Hardrock Mining: Information on Abandoned Mines and Value and
Coverage of Financial Assurances on BLM Land (12-MAR-08,
GAO-08-574T).
The Mining Act of 1872 helped foster the development of the West
by giving individuals exclusive rights to mine gold, silver,
copper, and other hardrock minerals on federal lands. However,
miners often abandoned mines, leaving behind structures, safety
hazards, and contaminated land and water. Four federal
agencies--the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM), the Forest Service, and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)--fund the cleanup of some of these sites.
To curb further growth in the number of abandoned hardrock mines
on federal lands, in 1981 BLM began requiring mining operators to
reclaim lands when their operations ceased. In 2001, BLM began
requiring all operators to provide financial assurances to
guarantee funding for reclamation costs if the operator did not
complete the task as required. This testimony provides
information on the (1) federal funds spent to clean up abandoned
hardrock mine sites since 1998, (2) number of abandoned hardrock
mine sites and hazards, and (3) value and coverage of financial
assurances operators use to guarantee reclamation costs on BLM
land. To address these issues, GAO, among other steps, asked 12
western states and Alaska to provide information on the number of
abandoned mine sites and associated features in their states
using a consistent definition.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-574T
ACCNO: A81284
TITLE: Hardrock Mining: Information on Abandoned Mines and Value
and Coverage of Financial Assurances on BLM Land
DATE: 03/12/2008
SUBJECT: Coal mining
Data integrity
Environmental cleanups
Environmental policies
Environmental protection
Federal funds
Financial management
Grants to states
Health hazards
Land management
Land reclamation
Mine safety
Mining industry
Public health
Safety regulation
Safety standards
Strip mining land reclamation
Surface mining land reclamation
Cost estimates
Program costs
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-574T
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-574T
entitled 'Hardrock Mining: Information on Abandoned Mines and Value and
Coverage of Financial Assurances on BLM Land' which was released on
March 12, 2008.
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 [email protected].
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.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:15 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, March 12, 2008:
Hardrock Mining:
Information on Abandoned Mines and Value and Coverage of Financial
Assurances on BLM Land:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-08-574T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-574T, testimony before the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Mining Act of 1872 helped foster the development of the West by
giving individuals exclusive rights to mine gold, silver, copper, and
other hardrock minerals on federal lands. However, miners often
abandoned mines, leaving behind structures, safety hazards, and
contaminated land and water. Four federal agencies�the Department of
the Interior�s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), the Forest Service, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)�fund the cleanup of some of these
sites.
To curb further growth in the number of abandoned hardrock mines on
federal lands, in 1981 BLM began requiring mining operators to reclaim
lands when their operations ceased. In 2001, BLM began requiring all
operators to provide financial assurances to guarantee funding for
reclamation costs if the operator did not complete the task as
required.
This testimony provides information on the (1) federal funds spent to
clean up abandoned hardrock mine sites since 1998, (2) number of
abandoned hardrock mine sites and hazards, and (3) value and coverage
of financial assurances operators use to guarantee reclamation costs on
BLM land. To address these issues, GAO, among other steps, asked 12
western states and Alaska to provide information on the number of
abandoned mine sites and associated features in their states using a
consistent definition
What GAO Found:
Between fiscal years 1998 and 2007, BLM, the Forest Service, EPA, and
OSM spent at least $2.6 billion (in 2008 constant dollars) to reclaim
abandoned hardrock mines. BLM and the Forest Service have reclaimed
abandoned hardrock mine sites on the lands they manage; EPA funds the
cleanup of these sites, primarily on nonfederal lands through its
Superfund program; and OSM provides some grants to states and Indian
tribes to clean up these sites on their lands. Of the four agencies,
EPA has spent the most�about $2.2 billion (in 2008 constant dollars)
for mine cleanups. BLM and the Forest Service spent about $259 million
(in 2008 constant dollars), and OSM awarded grants totaling about $198
million (in 2008 constant dollars) to support the cleanup of abandoned
hardrock mines.
Over the last 10 years, estimates of the number of abandoned hardrock
mining sites in the 12 western states and Alaska have varied widely, in
part because there is no generally accepted definition for a hardrock
mine site. Using a consistent definition that GAO provided, 12 western
states and Alaska provided estimates of abandoned hardrock mine sites.
On the basis of these data, GAO estimated a total of at least 161,000
such sites in these states with at least 332,000 features that may pose
physical safety hazards and at least 33,000 sites that have degraded
the environment.
According to BLM�s information on financial assurances as reported in
its November 2007 Bond Review Report, mine operators had provided
financial assurances valued at approximately $982 million to guarantee
reclamation costs for 1,463 hardrock operations on BLM land. The report
also estimates that 52 mining operations have financial assurances that
amount to about $28 million less than needed to fully cover estimated
reclamation costs. However, GAO found that the financial assurances for
these 52 operations are in fact about $61 million less than needed to
fully cover estimated reclamation costs. The $33 million difference
between GAO�s estimated shortfall and BLM�s occurs because BLM
calculated its shortfall by comparing the total value of financial
assurances in place with the total estimated reclamation costs. This
calculation approach has the effect of offsetting the shortfalls in
some operations with the financial assurances of other operations.
However, financial assurances that are greater than the amount required
for an operation cannot be transferred to another operation that has
inadequate financial assurances. BLM officials agreed that it would be
valuable for the Bond Review Report to report the dollar value of the
difference between financial assurances in place and required for those
operations where financial assurances are inadequate, and BLM has taken
steps to correct this.
GAO discussed the information in this testimony with officials from the
four federal agencies, and they provided GAO with technical comments,
which were incorporated as appropriate.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-08-574T]. For more information, contact
Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected].
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss several aspects of hardrock
mining, including abandoned hardrock mining sites and financial
assurances. We developed this information during the course of our
ongoing review, which is being conducted at the request of this
Committee, Senator Reid, and the Chairman of the House Committee on
Natural Resources.
As you know, the General Mining Act of 1872 encouraged the development
of the West by allowing individuals to stake claims and obtain
exclusive rights to the gold, silver, copper, and other valuable
hardrock mineral deposits on land belonging to the United States. Since
then, thousands of operators have extracted billions of dollars worth
of hardrock minerals from land managed by the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service--the two principal agencies responsible
for federal lands open for hardrock mining. However, some operators did
not reclaim thousands of acres of federal land disturbed for
exploration, mining, and mineral processing when their operations
ceased. Some of these disturbed lands pose serious environmental and
physical safety hazards. These hazards include environmental hazards
such as toxic or acidic water that contaminates soil and groundwater or
physical safety hazards such as open or concealed shafts, unstable or
decayed mine structures, or explosives. Cleanup costs for these
abandoned mines vary by type and size of the operation.[Footnote 1] For
example, the cost of plugging holes is usually minimal, but reclamation
costs for large mining operations can be in the tens of millions of
dollars.
Four federal agencies--BLM, the Forest Service, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of the Interior's Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)--fund the cleanup and
reclamation of some of these abandoned hardrock mine sites. BLM's and
the Forest Service's Abandoned Mine Lands programs focus on the safety
of their land by addressing physical and environmental hazards. EPA's
funding of abandoned hardrock mine sites, under its Superfund Program,
focuses on the cleanup and long-term health effects of air, ground, or
water pollution by abandoned hardrock mine sites, and is generally for
mines on nonfederal lands. Finally, OSM, under amendments to the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977,[Footnote 2]
can provide grants to fund the cleanup and reclamation of certain
hardrock mining sites after a state certifies that it has cleaned up
its abandoned coal mine sites and the Secretary of the Interior
approves the certification or at the request of a state or an Indian
tribe.
Federal agencies, states, mining, and environmental organizations, and
others have attempted to determine the total number of abandoned
hardrock mines and the safety and environment hazards these mines pose.
These estimates vary widely, and many of these abandoned hardrock mines
present safety, health, and environmental hazards.
To curb further growth in the number of abandoned hardrock mines, BLM
issued regulations, effective in 1981, that required all mining
operators to reclaim BLM land disturbed by hardrock mining.[Footnote 3]
In 2001, BLM regulations began requiring all mining operators to
provide financial assurances before beginning exploration or mining
operations on BLM land.[Footnote 4] These financial assurances must
cover all of the estimated reclamation costs for a given hardrock
operation.[Footnote 5] Having adequate financial assurances to pay
reclamation costs for BLM land disturbed by hardrock operations is
critical to ensuring that the land is reclaimed if the mining operators
fail to do so. In June 2005, we reported that some current hardrock
operations on BLM land do not have financial assurances, and some have
no or outdated reclamation plans and/or cost estimates on which the
financial assurances should be based.[Footnote 6] In that report we:
* concluded that BLM did not have an effective process and critical
management information needed for ensuring that adequate financial
assurances are actually in place, as required by federal regulations
and BLM guidance; and:
* made recommendations to strengthen BLM's management of financial
assurances for hardrock operations on its lands.
In response to those recommendations, BLM modified its computer system-
-LR2000--to generate the Bond Review Fiscal Report (the Bond Review
Report). BLM uses this report to determine if adequate financial
assurances are in place for mining operations on its lands. BLM also
requires its state directors to annually review the Bond Review Report
to determine if all reclamation cost estimates are adequate, take
action to address inadequacies, and certify that the financial
assurances are adequate.
In contrast to BLM, the Forest Service--the other federal agency
principally responsible for hardrock mining operations on federal land-
-does not have readily available information on the financial
assurances in place for hardrock operations on its lands. Although the
Forest Service's regulations do not require financial assurances for
all operations, the Forest Service's policy is to require them.
In this context, my testimony today, as requested, discusses the (1)
federal funds spent to clean up abandoned hardrock mine sites since
1998, (2) number of abandoned hardrock mine sites and the number of
associated hazards, and (3) value and coverage of the financial
assurances operators use to guarantee reclamation costs on BLM land.
To address these objectives, we interviewed staff at BLM, the Forest
Service, EPA, and OSM; examined agency documents and data; and reviewed
relevant legislation and regulations. In addition, for the first
objective, we obtained federal expenditure data from these four
agencies for cleaning up and reclaiming abandoned hardrock mine sites
from fiscal years 1998 through 2007. We adjusted the expenditure data
to 2008 constant dollars. For the second objective, we asked 12 western
states and Alaska--which have significant numbers of abandoned hardrock
mining operations--to determine the number of these mine sites in their
states.[Footnote 7] We asked the states to use a consistent definition,
which we provided, in estimating the number of abandoned mine sites and
associated features that pose a significant hazard to public health and
safety and the number of sites that cause environmental degradation. We
defined an abandoned hardrock mine site as all associated facilities,
structures, improvements, and disturbances at a distinct location
associated with activities to support a past operation of minerals
locatable under the general mining laws. We specified that states
should only include hardrock (also known as locatable), non-coal sites
in this estimate. From these data, we estimated the number of abandoned
hardrock mine sites, the number of features that pose physical safety
hazards, and the number of sites with environmental hazards in the 12
western states and Alaska. We also summarized selected prior survey
efforts by federal agencies and organizations to document differences
in estimates, definitions, and methodologies. For the third objective,
we reviewed BLM's Bond Review Report to determine the value and
coverage of financial assurances in place to guarantee coverage of
reclamation costs. This report provides information on financial
assurances for 11 western states.[Footnote 8] This Bond Review Report
is generated from BLM's automated information system--LR 2000. Although
the LR2000 data are of undetermined reliability, our limited assessment
of these data indicates that they are appropriate as used and presented
in this testimony, and we do not base any conclusions or
recommendations on them.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2007 through March
2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See
appendix I for more detailed information on our scope and methodology.
In summary:
* The four federal agencies we examined--BLM, the Forest Service, EPA,
and OSM--spent at least $2.6 billion (in 2008 constant dollars) between
fiscal years 1998 and 2007 to clean up abandoned hardrock mines. BLM
and the Forest Service spent a total of about $259 million (in 2008
constant dollars) to fund the cleanup of abandoned sites on the lands
they manage. EPA spent the most of the four agencies--about $2.2
billion (in 2008 constant dollars) to fund the cleanup of abandoned
mine sites, primarily on nonfederal land through its Superfund program,
and OSM provided grants to states and Indian tribes totaling about $198
million (in 2008 constant dollars) to support cleanups of abandoned
hardrock mines.
* According to several studies we reviewed that were conducted over the
last 10 years, estimates of the number of abandoned hardrock mine sites
in the 12 western states and Alaska vary widely, in part because there
is no generally accepted definition for a hardrock mine site and the
studies rely on the different definitions the states used. Furthermore,
BLM's and the Forest Service's estimate of 100,000 abandoned hardrock
mines on their lands is problematic because they included non-hardrock
mines and mines that may not be on their lands. Using a consistent
definition that we provided, the 12 western states and Alaska estimated
the number of hardrock mine sites in their states and from this
information we estimated a total of at least 161,000 abandoned hardrock
mine sites in these states on state, private, or federal lands. These
sites have at least 332,000 features that may pose physical safety
hazards, such as open shafts or unstable or decayed mine structures.
The states also estimated that at least 33,000 sites have degraded the
environment by, for example, contaminating surface water and
groundwater.
* As of November 2007, mine operators had provided financial assurances
valued at approximately $982 million to guarantee reclamation costs for
1,463 hardrock operations on BLM land in 11 western states, according
to BLM's Bond Review Report. The report also estimates that 52 mining
operations have inadequate financial assurances amounting to about $28
million less than needed to fully cover estimated reclamation costs.
However, we determined that the financial assurances for the 52
operations are actually about $61 million less than needed to fully
cover estimated reclamation costs. The $33 million difference between
our estimated shortfall and BLM's occurs because BLM calculated its
shortfall by comparing the total value of financial assurances in place
with the total estimated reclamation costs. This calculation approach
has the effect of offsetting the shortfalls in some operations with the
financial assurances of other operations. However, financial assurances
that are greater than the amount required for an operation cannot be
transferred to another operation that has inadequate financial
assurances. BLM officials agreed that it would be valuable for the Bond
Review Report to report the dollar value of the difference between
financial assurances in place and required for those operations where
financial assurances are inadequate, and BLM has taken steps to modify
LR2000.
We discussed the information in this testimony with officials from the
four federal agencies, and they provided us with technical comments,
which we incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
Historically, the mining of hardrock minerals, such as gold, lead,
copper, silver, and uranium, was an economic incentive for exploring
and settling the American West. However, when the ore was depleted,
miners often left behind a legacy of abandoned mines, structures,
safety hazards, and contaminated land and water. Even in more recent
times, after cleanup became mandatory, many parties responsible for
hardrock mining sites have been liquidated through bankruptcy or
otherwise dissolved.[Footnote 9] Under these circumstances, some
hardrock mining companies have left it to the taxpayer to clean up the
mining site. BLM, the Forest Service, EPA, and OSM play a role in
cleaning up these abandoned mining sites and ensuring that currently
operating sites are reclaimed after operations have ceased.
BLM and the Forest Service are responsible for managing more than 450
million acres of public lands in their care, including land disturbed
and abandoned by past hardrock mining activities. BLM manages about 258
million acres in 12 western states, including Alaska. The Forest
Service manages about 193 million acres across the nation. In 1997, BLM
and the Forest Service each launched a national Abandoned Mine Lands
Program to remedy the physical and environmental hazards at thousands
of abandoned hardrock mines on the federal lands they manage. According
to a September 2007 report by these two agencies, they had inventoried
thousands of abandoned sites and, at many of them, had taken actions to
clean up hazardous substances and mitigate safety hazards.[Footnote 10]
BLM and the Forest Service are also responsible for managing and
overseeing current hardrock operations on their lands, including the
mining operators' reclamation of the land disturbed by hardrock mining.
Although reclamation can vary by location, it generally involves such
activities as regrading and reshaping the disturbed land to conform
with adjacent land forms and to minimize erosion; removing or
stabilizing buildings and other structures to reduce safety risks;
removing mining roads to prevent damage from future traffic; and
establishing self-sustaining vegetation. One of the agencies' key
responsibilities is to ensure that adequate financial assurances, based
on sound reclamation plans and cost estimates, are in place to
guarantee reclamation costs.[Footnote 11] If a mining operator fails to
complete required reclamation, BLM or the Forest Service can take steps
to obtain funds from the financial assurance provider to complete the
reclamation.
BLM requires financial assurances for both notice-level hardrock mining
operations--those disturbing 5 acres of land or less--and plan-level
hardrock mining operations--those disturbing over 5 acres of land and
those in certain designated areas, such as the national wild and scenic
rivers system. For hardrock operations on Forest Service lands, agency
regulations require reclamation of sites after operations cease, but do
not require financial assurances for the reclamation. However,
according to a Forest Service official, if the proposed hardrock
operation is likely to cause a significant disturbance, the Forest
Service requires financial assurances.
Both agencies allow several types of financial assurances to guarantee
estimated reclamation costs for hardrock operations on their lands.
According to regulations and agency officials, BLM and the Forest
Service allow cash, letters of credit, certificates of deposit or
savings accounts, and negotiable U.S. securities and bonds in a trust
account. BLM also allows surety bonds, state bond pools, trust funds,
and property.
Neither agency centrally tracks all the types of financial assurances
in place for hardrock operations on its lands. BLM's LR2000 tracks most
of the types, and BLM is updating the database to include more types of
financial assurances, but data are incomplete for the types of
assurances currently in the system. The Forest Service does not have
readily available information on the types of financial assurances in
use, but it is developing a database to collect this and other
information on hardrock operations by late summer 2008, according to
Forest Service officials.
EPA administers the Superfund program, which was established under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 to address the threats that contaminated waste sites, including
those on nonfederal lands, pose to human health and the
environment.[Footnote 12] The act also requires that the parties
statutorily responsible for pollution bear the cost of cleaning up
contaminated sites, including abandoned hardrock mining operations.
Some contaminated hardrock mine sites have been listed on Superfund's
National Priorities List--a list of seriously contaminated sites.
Typically, these sites are expensive to clean up and the cleanup can
take many years. According to EPA's Office of Inspector General in
2004, 63 hardrock mining sites were on the National Priorities List and
another 93 sites had the potential to be added to the list.[Footnote
13] Regarding financial assurances, EPA has statutory authority under
the Superfund program to require businesses handling hazardous
substances on nonfederal lands to provide financial
assurances,[Footnote 14] and according to agency officials, is
currently exploring options for implementing this authority.
OSM's Abandoned Mine Land Program primarily focuses on cleaning up
abandoned coal mine sites. However, OSM, under amendments to the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977, can provide
grants to fund the cleanup and reclamation of certain hardrock mining
sites either (1) after a state certifies that it has cleaned up its
abandoned coal mine sites and the Secretary of the Interior approves
the certification, or (2) at the request of a state or Indian tribe to
address problems that could endanger life and property, constitute a
hazard to the public and safety, or degrade the environment, and the
Secretary of the Interior grants the request. OSM has provided more
than $3 billion to clean up dangerous abandoned mine sites. Its
Abandoned Mine Land Program has eliminated safety and environmental
hazards on 314,108 acres since 1977, including all high-priority coal
problems and non-coal problems in 27 states and on the lands of three
Indian tribes.[Footnote 15]
Federal Agencies Have Spent At Least $2.6 Billion to Clean Up Abandoned
Hardrock Mine Sites Since 1998:
Between fiscal years 1998 and 2007, the four federal agencies we
examined--BLM, the Forest Service, EPA, and OSM--spent at least $2.6
billion to reclaim abandoned hardrock mines on federal, state, private,
and Indian lands. EPA has spent the most--$2.2 billion.[Footnote 16]
Although the amount each agency spent annually varied considerably, the
median amount spent for the public lands by BLM and the Forest Service
was about $5 million and about $21 million, respectively. EPA spent
substantially more--a median of about $221 million annually--to clean
up mines that are generally on nonfederal lands. Finally, OSM provided
grants with an annual median value of about $18 million to states and
Indian tribes through its SMCRA program for hardrock mine cleanups.
Table 1 summarizes information on expenditures and hardrock mine
cleanup activities at BLM, the Forest Service, EPA, and OSM. See
appendix II for more detailed information on agency expenditures by
fiscal year.
Table 1: Summary of Expenditures for Cleaning Up Abandoned Hardrock
Mines at BLM, the Forest Service, EPA, and OSM, Fiscal Years 1998
through 2007; Dollars in thousands (2008 constant dollars):
Total expenditures between fiscal years 1998 and 2007:
BLM[A]: $50,462;
Forest Service: $208,709;
EPA[B]: $2,155,916;
OSM: $198,099.
Median expenditures, fiscal years 1998 through 2007:
BLM[A]: $5,141;
Forest Service: $21,476;
EPA[B]: $221,029;
OSM: $17,626.
Percent of total:
BLM[A]: 1.9;
Forest Service: 7.8;
EPA[B]: 82.6;
OSM: 7.6.
Source: GAO analysis of BLM, Forest Service, EPA, and OSM data.
[A] These data include funding for large cleanup projects from the Soil
Water and Air and the Hazard Management and Resource Restoration
subactivities from BLM appropriations. These data do not include
funding for smaller projects under those two subactivities, funding
from Central Hazardous Materials Fund or the Natural Resource Damage
Assessment and Restoration subactivities from the Department of the
Interior's appropriations, or funding under the Southern Nevada Public
Land Management Act.
[B] According to EPA officials, about 90 percent of these expenditures
are EPA's; the other 10 percent are funds from responsible parties and
states.
[End of table]
According to available data, as of September 30, 2007, BLM had spent
the largest share of its funds in Montana--about $18 million; EPA had
spent the largest share of its funds in Idaho--about $352 million; and
Wyoming was the largest recipient of OSM grants for cleaning up
hardrock mine sites--receiving about $99 million. Wyoming was eligible
for OSM grants after OSM's acceptance of the state's certification that
it had completed its cleanup of coal mine sites. The Forest Service was
unable to provide this information by state. See appendix II for BLM,
EPA, and OSM total funding by state.
Prior State Estimates of the Number of Abandoned Hardrock Mine Sites
Vary Widely, but Our Data Show at Least 161,000 Sites, with Many Posing
Hazards:
Previous state estimates of the number of abandoned hardrock mine sites
vary widely in the six studies that we reviewed because, in part, there
is no generally accepted definition for a hardrock mine site and the
studies rely on the states' different definitions of hardrock mine
sites. In addition, we found problems with BLM's and the Forest
Service's estimate of 100,000 abandoned hardrock mines on their lands
because the agencies included non-hardrock mines and mines that may not
be on their lands. Using our consistent definition, 12 western states
and Alaska estimated a total of at least 161,000 abandoned hardrock
mine sites in their states on state, private, or federal lands.
Six Studies Identified a Range of Estimated Abandoned Hardrock Mining
Sites:
We identified six studies conducted in the past 10 years that estimated
the number of abandoned hardrock mine sites in the 12 western states
and Alaska.[Footnote 17] The estimates in each of these studies were
developed by asking states to provide data on the number of abandoned
hardrock mine sites in their states, generally without regard to
whether the mine was on federal, state, Indian, or private lands. The
estimates for a particular state do, in some cases, vary widely from
study to study. For example, for Nevada, the Western Governors'
Association/National Mining Association estimated that the state had
50,000 abandoned hardrock mine sites in 1998, while in 2004 EPA
estimated that the state had between 200,000 to 500,000 abandoned
sites. The estimates also reflect the different definitions that states
used for abandoned hardrock mining sites for a given study. For
example, we found that, within the same study, some states define an
abandoned mine site as a mine opening or feature, while others define a
site as all associated mine openings, features, or structures at a
distinct location. As a result, an abandoned hardrock operation with
two mine openings, a pit, and a tailings pile could be listed as one
site or four sites, depending on the definitions and methodologies
used. See appendix III for more information on estimates from these
studies.
In addition, some regional or state estimates included coal and other
non-hardrock mineral sites because it was (1) not important to
distinguish between the type of minerals mined or (2) difficult to
determine what mineral had been mined. In 2004, EPA commented on this
problem, noting, "it is important to keep in mind that a universally
applied definition of an [abandoned mine land] does not exist at
present...therefore, the various agencies and state-
developed...inventories presented may possess inconsistencies and are
not intended for exact quantitative comparisons."
BLM and Forest Service Estimates of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Include
Non-Hardrock Mines and Mines That May Not Be on Their Lands.
BLM and the Forest Service have also had difficulty determining the
number of abandoned hardrock mines on their lands and have no
definitive estimates. In September 2007, the agencies reported that
there were an estimated 100,000 abandoned hardrock mine sites,[Footnote
18] but we found problems with this estimate. For example, the Forest
Service had reported that it had approximately 39,000 abandoned
hardrock mine sites on its lands. However, we found that this estimate
includes a substantial number of non-hardrock mines, such as coal
mines, and sites that are not on Forest Service land. At our request,
in November 2007, the Forest Service provided a revised estimate of the
number of abandoned hardrock mine sites on its lands, excluding coal or
other non-hardrock sites. According to this estimate, the Forest
Service may have about 29,000 abandoned hardrock mine sites on its
lands. That said, we still have concerns about the accuracy of the
Forest Service's recent estimate because it includes a large number of
sites on lands with "undetermined" ownership, and therefore these sites
may not all be on Forest Service lands.
BLM has also acknowledged that its estimate of abandoned hardrock mine
sites on its lands may not be accurate because it includes sites on
lands that are of unknown or mixed ownership (state, private, and
federal) and a few coal sites. In addition, BLM officials said that the
agency's field offices used a variety of methods to identify sites in
the early 1980s, and the extent and quality of these efforts varied
greatly. For example, they estimated that only about 20 percent of BLM
land has been surveyed in Arizona. Furthermore, BLM officials said that
the agency focuses more on identifying sites closer to human habitation
and recreational areas than on identifying more remote sites, such as
in the desert. Table 2 shows the Forest Service's and BLM's most recent
available estimates of abandoned mine sites on their lands.
Table 2: BLM's and the Forest Service's Most Currently Available
Estimated Number of Abandoned Mines on Their Lands, by State:
State: Alaska;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]: 6,000;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service land[B]:
830;
Total: 6,830.
State: Arizona;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]: 22,000;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service land[B]:
2,183;
Total: 24,183.
State: California;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]: 11,500;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service land[B]:
6,248;
Total: 17,748.
State: Colorado;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]: 2,500;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service land[B]:
2,605;
Total: 5,105.
State: Idaho; Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]:
400; Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service
land[B]: 4,635; Total: 5,035.
State: Montana;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]: 1,016;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service land[B]:
3,899;
Total: 4,915.
State: Nevada;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]: 9,000;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service land[B]:
1,613;
Total: 10,613.
State: New Mexico;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]: 3,000;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service land[B]:
989;
Total: 3,989.
State: Oregon;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]: 3,400;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service land[B]:
2,427;
Total: 5,827.
State: South Dakota;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]: Not reported;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service land[B]:
503;
Total: 503.
State: Utah;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]: 10,000;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service land[B]:
697;
Total: 10,697.
State: Washington;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]: Not reported;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service land[B]:
1,956;
Total: 1,956.
State: Wyoming;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]: 2,000;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service land[B]:
336;
Total: 2,336.
State: Total;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on BLM land[A]: 70,816;
Estimated number of abandoned mine sites on Forest Service land[B]:
28,921;
Total: 99,737.
Source: GAO analysis of BLM and Forest Service data.
[A] These data are from BLM's report on Abandoned Mine Land Inventory
and Remediation, BLM/NV/GI-97/004, November 1996.
[B] These data are from the U.S. Geological Survey's analysis of data
in the Mineral Resources Data System (of which MAS/MILS is now a part).
[End of table]
Using a Consistent Definition, GAO Estimated at Least 161,000 Abandoned
Sites:
To estimate abandoned hardrock mining sites in the 12 western states
and Alaska, we developed a standard definition for these mine sites. In
developing this definition, we consulted with mining experts at the
National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs; the Interstate
Mining Compact Commission; and the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, Office of Active
and Inactive Mines. We defined an abandoned hardrock mine site as a
site that includes all associated facilities, structures, improvements,
and disturbances at a distinct location associated with activities to
support a past operation, including prospecting, exploration,
uncovering, drilling, discovery, mine development, excavation,
extraction, or processing of mineral deposits locatable under the
general mining laws. We also asked the states to estimate the number of
features at these sites that pose physical safety hazards and the
number of sites with environmental degradation. See appendix I for the
complete definition we used when asking states for their estimates.
Using this definition, states reported to us the number of abandoned
sites in their states, and we estimated that there are at least 161,000
abandoned hardrock mine sites in their states. At these sites, on the
basis of state data, we estimated that at least 332,000 features may
pose physical safety hazards, such as open shafts or unstable or
decayed mine structures; and at least 33,000 sites have degraded the
environment, by, for example, contaminating surface water and
groundwater or leaving arsenic-contaminated tailings piles. Table 3
shows our estimate of the number of abandoned hardrock mine sites in
the 12 western states and Alaska, the number of features that pose
significant public health and safety hazards, and the number of sites
with environmental degradation.
Table 3: GAO's Estimate of the Number of Abandoned Hardrock Mine Sites,
Features That Pose Significant Public and Safety Hazards, and Sites
With Environmental Degradation, in 12 Western States and Alaska, as of
October 1, 2007:
State: Alaska;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 469;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: 235;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: 99.
State: Arizona;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 50,000;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: 59,400;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: 9,900.
State: California;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 47,084;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: 164,795;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: 5,200.
State: Colorado;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 7,300;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: 17,000;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: 150.
State: Idaho;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 7,100;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: Not reported;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: Not reported.
State: Montana;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 6,000;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: 6,000-22,000;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: 331.
State: Nevada;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 16,000;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: 51,000;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: 150.
State: New Mexico;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 800;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: 15,000;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: 200-300.
State: Oregon;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 3,823;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: Not reported;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: 140.
State: South Dakota;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 950;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: Not reported;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: Not reported.
State: Utah;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 17,000;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: 17,000;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: 17,000.
State: Washington;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 3,629;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: 1,608;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: 50.
State: Wyoming;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 956;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: 519;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: 437.
State: Total;
Estimated number of abandoned hardrock (non-coal, locatable) mine
sites: 161,111;
Estimated number of features that pose a significant hazard to public
health and safety: 332,557-348,557;
Estimated number of sites with environmental degradation: 33,657-
33,757.
Source: GAO analysis of state-reported data.
[End of table]
While states used our definition to provide data on the estimated
number of mine sites and features, these data have two key limitations.
First, the methods and sources used to identify and confirm abandoned
sites and hazardous features vary substantially by state. For example,
some states, such as Colorado and Wyoming, indicated they had done
extensive and rigorous fieldwork to identify sites and were reasonably
confident that their estimates were accurate. Other states, however,
relied less on rigorous fieldwork, and more on unverified, readily
available records or data sources, such as published or unpublished
geological reports, mining claim maps, and the Mineral Availability
System/Mineral Industry Locator System (MAS/MILS),[Footnote 19] which
states indicated were typically incomplete. Several of those states
that relied primarily on literature used the literature only as a
starting point, and then estimated the number of features on the basis
of experience. For example, while one state estimated that there were
about three times the number of public safety hazards as identified by
the literature, another state estimated that there were four times as
many, and a third state estimated that there were up to six times as
many.
Second, because states have markedly different data systems and
requirements for recording data on abandoned mines, some states were
less readily able to provide the data directly from their systems
without manipulation or estimation. For example, New Mexico estimated
the number of abandoned mine sites from the data it maintains on
hazardous features, and Nevada estimated the number of abandoned
hardrock mine sites from the data it maintains on the number of mining
districts in the state.
BLM Estimates That Operators Have Provided About $982 Million in
Financial Assurances--About $61 Million Less Than Needed to Cover
Estimated Reclamation Costs:
As of November 2007, hardrock mining operators had provided financial
assurances valued at approximately $982 million to guarantee the
reclamation costs for 1,463 hardrock mining operations on BLM lands in
11 western states, according to BLM's Bond Review Report. The report
also indicates that 52 of the 1,463 hardrock mining operations had
inadequate financial assurances--about $28 million less than needed to
fully cover estimated reclamation costs. We determined, however, that
the financial assurances for these 52 operations should be more
accurately reported as about $61 million less than needed to fully
cover estimated reclamation costs. Table 4 shows total hardrock mining
operations by state, the number of operations with inadequate financial
assurances, the financial assurances required, BLM's calculation of the
shortfall in assurances, and our estimate of the shortfall, as of
November 2007.
Table 4: Total Hardrock Mining Operations, Operations with Inadequate
Financial Assurances, Financial Assurances Required, and Difference
Between Requirements and Actual Value, by State, as of November 2007:
State: Arizona;
Total operations: 107;
Operations with inadequate financial assurances: 2;
Financial assurances required: $7,689,394;
BLM's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($49,583);
GAO's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($101,870).
State: California;
Total operations: 95;
Operations with inadequate financial assurances: 4;
Financial assurances required: $24,530,439;
BLM's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: $1,593,013;
GAO's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($439,669).
State: Colorado;
Total operations: 250;
Operations with inadequate financial assurances: 4;
Financial assurances required: $1,605,574;
BLM's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($170,291);
GAO's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($167,730).
State: Idaho;
Total operations: 46;
Operations with inadequate financial assurances: 1;
Financial assurances required: $1,556,705;
BLM's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($13,000);
GAO's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($13,000).
State: Montana;
Total operations: 41;
Operations with inadequate financial assurances: 0;
Financial assurances required: $67,478,064;
BLM's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: $1,200;
GAO's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: 0.
State: New Mexico;
Total operations: 28;
Operations with inadequate financial assurances: 0;
Financial assurances required: $1,066,735;
BLM's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: 0;
GAO's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: 0.
State: Nevada;
Total operations: 579;
Operations with inadequate financial assurances: 28;
Financial assurances required: $844,953,161;
BLM's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($33,667,684);
GAO's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($47,739,814).
State: Oregon;
Total operations: 60;
Operations with inadequate financial assurances: 4;
Financial assurances required: $366,773;
BLM's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: $47,327;
GAO's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($1,227).
State: Utah;
Total operations: 150;
Operations with inadequate financial assurances: 5;
Financial assurances required: $12,247,645;
BLM's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($2,682,539);
GAO's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($2,769,802).
State: Washington;
Total operations: 4;
Operations with inadequate financial assurances: 0;
Financial assurances required: $49,975;
BLM's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: 0;
GAO's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: 0.
State: Wyoming;
Total operations: 103;
Operations with inadequate financial assurances: 4;
Financial assurances required: $47,934,110;
BLM's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: $7,103,396;
GAO's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($9,518,877).
State: Total;
Total operations: 1,463;
Operations with inadequate financial assurances: 52;
Financial assurances required: $1,009,478,575;
BLM's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($27,838,161);
GAO's difference between current and required value of financial
assurances: ($60,751,989).
Source: GAO analysis of BLM's Bond Review Report.
Note: Data for Alaska are not maintained in LR2000 and not reported in
the Bond Review Report.
[End of table]
The $33 million difference between our estimated shortfall of nearly
$61 million and BLM's estimated shortfall of nearly $28 million occurs
because BLM calculated its shortfall by comparing the total value of
financial assurances in place with the total estimated reclamation
costs. This calculation approach has the effect of offsetting the
shortfalls in some operations with the financial assurances of other
operations. However, the financial assurances that are greater than the
amount required for an operation cannot be transferred to an operation
with inadequate financial assurances. In contrast, we totaled the
difference between the financial assurance in place for an operation
and the financial assurances needed for that operation to determine the
actual shortfall for each of the 52 operations for which BLM had
determined that financial assurances were inadequate.
BLM's approach to determining the adequacy of financial assurances is
not useful because it does not clearly lay out the extent to which
financial assurances are inadequate. For example, in California, BLM
reports that, statewide, the financial assurances in place are $1.5
million greater than required, suggesting reclamation costs are being
more than fully covered. However, according to our analysis of only
those California operations with inadequate financial assurances, the
financial assurances in place are nearly $440,000 less than needed to
fully cover reclamations costs. BLM officials agreed that it would be
valuable for the Bond Review Report to report the dollar value of the
difference between financial assurances in place and required for those
operations where financial assurances are inadequate and have taken
steps to modify LR2000.
BLM officials said that financial assurances may appear inadequate in
the Bond Review Report when:
* expansions or other changes in the operation have occurred, thus
requiring an increase in the amount of the financial assurance;
* BLM's estimate of reclamation costs has increased and there is a
delay between when BLM enters the new estimate into LR2000 and when the
operator provides the additional bond amount; and:
* BLM has delayed updating its case records in LR2000.
Conversely, hardrock mining operators may have financial assurances
greater than required for a number of reasons; for example, they may
increase their financial assurances because they anticipate expanding
their hardrock operations.
In addition, according to the Bond Review Report, there are about 2.4
times as many notice-level operations--operations that cause surface
disturbance on 5 acres or less--as there are plan-level operations on
BLM land--operations that disturb more than 5 acres (1,033 notice-level
operations and 430 plan-level operations). However, about 99 percent of
the value of financial assurances is for plan-level operations, while 1
percent of the value is for notice-level operations. While financial
assurances were inadequate for both notice-and plan-level operations, a
greater percentage of plan-level operations had inadequate financial
assurances than did notice-level operations--6.7 percent and 2.2
percent, respectively. Finally, over one-third of the number of all
hardrock operations and about 84 percent of the value of all financial
assurances are for hardrock mining operations located in Nevada. See
appendix IV for further details on the number of plan-and notice-level
operations in each state.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or Members of the Committee may have.
Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. For further
information about this testimony, please contact Robin M. Nazzaro,
Director, Natural Resources and Environment (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected]. Key contributors to this testimony were Andrea
Wamstad Brown (Assistant Director); Casey L. Brown; Kristen Sullivan
Massey; Rebecca Shea; and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To determine the (1) federal funds spent to clean up abandoned hardrock
mine sites since 1998, (2) number of abandoned hardrock mine sites and
the number of associated hazards, and (3) value and coverage of the
financial assurances operators use to guarantee reclamation costs on
the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land,
we interviewed officials at the BLM, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM); examined agency documents and data;
and reviewed relevant legislation and regulations.
Specifically, to answer our first objective, we interviewed officials
involved with the abandoned mine cleanup programs at BLM, the Forest
Service, EPA, and OSM to request expenditure data, to understand how
they tracked and monitored expenditures to clean up abandoned hardrock
mines, and to request and ensure that we would receive the data we
needed. We reviewed agency documents, budget justification reports and
reports detailing agencies' cleanup efforts and programs. We obtained
data on total expenditures for cleaning up and reclaiming abandoned
hardrock mine sites that were compiled from BLM's Financial Accounting
and Reporting System, EPA's Superfund eFacts Database, OSM's Abandoned
Mine Land Inventory System, and Forest Service officials. BLM officials
told us that in addition to the expenditure data they provided, the
agency receives funding allocations from other sources, such as the
Department of the Interior's Central Hazardous Materials fund. Since
BLM does not track the expenditures from these other sources, we were
unable to provide this information.
Because the four agencies' abandoned hardrock mine programs started in
different years, start years for expenditure data vary. Specifically,
BLM's data were for fiscal years 1997 through 2007; Forest Service's
data, for fiscal years 1996 through 2007; EPA's data, for fiscal years
1988 through 2007; and OSM's data, for fiscal years 1993 to 2007. We
performed a limited reliability assessment of the expenditure data and
determined that we would limit our year-by-year presentation of
expenditure data to the past 10 years (1998 through 2007) because of
(1) variability in the program start year across the agencies, (2)
inconsistencies across the agencies in their methods for tracking and
reporting the data, and (3) some data recording errors in early years
at some agencies. We presented these data in 2008 constant dollars.
Because of limited time in preparing this testimony, we were unable to
fully assess the reliability of the agencies' expenditure data and the
data are therefore of undetermined reliability. However, we concluded
that the data are appropriate as used and presented to meet our
objectives because we (1) attribute the data to what agencies report as
their expenditures, (2) present rounded data to minimize the perception
of precision, and (3) do not base any conclusions or recommendations on
the data.
To answer our second objective, we summarized selected prior survey
efforts by federal agencies and organizations to document differences
in estimates, definitions, and methodologies.[Footnote 20] We also
consulted experts in mining and abandoned mine land programs at the
National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs; the Interstate
Mining Compact Commission; and the Colorado State Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, Office of Active
and Inactive Mines to develop a standard definition for estimating the
number of abandoned hardrock mine sites, features, and sites with
environmental degradation. Other efforts to assess the magnitude of the
abandoned mine situation have acknowledged limitations in their efforts
to develop a nationwide estimate because of inconsistencies in states'
definitions and methods for estimating abandoned sites. Consequently,
through iterative consultation with state and other mining experts, the
definition we ultimately chose was clear and incorporated enough
flexibility for all major hardrock mining states--the 12 western states
and Alaska--to reasonably comply with our request, despite differences
in how the states might define and maintain abandoned mine
data.[Footnote 21] We then provided states with an edit-controlled data
collection instrument that requested data specifically tailored to our
definitions and methods. Our definition of abandoned hardrock mine
sites:
* includes all associated facilities, structures, improvements, and
disturbances at a distinct location associated with activities to
support a past operation, including prospecting, exploration,
uncovering, drilling, discovery, mine development, excavation,
extraction, or processing of mineral deposits locatable under the
general mining laws;
* can range from an isolated prospect shaft and its associated waste
rock pile and adjacent prospect pits, to a complex site with multiple
entries, shafts, open pits, mill buildings, waste rock piles, a
tailings pond, and associated environmental problems; and:
* includes only hardrock (also known as locatable), non-coal sites.
Features that pose a significant hazard to public health and safety
include:
* features, such as mine openings, structures, and highwalls; and:
* impoundments that pose a threat to public health and safety and
require actions to secure, remedy or reclaim.
Sites with environmental degradation include features that lead to
environmental degradation, and, consequently, require remediation of
air, water, or ground pollution.
Rather than reporting, as requested, the number of features leading to
environmental degradation, most states reported only the number of
sites with environmental degradation, if they reported data for this
request at all. Because most states do not maintain environmental
degradation data by feature, states could only speculate about this
figure, or compute it by estimating an average number of features per
site and multiplying that by the overall number of sites with
environmental degradation. Because of these limitations with feature-
level data, we report only the number of sites with data on
environmental degradation in order to ensure more reliable and
consistent reporting across the states.
As a secondary confirmation that states provided data consistent with
the definition, our data collection instrument included a section for
states to provide a brief description of how the various data points
were calculated, and whether the data provided were actual or estimated
values. Based on comments in these fields, and basic logic checks on
the data, we followed up as needed through telephone interviews to
clarify and confirm problematic responses. Our definitional and editing
processes provided us with reasonable assurance that the data were as
clean and consistent as possible, and using these final edited data, we
calculated the estimated number of abandoned mine sites, the number of
features that pose physical safety and environmental hazards, and the
number of abandoned mine sites with environmental degradation in the 12
western states and Alaska.
To answer our third objective--to determine the value and coverage of
financial assurances in place to guarantee coverage of reclamation
costs--we requested the BLM Bond Review Report from BLM's Legacy Rehost
System 2000 (LR2000) database. Because we had previously reported
reliability problems with data on financial assurances in
LR2000,[Footnote 22] we conducted a limited reliability assessment of
the bond report data. This limited assessment included (1) basic logic
checks on the data we received, (2) interviews with BLM minerals
management officials knowledgeable of the changes made to LR2000 to
address GAO's 2005 recommendations, and (3) a review of BLM's June 14,
2006, Instruction Memorandum 2006-172 for processing and entering Bond
Review Report data in LR2000. Although the data are of undetermined
reliability, our limited assessment indicates that management controls
were improved for the generation of bond review reports from LR2000. We
concluded that the data are appropriate as used and presented, and we
did not base any conclusions or recommendations on these data.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Information on Federal Agency Expenditures to Clean Up
Abandoned Hardrock Mines:
This appendix provides information on federal expenditures used to
clean up abandoned hardrock mines by fiscal year (table 5) and by state
(table 6).
Table 5: BLM, Forest Service, EPA, and OSM Federal Expenditures to
Clean Up Abandoned Hardrock Mine Sites, Fiscal Years 1998 to 2007;
Dollars in thousands (2008 constant dollars):
Fiscal year: 1998;
BLM[A]: $1,263;
Forest Service: $16,623;
EPA[B]: $176,620;
OSM: $1,634;
Total: $194,175.
Fiscal year: 1999;
BLM[A]: 5,210;
Forest Service: 22,003;
EPA[B]: 225,941;
OSM: 9,795;
Total: 257,570.
Fiscal year: 2000;
BLM[A]: 5,071;
Forest Service: 23,150;
EPA[B]: 228,460;
OSM: 30,492;
Total: 286,026.
Fiscal year: 2001;
BLM[A]: 5,916;
Forest Service: 22,617;
EPA[B]: 245,662;
OSM: 43,130;
Total: 317,858.
Fiscal year: 2002;
BLM[A]: 5,600;
Forest Service: 22,192;
EPA[B]: 191,903;
OSM: 18,620;
Total: 238,740.
Fiscal year: 2003;
BLM[A]: 4,957;
Forest Service: 21,752;
EPA[B]: 209,753;
OSM: 24,502;
Total: 261,405.
Fiscal year: 2004;
BLM[A]: 8,696;
Forest Service: 21,200;
EPA[B]: 225,680;
OSM: 16,631;
Total: 272,760.
Fiscal year: 2005;
BLM[A]: 6,350;
Forest Service: 20,542;
EPA[B]: 222,508;
OSM: 11,236;
Total: 261,294.
Fiscal year: 2006;
BLM[A]: 4,587;
Forest Service: 19,779;
EPA[B]: 219,549;
OSM: 15,450;
Total: 260,128.
Fiscal year: 2007;
BLM[A]: 2,811;
Forest Service: 18,852;
EPA[B]: 209,839;
OSM: 26,608;
Total: 259,037.
Fiscal year: Total;
BLM[A]: $50,462;
Forest Service: $208,709;
EPA[B]: $2,155,916;
OSM: $198,099;
Total: $2,613,186.
Percent of total;
BLM[A]: 2 percent;
Forest Service: 8 percent;
EPA[B]: 83 percent;
OSM: 8 percent;
Total: [Empty].
Median;
BLM[A]: $5,141;
Forest Service: $21,476;
EPA[B]: $221,029;
OSM: $17,626;
Total: $260,711.
Sources: BLM, the Forest Service, EPA, OSM.
Notes: Program inception totals are $50,462 since 1998 for BLM;
$231,538 since fiscal year 1996 for Forest Service; $3,261,197 since
1988 for EPA; and $406,236 since 1977 for OSM.
[A] These data include funding for large cleanup projects from the Soil
Water and Air and the Hazard Management and Resource Restoration
subactivities from BLM appropriations. These data do not include
funding for smaller projects under those two subactivities, funding
from Central Hazardous Materials Fund or the Natural Resource Damage
Assessment and Restoration subactivities from the Department of the
Interior's appropriations, or funding under the Southern Nevada Public
Land Management Act.
[B] According to EPA officials, about 90 percent of these expenditures
are EPA's; the other 10 percent are funds from responsible parties and
states.
[End of table]
Table 6: BLM, EPA, and OSM Expenditures to Cleanup Abandoned Hardrock
Mines, by State, Fiscal Years 1988 to 2007; Dollars in thousands (2008
constant dollars):
State: Montana;
BLM[A]: $18,158;
EPA[B]: $325,693;
OSM: $27,499;
Total: $371,350;
Rank: 1;
Percent of total: 15.44.
State: Idaho;
BLM[A]: 6,310;
EPA[B]: 351,848;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $358,158;
Rank: 2;
Percent of total: 14.90.
State: Colorado;
BLM[A]: 6,762;
EPA[B]: 277,622;
OSM: 19,362;
Total: $303,746;
Rank: 3;
Percent of total: 12.63.
State: New Jersey;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 271,473;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $271,473;
Rank: 4;
Percent of total: 11.29.
State: Utah;
BLM[A]: 4,970;
EPA[B]: 132,135;
OSM: 5,029;
Total: $142,133;
Rank: 5;
Percent of total: 5.91.
State: California;
BLM[A]: 3,748;
EPA[B]: 126,384;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $130,131;
Rank: 6;
Percent of total: 5.41.
State: Oklahoma;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 119,017;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $119,017;
Rank: 7;
Percent of total: 4.95.
State: Missouri;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 101,648;
OSM: 489;
Total: $102,138;
Rank: 8;
Percent of total: 4.25.
State: Wyoming;
BLM[A]: 1,054;
EPA[B]: [Empty];
OSM: 99,893;
Total: $100,947;
Rank: 9;
Percent of total: 4.20.
State: Nebraska;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 74,331;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $74,331;
Rank: 10;
Percent of total: 3.09.
State: South Dakota;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 64,246;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $64,246;
Rank: 11;
Percent of total: 2.67.
State: New York;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 52,567;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $52,567;
Rank: 12;
Percent of total: 2.19.
State: Texas;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 30,518;
OSM: 18,342;
Total: $48,860;
Rank: 13;
Percent of total: 2.03.
State: Pennsylvania;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 41,079;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $41,079;
Rank: 14;
Percent of total: 1.71.
State: Washington;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 32,223;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $32,223;
Rank: 15;
Percent of total: 1.34.
State: Vermont;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 27,473;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $27,473;
Rank: 16;
Percent of total: 1.14.
State: South Carolina;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 22,913;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $22,913;
Rank: 17;
Percent of total: 0.95.
State: Indian Tribes;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: [Empty];
OSM: 22,226;
Total: $22,226;
Rank: 18;
Percent of total: 0.92.
State: Kansas;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 19,704;
OSM: 536;
Total: $20,240;
Rank: 19;
Percent of total: 0.84.
State: New Mexico;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 15,845;
OSM: 3,349;
Total: $19,194;
Rank: 20;
Percent of total: 0.80.
State: Nevada;
BLM[A]: 2,289;
EPA[B]: 13,229;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $15,517;
Rank: 21;
Percent of total: 0.65.
State: Tennessee;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 15,493;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $15,493;
Rank: 22;
Percent of total: 0.64.
State: Michigan;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 14,995;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $14,995;
Rank: 23;
Percent of total: 0.62.
State: Minnesota;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 8,804;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $8,804;
Rank: 24;
Percent of total: 0.37.
State: Illinois;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 7,201;
OSM: 724;
Total: $7,925;
Rank: 25;
Percent of total: 0.33.
State: Oregon;
BLM[A]: 4,205;
EPA[B]: 2,611;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $6,816;
Rank: 26;
Percent of total: 0.28.
State: Alaska;
BLM[A]: 2,786;
EPA[B]: [Empty];
OSM: 602;
Total: $3,388;
Rank: 27;
Percent of total: 0.14.
State: Maine;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 1,761;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $1,761;
Rank: 28;
Percent of total: 0.07.
State: Florida;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 1,611;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $1,611;
Rank: 29;
Percent of total: 0.07.
State: North Carolina;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 1,523;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $1,523;
Rank: 30;
Percent of total: 0.06.
State: Arizona;
BLM[A]: 180;
EPA[B]: 748;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $927;
Rank: 31;
Percent of total: 0.04.
State: Kentucky;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 452;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $452;
Rank: 32;
Percent of total: 0.02.
State: Ohio;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 248;
OSM: 49;
Total: $297;
Rank: 33;
Percent of total: 0.01.
State: Indiana;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 230;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $230;
Rank: 34;
Percent of total: 0.01.
State: Virginia;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 154;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $154;
Rank: 35;
Percent of total: 0.01.
State: West Virginia;
BLM[A]: [Empty];
EPA[B]: 139;
OSM: [Empty];
Total: $139;
Rank: 36;
Percent of total: 0.01.
State: Total:
BLM[A]: $50,462;
EPA[B]: $2,155,916;
OSM: $198,099;
Total: $2,404,477;
Rank: [Empty];
Percent of total: 100.00.
Sources: BLM, EPA, OSM.
Note: The Forest Service was unable to provide this information by
state.
[A] These data include funding for large cleanup projects from the Soil
Water and Air and the Hazard Management and Resource Restoration
subactivities from BLM appropriations. These data do not include
funding for smaller projects under those two subactivities, funding
from Central Hazardous Materials Fund or the Natural Resource Damage
Assessment and Restoration subactivities from the Department of the
Interior's appropriations, or funding under the Southern Nevada Public
Land Management Act.
[B] According to EPA officials, about 90 percent of these expenditures
are EPA's; the other 10 percent are funds from responsible parties and
states.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Estimated Number of Abandoned Mine Sites, According to
Selected Studies, 1998 to 2007:
State: Alaska;
Western Governors' Association/National Mining Association (1998)[A]:
432;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2001)[B]: No data provided;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2007)[C]: 350;
Mineral Policy Center (2003)[D]: 432;
Earthworks (formerly Mineral Policy Center) (2007)[E]: No data
provided;
EPA (2004)[F]: 432;
Range of estimated abandoned mines previously reported: 350-432.
State: Arizona;
Western Governors' Association/National Mining Association (1998)[A]:
100,000;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2001)[B]: 100,000;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2007)[C]: 80,000;
Mineral Policy Center (2003)[D]: 100,000 "openings";
Earthworks (formerly Mineral Policy Center) (2007)[E]: 100,000;
EPA (2004)[F]: 8,000-10,000;
Range of estimated abandoned mines previously reported: 8,000-100,000.
State: California;
Western Governors' Association/National Mining Association (1998)[A]:
20,000;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2001)[B]: 15,000;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2007)[C]: 47,000;
Mineral Policy Center (2003)[D]: 39,000;
Earthworks (formerly Mineral Policy Center) (2007)[E]: 39,000;
EPA (2004)[F]: 40,000-47,000;
Range of estimated abandoned mines previously reported: 15,000-47,000.
State: Colorado;
Western Governors' Association/National Mining Association (1998)[A]:
22,000;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2001)[B]: 18,000 mine openings;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2007)[C]: No data provided;
Mineral Policy Center (2003)[D]: 23,000 including coal;
Earthworks (formerly Mineral Policy Center) (2007)[E]: 23,000 including
coal;
EPA (2004)[F]: 8,000-23,000;
Range of estimated abandoned mines previously reported: 8,000-23,000.
State: Idaho;
Western Governors' Association/National Mining Association (1998)[A]:
9,000;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2001)[B]: No data provided;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2007)[C]: No data provided;
Mineral Policy Center (2003)[D]: 8,000-9,000;
Earthworks (formerly Mineral Policy Center) (2007)[E]: 8,000-9,000;
EPA (2004)[F]: 8,000-16,000;
Range of estimated abandoned mines previously reported: 8,000-16,000.
State: Montana;
Western Governors' Association/National Mining Association (1998)[A]:
6,000;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2001)[B]: No data provided;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2007)[C]: 2,740;
Mineral Policy Center (2003)[D]: 6,000;
Earthworks (formerly Mineral Policy Center) (2007)[E]: 6,000;
EPA (2004)[F]: 6,000-19,000;
Range of estimated abandoned mines previously reported: 2,740-19,000.
State: Nevada;
Western Governors' Association/National Mining Association (1998)[A]:
50,000;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2001)[B]: 50,000 could pose a
physical threat to people;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2007)[C]: 100 mine sites, 200,000
mine openings;
Mineral Policy Center (2003)[D]: 200,000-500,000 mine features;
Earthworks (formerly Mineral Policy Center) (2007)[E]: No data
provided;
EPA (2004)[F]: 200,000-500,000;
Range of estimated abandoned mines previously reported: 100-500,000.
State: New Mexico;
Western Governors' Association/National Mining Association (1998)[A]:
20,000;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2001)[B]: 25,000 mine openings;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2007)[C]: No data provided;
Mineral Policy Center (2003)[D]: 10,000-20,000;
Earthworks (formerly Mineral Policy Center) (2007)[E]: 10,000-20,000;
EPA (2004)[F]: 10,000-20,000;
Range of estimated abandoned mines previously reported: 10,000-25,000.
State: Oregon;
Western Governors' Association/National Mining Association (1998)[A]:
No data provided;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2001)[B]: No data provided;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2007)[C]: No data provided;
Mineral Policy Center (2003)[D]: 126 plus ongoing inventory in specific
watersheds;
Earthworks (formerly Mineral Policy Center) (2007)[E]: 126 on the
ground inventory;
EPA (2004)[F]: 94-120;
Range of estimated abandoned mines previously reported: 94-126.
State: South Dakota;
Western Governors' Association/National Mining Association (1998)[A]:
900 in Black Hills;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2001)[B]: No data provided;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2007)[C]: 900 in Black Hills;
Mineral Policy Center (2003)[D]: 900 in Black Hills area;
Earthworks (formerly Mineral Policy Center) (2007)[E]: 900;
EPA (2004)[F]: 900;
Range of estimated abandoned mines previously reported: 900.
State: Utah;
Western Governors' Association/National Mining Association (1998)[A]:
20,000;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2001)[B]: No data provided;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2007)[C]: 17,000-20,000;
Mineral Policy Center (2003)[D]: 20,000 mine openings, including coal;
Earthworks (formerly Mineral Policy Center) (2007)[E]: 20,000;
EPA (2004)[F]: 20,000 mine openings;
Range of estimated abandoned mines previously reported: 17,000-20,000.
State: Washington;
Western Governors' Association/National Mining Association (1998)[A]:
No data provided;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2001)[B]: 800 mine sites that
that produced minerals worth more than $2,000;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2007)[C]: 3,800;
Mineral Policy Center (2003)[D]: 3,800;
Earthworks (formerly Mineral Policy Center) (2007)[E]: 3,800;
EPA (2004)[F]: 3,800;
Range of estimated abandoned mines previously reported: 800-3,800.
State: Wyoming;
Western Governors' Association/National Mining Association (1998)[A]:
2,649;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2001)[B]: No data provided;
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (2007)[C]: 1,696;
Mineral Policy Center (2003)[D]: 640;
Earthworks (formerly Mineral Policy Center) (2007)[E]: No data
provided;
EPA (2004)[F]: 3,371;
Range of estimated abandoned mines previously reported: 640-3,371.
Source: GAO's analysis of nationwide estimates.
Note: Although studies asked for the number of sites, states did not
always report the number of hardrock mine sites; instead some states
reported other data, such as the number of mine openings, number of
sites including coal, and number of mine features.
[A] Western Governors' Association and National Mining Association,
Cleaning Up Abandoned Mines: A Western Partnership, 1998.
[B] Interstate Mining Compact Commission, State NonCoal AML Inventory,
2001.
[C] Preliminary data were collected in 2007, and will be presented in
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, NonCoal Minerals Survey and
Report (expected issuance Spring 2008).
[D] Mineral Policy Center, Cleaning Up Western Watersheds, 2003.
[E] Earthworks fact sheets on hardrock mining from Earthworks Web site
last visited on March 4, 2008 [hyperlink
http://www.earthworksaction.org/resources.cfm].
[F] EPA, Reference Notebook, September 2004. EPA has been working to
update this information and expects to issue a new report in Summer
2008.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Information on BLM Financial Assurances and Their Adequacy
to Cover Estimated Reclamation Costs:
This appendix provides information from BLM's November 2007 Bond Review
Report, which includes information on the number of financial
assurances in place for hardrock operations on BLM lands in 11 western
states (table 7); the value of these financial assurances by state
(table 8); the number of inadequate financial assurances for notice-and
plan-level operations, by state (table 9); and BLM's and our analyses
of the differences between financial assurance requirements and actual
value of financial assurances in place for notice-and plan-level
operations by state (table 10).
Table 7: Number of Financial Assurances in Place for Hardrock
Operations on BLM Land in 11 Western States:
State: Arizona;
Total number of notices: 72;
Total number of plans of operation: 35;
Total number of notices and plans of operation: 107.
State: California;
Total number of notices: 46;
Total number of plans of operation: 49;
Total number of notices and plans of operation: 95.
State: Colorado;
Total number of notices: 228;
Total number of plans of operation: 22;
Total number of notices and plans of operation: 250.
State: Idaho;
Total number of notices: 19;
Total number of plans of operation: 27;
Total number of notices and plans of operation: 46.
State: Montana;
Total number of notices: 27;
Total number of plans of operation: 14;
Total number of notices and plans of operation: 41.
State: New Mexico;
Total number of notices: 20;
Total number of plans of operation: 8;
Total number of notices and plans of operation: 28.
State: Nevada;
Total number of notices: 409;
Total number of plans of operation: 170;
Total number of notices and plans of operation: 579.
State: Oregon;
Total number of notices: 57;
Total number of plans of operation: 3;
Total number of notices and plans of operation: 60.
State: Utah;
Total number of notices: 103;
Total number of plans of operation: 47;
Total number of notices and plans of operation: 150.
State: Washington;
Total number of notices: 3;
Total number of plans of operation: 1;
Total number of notices and plans of operation: 4.
State: Wyoming;
Total number of notices: 49;
Total number of plans of operation: 54;
Total number of notices and plans of operation: 103.
State: Total;
Total number of notices: 1,033;
Total number of plans of operation: 430;
Total number of notices and plans of operation: 1,463.
Source: BLM's Bond Review Report, November 2007.
Note: Data for Alaska are not maintained in LR2000 and are not reported
in BLM's Bond Review Report.
[End of table]
Table 8: Value of Financial Assurances Guaranteeing Reclamation of
Hardrock Operations on BLM Land, by State:
State: Arizona;
Value of assurances required for notices: $538,847.00;
Value of assurances in place for notices: $554,578.20;
Value of assurances required for plans of operation: $7,150,547.46;
Value of assurances in place for plans of operation: $7,085,233.46.
State: California;
Value of assurances required for notices: $177,749.00;
Value of assurances in place for notices: $212,849.00;
Value of assurances required for plans of operation: $24,352,689.65;
Value of assurances in place for plans of operation: $25,910,602.86.
State: Colorado;
Value of assurances required for notices: $235,859.39;
Value of assurances in place for notices: $225,673.39;
Value of assurances required for plans of operation: $1,369,715.00;
Value of assurances in place for plans of operation: $1,209,610.00.
State: Idaho;
Value of assurances required for notices: $44,871.00;
Value of assurances in place for notices: $44,871.00;
Value of assurances required for plans of operation: $1,511,834.19;
Value of assurances in place for plans of operation: $1,498,834.19.
State: Montana;
Value of assurances required for notices: $966,268.96;
Value of assurances in place for notices: $966,268.96;
Value of assurances required for plans of operation: $66,511,795.32;
Value of assurances in place for plans of operation: $66,512,995.32.
State: New Mexico;
Value of assurances required for notices: $87,940.54;
Value of assurances in place for notices: $87,940.54;
Value of assurances required for plans of operation: $978,794.00;
Value of assurances in place for plans of operation: $978,794.00.
State: Nevada;
Value of assurances required for notices: $4,764,983.00;
Value of assurances in place for notices: $4,779,329.00;
Value of assurances required for plans of operation: $840,188,178.00;
Value of assurances in place for plans of operation: $806,506,148.00.
State: Oregon;
Value of assurances required for notices: $168,777.00;
Value of assurances in place for notices: $166,104.00;
Value of assurances required for plans of operation: $197,995.85;
Value of assurances in place for plans of operation: $247,995.85.
State: Utah;
Value of assurances required for notices: $1,411,244.00;
Value of assurances in place for notices: $1,497,253.00;
Value of assurances required for plans of operation: $10,836,401.00;
Value of assurances in place for plans of operation: $8,067,853.00.
State: Washington;
Value of assurances required for notices: $750.00;
Value of assurances in place for notices: $750.00;
Value of assurances required for plans of operation: $49,224.85;
Value of assurances in place for plans of operation: $49,224.85.
State: Wyoming;
Value of assurances required for notices: $935,922.00;
Value of assurances in place for notices: $957,122.00;
Value of assurances required for plans of operation: $46,998,188.00;
Value of assurances in place for plans of operation: $54,080,384.00.
State: Total;
Value of assurances required for notices: $9,333,211.89;
Value of assurances in place for notices: $9,492,739.09;
Value of assurances required for plans of operation: $1,000,145,363.32;
Value of assurances in place for plans of operation: $972,147,675.53.
Source: BLM's Bond Review Report, November 2007.
Note: Data for Alaska are not maintained in LR2000 and are not reported
in BLM's Bond Review Report.
[End of table]
Table 9: Number of BLM's Notice-and Plan-Level Operations with
Inadequate Financial Assurances on BLM Land, by State:
State: Arizona;
Number of notices with inadequate financial assurances: 1;
Number of plans with inadequate financial assurances: 1;
Total number of notices and plans with inadequate financial assurances:
2.
State: California;
Number of notices with inadequate financial assurances: 1;
Number of plans with inadequate financial assurances: 3;
Total number of notices and plans with inadequate financial assurances:
4.
State: Colorado;
Number of notices with inadequate financial assurances: 2;
Number of plans with inadequate financial assurances: 2;
Total number of notices and plans with inadequate financial assurances:
4.
State: Idaho;
Number of notices with inadequate financial assurances: 0;
Number of plans with inadequate financial assurances: 1;
Total number of notices and plans with inadequate financial assurances:
1.
State: Montana;
Number of notices with inadequate financial assurances: 0;
Number of plans with inadequate financial assurances: 0;
Total number of notices and plans with inadequate financial assurances:
0.
State: New Mexico;
Number of notices with inadequate financial assurances: 0;
Number of plans with inadequate financial assurances: 0;
Total number of notices and plans with inadequate financial assurances:
0.
State: Nevada;
Number of notices with inadequate financial assurances: 14;
Number of plans with inadequate financial assurances: 14;
Total number of notices and plans with inadequate financial assurances:
28.
State: Oregon;
Number of notices with inadequate financial assurances: 4;
Number of plans with inadequate financial assurances: 0;
Total number of notices and plans with inadequate financial assurances:
4.
State: Utah;
Number of notices with inadequate financial assurances: 1;
Number of plans with inadequate financial assurances: 4;
Total number of notices and plans with inadequate financial assurances:
5.
State: Washington;
Number of notices with inadequate financial assurances: 0;
Number of plans with inadequate financial assurances: 0;
Total number of notices and plans with inadequate financial assurances:
0.
State: Wyoming;
Number of notices with inadequate financial assurances: 0;
Number of plans with inadequate financial assurances: 4;
Total number of notices and plans with inadequate financial assurances:
4.
State: Total;
Number of notices with inadequate financial assurances: 23;
Number of plans with inadequate financial assurances: 29;
Total number of notices and plans with inadequate financial assurances:
52.
Source: BLM's Bond Review Report, November 2007.
Note: Data for Alaska are not maintained in LR2000 and is not reported
in BLM's Bond Review Report.
[End of table]
Table 10: BLM and GAO Difference Between Financial Assurance
Requirements and Actual Value in Place for Notice and Plan Operations,
by State, as of November 2007:
State: Arizona;
BLM's difference for notice operations: $15,731.20;
GAO analysis of difference for notice operations: ($1,629.80);
BLM's difference for plan operations: ($65,314.00);
GAO analysis of difference for plan operations: ($100,240.00).
State: California;
BLM's difference for notice operations: 35,100.00;
GAO analysis of difference for notice operations: (200.00);
BLM's difference for plan operations: 1,557,913.21;
GAO analysis of difference for plan operations: (439,468.88).
State: Colorado;
BLM's difference for notice operations: (10,186.00);
GAO analysis of difference for notice operations: (7,518.00);
BLM's difference for plan operations: (160,105.00);
GAO analysis of difference for plan operations: ($160,212.00).
State: Idaho;
BLM's difference for notice operations: 0.00;
GAO analysis of difference for notice operations: 0.00;
BLM's difference for plan operations: ($13,000.00);
GAO analysis of difference for plan operations: ($13,000.00).
State: Montana;
BLM's difference for notice operations: 0.00;
GAO analysis of difference for notice operations: 0.00;
BLM's difference for plan operations: $1,200.00;
GAO analysis of difference for plan operations: 0.00.
State: New Mexico;
BLM's difference for notice operations: 0.00;
GAO analysis of difference for notice operations: 0.00;
BLM's difference for plan operations: 0.00;
GAO analysis of difference for plan operations: 0.00.
State: Nevada;
BLM's difference for notice operations: $14,346.00;
GAO analysis of difference for notice operations: ($109,092.00);
BLM's difference for plan operations: ($33,682,030.00);
GAO analysis of difference for plan operations: ($47,630,722.00).
State: Oregon;
BLM's difference for notice operations: ($2,673.00);
GAO analysis of difference for notice operations: ($1,227.00);
BLM's difference for plan operations: 50,000.00;
GAO analysis of difference for plan operations: 0.00.
State: Utah;
BLM's difference for notice operations: $86,009.00;
GAO analysis of difference for notice operations: ($1,254.00);
BLM's difference for plan operations: ($2,768,548.00);
GAO analysis of difference for plan operations: ($2,768,548.00).
State: Washington;
BLM's difference for notice operations: 0.00;
GAO analysis of difference for notice operations: 0.00;
BLM's difference for plan operations: 0.00;
GAO analysis of difference for plan operations: 0.00.
State: Wyoming;
BLM's difference for notice operations: $21,200.00;
GAO analysis of difference for notice operations: 0.00;
BLM's difference for plan operations: $7,082,196.00;
GAO analysis of difference for plan operations: ($9,518,877.00).
State: Total;
BLM's difference for notice operations: $159,527.20;
GAO analysis of difference for notice operations: ($120,920.80);
BLM's difference for plan operations: ($27,997,687.79);
GAO analysis of difference for plan operations: ($60,631,067.88).
Source: BLM's Bond Review Report, November 2007.
Note: Data for Alaska are not maintained in LR2000 and is not reported
in BLM's Bond Review Report.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For purposes of this testimony, cleanup refers to the mitigation of
environmental impacts at mine sites, such as contaminated water, and
the reclamation of land disturbed by hardrock operations.
[2] Pub. L. No. 95-87, as amended by Pub L. No. 101-5-8, Title VI, �
6010(2), Nov. 5, 1990.
[3] An operator is a person who conducts operations in connection with
exploration, mining, and processing hardrock minerals on federal lands.
[4] 43 C.F.R. �3809.
[5] BLM manages about 258 million acres, most of which are located in
12 western states, and Alaska. For simplicity in this testimony, we
refer to BLM-managed land as BLM land.
[6] GAO, Hardrock Mining: BLM Needs to Better Manage Financial
Assurances to Guarantee Coverage of Reclamation Costs, GAO-05-377
(Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2005).
[7] These states were Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming.
[8] These states were Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
[9] GAO, Environmental Liabilities: Hardrock Mining Cleanup
Obligations, GAO-06-884T (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2006); GAO-05-377.
[10] BLM and Forest Service, Abandoned Mine Lands: A Decade of Progress
Reclaiming Hardrock Mines (September 2007).
[11] 43 C.F.R. 3809 and 36 C.F.R. �228, Subpart A.
[12] 42 USC �� 9601-9675.
[13] EPA, Office of Inspector General, Nationwide Identification of
Hardrock Mining Sites, 2004-P-00005 (Washington, D.C: Mar. 31, 2004).
[14] GAO-06-884T.
[15] U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 2006 Report to the President and Congress
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2006).
[16] Unless otherwise stated all dollars in this section are in 2008
constant dollars.
[17] The six studies are (1) Western Governors' Association and
National Mining Association, Cleaning up Abandoned Mines: A Western
Partnership, 1998; (2) Interstate Mining Compact Commission, State
NonCoal AML Inventory, 2001; (3) Interstate Mining Compact Commission;
NonCoal Minerals Survey and Report (expected issuance Spring 2008); (4)
Mineral Policy Center, Cleaning Up Western Watersheds, 2003; (5)
Earthworks fact sheets on hardrock mining from Earthworks Web site last
visited on March 4, 2008 [hyperlink,
http://www.earthworksaction.org/resources.cfm]; and (6) EPA, Reference
Notebook, September 2004.
[18] BLM and Forest Service, Abandoned Mine Lands: A Decade of Progress
Reclaiming Hardrock Mines (September 2007).
[19] The MAS/MILS database was established to provide comprehensive
information for known mining operations, mineral deposits/occurrences,
and processing plants. The original data were collected on a state-by-
state basis from the mid-1970s to 1982. The nonconfidential portions of
the MAS/MILS database were compiled by the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, but the accuracy of the database varies by
location and mineral.
[20] These studies were: (1) Western Governors' Association and
National Mining Association, Cleaning up Abandoned Mines: A Western
Partnership, 1998; (2) Interstate Mining Compact Commission, State
NonCoal AML Inventory, 2001; (3) Interstate Mining Compact Commission;
Noncoal Minerals Survey and Report, 2007; (4) Mineral Policy Center,
Cleaning Up Western Watersheds, 2003; (5) Earthworks fact sheets on
hardrock mining from Earthworks Web site last visited on March 4, 2008
[hyperlink, http://www.earthworksaction.org/resources.cfm]; and (6)
EPA, Reference Notebook, September 2004.
[21] These states were Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,
and Wyoming.
[22] GAO-05-377.
[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 Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: [email protected]:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
*** End of document. ***