Reclaimed surface mines in Central Appalachia have continuing environmental impact after their reclamation bonds are released but are not commonly monitored by state and federal regulators, says a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

The non-partisan investigative arm of Congress cited poor reforestation efforts, contaminated streams that harm aquatic organisms, water-flow issues and failure to restore approximate original contour to sites that may be called “mountaintop removal” but are actually permitted as area mines.

State officials, who enforce strip-mine laws with oversight by federal officials, called the report overbroad, but its sponsor endorsed it.

"Mountaintop-removal mining has lasting and far-reaching effects on surrounding lands and streams," Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who requested the study, told Ken Ward Jr. of The Charleston Gazette. "This GAO review documents the extent of these effects and the mechanisms now in place to evaluate their impacts over time.”

The report, coupled with one in December on mountaintop removal, could help inform the debate about surface mining in Central Appalachia, a debate that has intensified from both sides but one that is often dominated by opinion rather than fact.

The report studied surface mining in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia, where surface mining disturbed approximately 400,000 mostly forested acres between 1994 and 2008. From 1985 to 2005, almost 1,000 miles of headwater streams were estimated to be buried by valley fills made from rock blasted and excavated to reach coal seams.

The latest report focuses on a core principle of the 1977 federal strip-mine law, which requires coal companies provide a bond ensuring that money will be available for state or federal officials to reclaim mined land if the company fails to do so.

In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency “reported that aquatic life downstream from 27 active and reclaimed mountaintop mines with valley fills showed subtle to severe effects compared with aquatic life downstream in similar, but unmined, West Virginia watersheds,” GAO reports. Investigators also reported concentrations of selenium exceeded standards in post-reclaimed streams. Selenium, found in coal and some shales, is in an essential nutrient in small amounts but is toxic in large amounts.

A 2003 study showed “poor vegetation development with time was typical of the reclaimed sites, with significantly lower tree diversity on the mined sites than in adjacent forests,” GAO reports. The report’s authors concluded “mining reclamation procedures limit the overall ecological health and inhibit the desired growth of native tree and shrub species on the site.”

Studies by the U.S. Office of Surface Mining from 1999 and 2001 showed that mine sites required to be returned to the approximate original contour in Kentucky and West Virginia varied little from mines that had been given the “mountaintop removal” exemption to the rule. GAO noted that OSM had commissioned another study of contour policies in 2008, but results were not yet available.

One West Virginia study of mining activities’ effect on flooding recommended, among other things, the state, “prohibit any increase in surface water discharge over pre-mining conditions and modify certain requirements for valley fill construction,” GAO reports. In 2003 West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection began requiring permits to include a storm water runoff analysis, one of several steps GAO noted that state and federal agencies have taken to remedy some of the post-reclamation problems.

While federal agencies generally applauded the report’s thoroughness and characterized it as helpful, state regulators found much to dispute.

“We believe this document is overly broad in its generalized statements,” Carl E. Campbell, commissioner of the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources, said in his formal response. “Terms and phrases are used interchangeably so as to confuse the issues and written in a manner that appears to misrepresent and sensationalizes the issues.”

“Problems are site specific and any proposed modification to regulatory approaches should account for such site-specific conditions,” Stephen Walz, director of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, said in response. “Across the board, one size fits all changes to the regulatory program may not be appropriate for all sites in all states.”

Each of the four states has different bond requirements, with West Virginia using an alternative bond system that combines a variety of funding sources to cover reclamation costs. In Tennessee, where OSM alone regulates strip mines, a full-bond system requires the company to supply to total cost. Kentucky and Virginia use a combination of the two approaches.

West Virginia officials took issue with the limitation of the report to bond issues in only the four central Appalachian states.

“Bonds and or financial assurances are required in all states and are not unique to the four states chosen for the report,” Lewis A. Halstead, deputy director of the West Virginia DEP, said in his response to the report. “It seems the GAO is artificially implying that there is a bonding or financial assurance problem in the four states and that mines with valley fills are the only mines that have the potential to cause environmental harm.”

To obtain a bond release under the 1977 law mine operators must “be able to demonstrate to agency inspectors that revegetation, water quality and other standards are being met,” GAO reports. This process generally occurs five years after the last reclamation activity. Many state and federal officials told GAO that satisfying this requirement meant there was no need to monitor the site after the bond had been released.

GAO investigators also concluded several current laws could be used in limited circumstances to govern reclaimed mine sites after bonds had been released, but agencies reported they rarely if ever used that power.

Despite the states’ objections, Bingaman told Ward the report was a call to action. “The results reinforce my belief that we need to take a close look at the quality of long-term monitoring and the financial assurances we require from the industry to ensure that any problems are promptly remediated.”