department’s Office of Surface 
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), and with officials from 
Kentucky and West Virginia. While we believe it is important to include 
these data, we are aware that they could be taken out of context and 
misused. While we believe that the caveats included in our report 
provide a reasonable basis to believe that the data will not be misused 
unintentionally, we are adding additional language to our report 
suggested by the department’s comments: that certain data should not be 
relied upon to convey a representative picture of past mining 
characteristics or decisions. 

2. We determined that examining paper permitting records was 
prohibitively resource-intensive. The files are very large and require 
detailed knowledge to correctly interpret them. Additionally, we 
generally agree with the department that, in presenting data 
graphically, the same scale on the y-axis should be used when 
presenting similar data. However, in a number of instances in our 
report, using the same y-axis scale would have resulted in either 
graphs that did not fit on the page or graphs that had detail that was 
too small to easily see. In these cases, we used a different y-axis 
scale. 

3. We include information collected prior to 2002 on approximate 
original contour (AOC) variances from Kentucky’s Surface Mining 
Information System (SMIS) database for the reasons identified above—to 
provide a comprehensive overview of the data that are in the states’ 
databases and to clearly identify the years for which there are data 
limitations and the nature of those limitations. We did not review 
individual permit files because we determined that it was prohibitively 
resource-intensive to do so. Additionally, we are aware that there are 
other sources of information about Kentucky’s permitting activity. 
However, we designed the scope of this engagement to limit the 
information we present in our report to what is contained in SMIS. 

4. We included permits from all of West Virginia in our report, 
including permits from the northern half of the state. According to 
West Virginia’s Environmental Resource Information System (ERIS) 
database, as of July 2008, about 6 percent of the open acres in West 
Virginia were in the northern half of the state. Although OSM and West 
Virginia officials told us that most of the permits in this area are 
generally not found on the steeper-sloped areas of that region, they 
were referring to steep slope mining, which, according to the Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) is mining that 
occurs on a slope with an average of 20 percent grade or steeper. The 
scope of our report is surface mining in the mountainous areas of 
Kentucky and West Virginia, not specifically steep slope mining. 
Northern West Virginia is a mountainous area-—it is within the 
Appalachian Mountain chain. 

Additionally, the relationship between surface coal mining in the 
northern and southern portions of West Virginia is not analogous to the 
relationship between surface coal mining in the eastern and western 
portions of Kentucky. Although we identified a specific “line” in West 
Virginia, north of which we stated permits are generally not found on 
steeper-sloped areas, this line was identified in consultation with OSM 
and West Virginia officials for the purposes of this report. This 
contrasts with the situation in Kentucky. The U.S. Department of 
Energy’s Energy Information Administration has identified a number of 
coal-producing regions throughout the country. It places all of West 
Virginia and the eastern part of Kentucky in the Appalachian region. It 
places western Kentucky in the Illinois basin region. Additionally, 
while eastern Kentucky is within the Appalachian mountain chain, 
western Kentucky is not. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Kentucky Department for Natural 
Resources: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the 
end of this appendix. 

Energy And Environment Cabinet: 
Department For Natural Resources: 
Steven L, Beshar, Governor: 
Leonard K. Peters, Secretary: 
Carl E. Campbell, Commissioner: 
2 Hudson Hollow: 
Frankfort, Kentucky: 
Phone: (502) 564-6940: 
Fax: (502) 564-5698: 
[hyperlink: http://www.eec.ky.gov] 
[hyperlink: http://www.dnr.ky.gov] 

November 9, 2009: 

Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro, Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Nazzaro: 

Reference is made to your correspondence of October 9, 2009 where in 
you conveyed a draft copy of your proposed report entitled "Surface 
Coal Mining: Characteristics of "Mining in Mountainous Areas of 
Kentucky and West Virginia, (GAO-10-20)" for our review and comment. We 
have reviewed the draft document and our comments and suggestions are 
as follows: 

General Comments: 
1. We sincerely appreciate GAO's intent to craft an informational 
document designed to provide credible information and reliable data. 
However, as we have previously slated on to your staff, the accuracy of 
our Surface Mining Information System data prior to the year 2000 was 
subject to repeated duplication of the information. The rationale that 
because the general public has access to data from all years GAO is 
going to include data from all years in many of your graphics so as to 
provide a comprehensive overview should be reconsidered. If GAO is not 
willing to do that, your statements should be carefully reworded to 
reflect that transitions in recording protocols (paper to electronic) 
and changes in the formal of our electronic information storage prior 
to 2000 could provide for general misinterpretation and invalid 
assumptions. It should also be understood the public generally does not 
have the same access capability that was afforded GAO. The public's 
access is through a web-based system that provides access to the data 
one permit at a time. The extensive data download provided to GAO was 
an infrequent event. However, should the public ask for and receive a 
data dump of this magnitude, DNR would inform the requestor, as with 
GAO, the limitations of the data. [See comment 1] 

2. As was previously discussed with GAO staff, we have some concern 
with the generally broad terms crafted to represent the status of a 
mining facility. The term "open" permit is one GAO created for this 
report and one that can easily be misinterpreted. We have noted the 
footnote on page 9 used to describe the term "open" permit. This term, 
as presented, encompasses wide-ranging mining scenarios, from no 
disturbance to active mining to complete reclamation awaiting bond 
release. We believe that the explanation should more thoroughly 
describe and, given the significance of this term, be included in the 
body of the text, rather than reduced to a footnote, so readers don't 
misinterpret its significance. We believe the current approach yields a 
misunderstanding by the general public that all "open" permits are 
disturbed, un-reclaimed mine sites. [See comment 2] 

3. A significant aspect of the permitting process that isn't clearly 
conveyed in the report is that the selection of a post mining land use 
is mostly a landowner's choice. The only exception would be when a 
landowner's request conflicts with regulations. [See comment 3] 

4. The data on Kentucky AOC variances does not exist prior to 2002. We 
understand that OSM has been compiling this information for some time 
and we recommend that you consult with them to acquire a more reliable 
source of information. We are aware that they have an inventory of 
permits with mountaintop removal and steep slope variances contained in 
a document they prepared called "An Evaluation of Approximate Original 
Contour and Post-Mining Land Use in Kentucky dated September 1999." 
There is also a tabulation of this data in the Stream Buffer Zone EIS. 
[See comment 4] 

Specific Comments: 

1. Beginning on page 7, and repeated elsewhere, is the statement that 
"Kentucky and West Virginia accounted for about 76% of the coal 
produced from surface mines in Appalachia and are the states with the 
second and third largest coal production totals in the country". The 
statement is written such that one can incorrectly assume that Kentucky 
is the second largest producer rather than third. Further, GAO should 
clarify that Kentucky's western coal fields are not part of Appalachian 
Mountain system, but rather the Central coal basin. If GAO feels that 
the western Kentucky the coal production levels need to be included in 
Table 1, we suggest that the other coal producing states in the central 
coal basin also be included in this table. [See comment 5] 

2, Page #8, paragraph #1, reads that "the requirements of Kentucky and 
West Virginia are generally similar to the federal requirements." This 
should read "the requirements of Kentucky and West Virginia are no less 
effective than the federal requirements." The federal Office of Surface 
Mining has evaluated both the Kentucky and West Virginia surface 
programs and determined that our programs are no less effective than 
the federal regulations. [See comment 6] 

3. Page #8, paragraph #2, should include a statement that the operator 
must demonstrate that the reclaimed site will meet environmental 
protection standards such as water quality and restore the ecological 
function of the land. Additionally, if it is the purpose of this 
document to educate the reader on the components of coal mining 
(regulatory requirements, effects of mining on the environment, 
overview of mining in the Appalachian states), then the narrative on 
permit application review is too brief and incomplete. The coal 
applicant (permittee/operator) will propose, in the application, 
strategies that will avoid, minimize or protect: the quality and 
quantity of surface water and ground water systems; adverse effects on 
fish, wildlife, and cultural and historic resources; and the effects of 
the operation on the public, including property, roads and 
infrastructure. It is the responsibility of the permit application 
reviewer to gauge the effectiveness and enforceability of these 
strategies. Absent from the stated process is the opportunity for 
public participation, supplied by consulting federal and state agencies 
and citizen input. [See comment 7] 

4. Page #33, paragraph #2, should be revised to recognize that our 
Appalachian forests have been repeatedly harvested and, at best, we 
encounter second growth forest. This would more accurately describe the 
condition of the forests in both Kentucky and West Virginia. [See 
comment 8] 

5. Page #13, paragraph #1, line #9 should be modified to convey that 
"permitted acres" does not mean acreage disturbed. While included in a 
footnote, we believe this information is important and should be 
included in the body of the text to ensure clarity. [See comment 9] 

6. Page #27, paragraph #1, it should be noted in this paragraph that 
the number of approved (permitted) fills does not reflect the number of 
constructed fills. This discrepancy is mentioned later in the document 
on page 49, footnote 38. Though it can easily be tracked, the number of 
approved fills is an irrelevant statistic as it only details proposed 
fills. No permitting action is required to delete a fill from a mining 
plan. It would be much more meaningful to compare annual number of 
constructed fills that would reveal direct/indirect effects on the 
mountain environment. [See comment 10] 

7. Page #38, paragraph #1 should be modified to read "SMCRA requires 
surface-mined land to be reclaimed to AOC, unless a variance is 
approved or it is a remining operation." [See comment 11] 

8. On Page # 48, paragraph #1, indicates that a "completed fill is at 
approximately the same elevation as the adjacent ridge line". This 
should be modified to convey that the crest of the fill is generally at 
approximately the same elevation as the lowest coal seam being mined. 
[See comment 12] 

Again, we sincerely appreciate the opportunity for review and comment. 
Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can be of further 
assistance. 

Respectfully, 

Signed by: 

Carl E. Campbell, Commissioner: 
Department for Natural Resources: 

The following are GAO’s comments on the letter dated November 9, 2009, 
from the Commissioner, Department for Natural Resources. 

GAO Comments: 

1. We share Kentucky’s concern that data from the Surface Mining 
Information System (SMIS) for the years prior to 2000 could be 
misinterpreted, but we believe we have made the limitations of the data 
clear in our report. We have discussed this concern within GAO; with 
Kentucky; with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
(OSM); and with West Virginia, which has expressed a similar concern 
regarding its permit data. Given the level of concern, we have added 
additional language to our report stating that certain data should not 
be relied upon to convey a representative picture of past mining 
characteristics or decisions. Nevertheless, we believe that it is 
important to include the data, along with the appropriate caveats, in 
order to provide a comprehensive overview of the data in SMIS that 
clearly identifies the years for which there are data limitations and 
the nature of those limitations. When Kentucky originally provided the 
data from SMIS to us, the limitations on the older data were not 
acknowledged. We believe that the extensive discussions that we had 
with Kentucky officials brought to light for the first time—at least in 
a comprehensive fashion—the full extent of the data limitations and 
that documenting the results of these discussions is an important 
aspect of this study. This information about data limitations is useful 
to the public, even though public access to SMIS data through its Web-
based system is limited to one permit at a time. Furthermore, if 
another party were to obtain the same access to SMIS data that Kentucky 
provided to us, it would be even more important for this information to 
be public. While we believe that Kentucky would include information on 
data limitations were it to provide this access to another party, we 
are less certain that this other party would fairly and accurately 
describe the limitations. 

2. We note Kentucky’s concern that the term “open permit” could lead 
readers to believe that the land consists entirely of disturbed, 
unreclaimed mine sites. (Disturbed land is land that has been cleared 
of vegetation as part of the mining process.) In response to earlier 
comments from Kentucky officials, we included a footnote to clarify 
this term when we first introduce it. Given the continued concern, we 
have now put this language into the text of the report. In addition, 
elsewhere in our report, we explain that not all acres that are 
permitted end up being disturbed. 

3. We have modified the text of the report to make it clearer that 
landowners play a large role in choosing post-mining land uses. 

4. We are aware that there are other sources of information about 
Kentucky’s permitting activity. However, we designed the scope of this 
engagement to limit the information we present in our report to what is 
contained in SMIS. 

5. Although table 1 makes clear that Kentucky is the third-largest 
producer of coal from surface mines in 2008, we modified the text of 
our report to ensure there is no ambiguity. However, we do not believe 
it is necessary to add additional information about coal production in 
other states to table 1. Although the scope of our report does not 
include surface coal mines in western Kentucky, we include the 
production total for all of Kentucky (east and west), along with the 
production total for Kentucky (east only) to be comprehensive. We do 
not believe that information about coal production from other states 
outside the scope of our report would be useful. 

6. We are aware that OSM has determined that both Kentucky and West 
Virginia mining programs meet the legal requirements found in the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and that 
they are “no less effective” than federal regulations. However, the 
point of the paragraph is to explain that Kentucky’s and West Virginia’
s regulations are, in fact, similar to federal regulations. We make 
this point to avoid the repetition of describing each entity’s 
regulations when there are not substantive differences. When we discuss 
regulations for which there are substantive differences, we note this 
in the report. 

7. As noted in the text, there are statutory and regulatory 
requirements regarding surface coal mining that are not included in 
this report. We provide an overview of those requirements as 
background, but describing the regulatory framework for surface mining 
was not an objective of this report. 

8. We do not dispute Kentucky’s assertion that much of the forestland 
in Kentucky and West Virginia that has been mined was previously 
harvested, i.e., is second growth forest. However, in our report, we 
are discussing the use of the land immediately prior to mining, not how 
the land was used historically. 

9. We agree that it is important to note that not all permitted acres 
are disturbed—that is, cleared of vegetation as part of the mining 
process—and we address this point specifically in our report. See also 
our comment 2 above. 

10. We agree it would be better to report on the number of fills 
constructed instead of the number of fills approved. However, SMIS only 
contains data from permits and, as Kentucky notes, no permitting action 
is required to delete a fill from a mining plan. Thus, we were unable 
to provide data on the number of fills constructed. 

11. We do not believe this change is necessary because the exceptions 
to the approximate original contour (AOC) requirement are made clear in 
later paragraphs. The paragraph that Kentucky references serves to 
introduce the concept of AOC and AOC variances. The next several pages 
of our report explain in greater detail the policy and requirements 
regarding AOC and variances. 

12. We have modified the text in this paragraph to better make the 
distinction between “valley fills” and “hollow fills.” 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the West Virginia Department of 
Environmental Protection: 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection: 
Division of Mining & Reclamation: 
Joe Manchin III, Governor: 
Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretary: 
601 57th St. SE: 
Charleston, WV 25304: 
Phone (304) 926-0490: 
Facsimile (304) 926-0456: 	
[hyperlink, http://www.wvdep.org] 

November 13, 2009: 

Robin Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Nazzaro: 
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
Government Accountability Office report GAO-10-21, "Characteristics of 
Mining in Mountainous areas of Kentucky and West Virginia." Although we 
have no major concerns about the report, we have included technical 
comments that clarify or provide more in-depth explanation for certain 
items. 

Please feel free to contact our office with any additional questions 
you might have. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Lewis A. Halstead: 
Deputy Director: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841, nazzaror@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Andrea W. Brown, Assistant 
Director; Josey Ballenger; Antoinette Capaccio; Charles Egan; John 
Mingus, Jr.; Rebecca Shea; and Benjamin Shouse made key contributions 
to this report. Carol Kolarik, Janice Poling, and Jena Sinkfield also 
contributed to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Mining breaks up solid rock layers and produces smaller, 
irregularly shaped pieces that are separated by voids, or air pockets. 
This causes the overall volume of the excavated material to increase, 
or “swell,” so that it no longer fits together as compactly as it once 
did. 

[2] The remaining 60 percent of coal produced in Appalachia comes from 
underground mining. 

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

[4] GAO did not conduct a comprehensive analysis of differences between 
the regulatory schemes, but we note some differences that we have 
observed or which have been identified to us by the regulatory 
authorities in this report. OSM has determined that both Kentucky and 
West Virginia mining programs meet the legal requirement found in SMCRA 
that they are “no less effective” than federal regulations. 

[5] For simplicity in this report, we refer to permittees and operators 
as operators. The permittee is the person or entity holding the permit 
and is legally responsible for the permit, whereas the operator is the 
person or entity who conducts coal removal operations. The permittee 
and the operator may or may not be the same person or entity. 

[6] SMCRA requires that highwalls be eliminated, except in cases where 
they already existed due to mining operations conducted prior to the 
enactment of SMCRA, in which case they must be eliminated to the extent 
practical. Depressions must also be eliminated, except where they are 
small and are needed for moisture retention, erosion minimization, 
creation or enhancement of wildlife habitat, or revegetation. 

[7] Due to rounding, the difference between the number of acres for 
which permits have been issued, and the number of acres that have been 
released or forfeited, may not equal the number of acres under open 
permit. 

[8] Although we found this data to be sufficiently reliable starting in 
1984, the text in this section of the report is based on our analysis 
of data from January 1990 through July 2008 to be consistent between 
the states. 

[9] There are 55,300 additional acres under open permit in the flatter, 
western portion of the state. 

[10] Due to rounding, the percentage of acres under open permit in Pike 
County, Perry County, and Knott County total 45 percent in figure 7. 

[11] The exception is the category of forfeited permits between 1,000 
and 2,999 acres in size. There is only one permit in this category. 

[12] The West Virginia Department of Mines Web site had a geospatial 
permit boundary file for all but six open permits. In total, these 
permits are 1,000 acres in size. 

[13] SMCRA authorizes both “exceptions” and “variances” to AOC 
requirements, but federal and state regulations use the term AOC 
variances to address both concepts, as we do for consistency in this 
report. 

[14] Kentucky officials commented that the selection of a PMLU is 
generally the landowner’s choice—although the choice must be consistent 
with applicable regulations. 

[15] The federal regulations implementing SMCRA present specific 
criteria for higher or better uses, such as a reasonable likelihood for 
achieving the proposed use, and the use does not pose a hazard to 
public health. If the land was previously mined and left unreclaimed, 
the PMLU must be the highest and best achievable use that is compatible 
with surrounding areas and does not require the disturbance of areas 
previously unaffected by mining. 

[16] According to the Department of Interior, prior to bond release by 
the regulatory authority, the operator must demonstrate that the PMLU 
identified in the approved permit has been established or the 
infrastructure is in place to ensure its development. 

[17] Kentucky regulations define fish and wildlife land use as land 
dedicated wholly or partially to the production, protection, or 
management of fish or wildlife. Areas considered as having the fish and 
wildlife land use are typically characterized by a diversity of 
habitats in which use by wildlife is the dominant characteristic, 
whether actively managed or not. Kentucky regulations define 
pastureland as land used primarily for the long-term production of 
adapted, domesticated forage plants to be grazed by livestock or 
occasionally cut and cured for livestock feed. Kentucky regulations 
define forestland as land used or managed for the long-term production 
of wood, wood fiber, or wood derived products. 

[18] The other permits in Kentucky included five approved for “other” 
PMLU types of an unspecified nature and one for recreation. 

[19] West Virginia regulations define forestland as having at least a 
25 percent tree canopy or being at least 10 percent stocked by forest 
trees of any size, including land formerly having had such tree cover 
and that will be naturally or artificially reforested. Fish and 
wildlife habitat and recreation lands are wetlands, fish and wildlife 
habitat, and areas managed primarily for fish and wildlife or 
recreation. West Virginia regulations define hay or pastureland as 
being used primarily for the long-term production of adapted, 
domesticated forage plants to be grazed by livestock or cut and cured 
for livestock feed. 

[20] The other permits in West Virginia included 14 approved for 
“combined” PMLU types of an unspecified nature, 6 rangeland, 2 public 
service, 2 residential, and 1 water impoundment. 

[21] OSM directive TSR-16, “Reforestation of Title IV and Title V Mined 
Lands,” June 10, 2008, available at [hyperlink, 
www.osmre.gov/guidance/directives/directive931.pdf]. 

[22] The other permits in Kentucky included five that identified a pre-
mining land use type of heavy industrial, five residential, two each 
for commercial, cropland, and fish and wildlife habitat, and one each 
for impoundment of water, public services, and “other” of an 
unspecified nature. 

[23] The other permits in West Virginia included 12 that identified 
“combined” pre-mining land use types of an unspecified nature, 4 
industrial/commercial, 3 rangeland, and 1 each for commercial woodland, 
public service, and water impoundment. 

[24] U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Final 
Report: An Evaluation of Approximate Original Contour and Post-Mining 
Land Use in West Virginia, May 1999; and An Evaluation of Approximate 
Original Contour and Post-Mining Land Use in Kentucky, May 2000. 

[25] Specifically, the OSM report on Kentucky found that state 
regulators had placed a greater emphasis on the amount of spoil 
material returned to the mined-out area and not enough emphasis on the 
post-mining land configuration, land use, slope stability, and drainage 
controls. Similarly, the OSM report on West Virginia concluded that the 
state's AOC determinations should give more attention to large, post-
mining changes in elevation in relation to the pre-mining relief; the 
amount and location of spoil placed outside the mined area; and land 
configuration. In 2007 and 2008, OSM conducted follow-up reviews on the 
effectiveness of the two states' new AOC policies and procedures and 
how sites in steep slope areas had been reclaimed to AOC, compared with 
AOC variances. As of September 30, 2009, OSM had not published its 
findings. GAO did not analyze individual permits and post-mining site 
data to determine the extent to which the proposed reclamation plan is 
ultimately achieved or whether bond release is appropriately granted. 

[26] Memorandum from Larry D. Adams, Director, Division of Permits, 
Kentucky Department for Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 
“Approximate Original Contour Determination,” Sept. 20, 2001. 

[27] West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of 
Mining and Reclamation, Permit Handbook, Section 29, “AOC/Excess Spoil 
Guidelines,” June 24, 1999. These guidelines were later supplemented 
with a “Final AOC Guidance Document Policy” in the Permit Handbook on 
June 5, 2000. 

[28] In the special oversight reviews that OSM published in 1999 and 
2000, OSM found that the two states did not have reliable electronic 
inventories of AOC variances at that point, which made it difficult to 
identify exactly how many existed. In response, Kentucky and West 
Virginia revised their databases to clearly identify AOC variances on 
existing and future permits. 

[29] A “mountaintop removal” operation is one that, by definition, will 
not restore the area to AOC, but will instead reclaim the land to a 
level plateau or a gently rolling contour, with no highwalls remaining. 
However, the term “steep slope” is used to describe mining operations 
in mountainous terrain that may, or may not, include an AOC variance. 
Steep slope operations that do not have an AOC variance follow the same 
requirements as other permits that comply with AOC requirements. 

[30] OSM, Postmining Land Use: Exceptions to Approximate Original 
Contour Requirements for Mountaintop Removal Operations and Steep Slope 
Operations, June 2000, available at [hyperlink, 
http://www.osmre.gov/guidance/docs/mtpmlureport.pdf]. 

[31] A “hollow” is a depressed or low part of a surface, especially a 
small valley or basin. Throughout this report, we use the term “fills” 
to encompass both hollow and valley fills, unless otherwise noted. 

[32] Even when land is returned to AOC, some excess spoil must be 
disposed of in fills. When a site is not returned to AOC, a 
substantially greater amount of excess spoil can be generated, which 
must be placed outside the mined-out area. 

[33] By contrast, AOC variances granted for remining operations are not 
restricted to specific PMLUs. However, if an alternative PMLU is 
planned for such an operation, it is subject to the general requirement 
that it must be deemed equal to, or better than, the land’s original, 
pre-mining use. 

[34] Ninety-four permits in Kentucky issued from January 2002 through 
July 2008 each contained one AOC variance, while five permits issued in 
that time frame each contained two AOC variances. 

[35] Thirty-one permits in West Virginia issued from January 2002 
through July 2008 each contained one AOC variance, while two permits 
issued in that time frame each contained two AOC variances. 

[36] While there is no specific numerical requirement in regulations 
relating to what amount of excess spoil may be deposited in fills, OSM 
states that permit applications should contain strata-by-strata, volume-
weighted information regarding spoil calculations to help the states 
determine the amount of excess spoil to be placed in fills and the 
degree to which AOC may be achieved. 

[37] The fill must be designed and constructed to attain a minimum long-
term static safety factor of 1.5. The foundation and abutments of the 
fill must be stable under all conditions of construction. 

[38] West Virginia officials noted that they do not allow acid-forming 
materials to be included in fills. Kentucky regulations allow for acid-
forming materials to be included in fills under certain circumstances. 

[39] For example, OSM found in its 2000 special oversight report on 
Kentucky that only 21 fills, or 64 percent, of the 33 authorized fills 
it reviewed were actually constructed. OSM stated that, in a number of 
instances, operators had overestimated the anticipated volume of excess 
spoil. 

[40] A small amount of surface mining takes place in the northern half 
of West Virginia. According to officials from West Virginia and Office 
of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, permits in the northern 
half of West Virginia—north of Sutton, West Virginia—are generally not 
found on the steeper-sloped areas of that region. According to the ERIS 
database, as of July 2008, about 6 percent of open acres were in the 
northern half of West Virginia. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: