INTRODUCTION

The primary goal of the national Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program is to mitigate the effects of past mining by reclaiming abandoned mines, with a primary emphasis on correcting the most serious problems endangering public health, safety, general welfare, and property. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) and State AML programs work together to achieve the goals of the national program. On behalf of the Secretary of Interior, OSM administers the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. OSM awards grants from the Fund to States to pay for their administrative costs and reclamation. In addition, OSM works cooperatively with the States to monitor the progress and quality of their programs.

On June 11, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior approved Colorado's AML plan ("State Reclamation Plan") under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). This approval allows Colorado to reclaim abandoned mines in the State in non-emergency AML projects. The Colorado Inactive Mine Reclamation Program (CIMRP) of the Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) in the Department of Natural Resources operates Colorado's AML program. OSM's Western Regional Coordinating Center, Denver Field Division (DFD), works with CIMRP to fund and evaluate AML reclamation in Colorado.

OSM awarded a grant to CIMRP in the amount of $2,326,000 for the 1998 fiscal year. The grant funded the Program's staffing of 13 full-time equivalent positions. Table 1 describes Colorado's AML reclamation accomplishments and remaining reclamation needs in a report from the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System.

THE AML REVIEW TEAM

Directive AML-22 generally describes how OSM evaluates State AML reclamation programs. It calls such evaluations AML "enhancement and performance reviews." To complete these reviews of the Colorado and Utah AML programs, the DFD Chief established a team in January 1996 that includes representatives of CIMRP, the Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation (AMR) Program, and DFD. Members of the team during the 1998 evaluation period included: Candy Bell, AML Program Specialist, DFD/OSM; David Bucknam, CIMRP Supervisor, Colorado DMG; Ginger Kaldenbach, AML Project Manager, DFD/OSM; Mark Mesch, Administrator, Utah AMR Program; and Ron Sassaman, Environmental Protection Specialist, DFD/OSM.

PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT

The team signed the "Colorado-Utah AML Review Team Performance Agreement" on February 3, 1998. The performance agreement describes the team's purpose, team member responsibilities, and three general principles of excellence that the team

developed to review the Colorado and Utah AML programs' performance. It applies to the 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 evaluation years, but the team will update it for each year's review.

The team emphasized on-the-ground or end-results when it developed the principles and measures. Each principle of excellence has one or more performance measure(s). Each performance measure is one specific topic within a general principle of excellence. The team decides which performance measures to review in a particular year. Performance measures are written to describe the following: Why the team selected that topic; what the review population and sample sizes will be; how the team will conduct the review and report the results; and the team's schedule for completing the review. The three principles of excellence, and the specific performance measures for each principle that the team chose for the 1998 review of Colorado's AML program, are described below.

Principle of Excellence 1: The State's on-the ground reclamation is successful.

• •Performance Measure (b): Is reclamation successful on a long-term basis?

Principle of Excellence 2: The State AML program's procedures are efficient and effective.

• •Performance Measure (c): Is the State's Authorization-to-Proceed (ATP) submittal, and OSM's response, efficient in allowing the State to proceed with construction as planned?

Principle of Excellence 3: The State must have systems to properly manage AML funds.

• •Performance Measure (d): Do State AML program managers have adequate financial information to manage the projects and the program?

The results of the team's 1998 review of performance measures 1(b), 2(c), and 3(d) described above for the Colorado AML program are summarized on following pages of this report under the heading "SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR EVALUATION YEAR 1998." These summaries are based on information gathered by the team during its review, which included field visits to AML projects, meetings, and reviews of CIMRP's files. The team described its review results in much greater detail in enhancement and performance review reports that it wrote for each performance measure. Those reports are on file in OSM's Denver Field Division.

EVALUATION YEAR 1999

As noted above, the performance agreement applies to evaluation years 1998 through

2002. However, the team will update the agreement annually to describe each year's planned review in detail and to make any other changes. The team expects to begin updating the performance agreement in preparation for the 1999 review during or after October 1998.

Public awareness of hazards associated with abandoned mines is effective in preventing and reducing accidents involving abandoned mines. It also can help the State of Colorado, OSM, and the review team improve the effectiveness of AML reclamation and program reviews. Everyone is welcome to provide input for the next performance agreement and Colorado AML program review by contacting the following team members:

Ron Sassaman

Office of Surface Mining

Western Regional Coordinating Center

1999 Broadway, Suite 3320

Denver, Colorado 80202-5733

(303) 844-1521

David Bucknam, Supervisor

Colorado Inactive Mine Reclamation Program

Division of Minerals and Geology

1313 Sherman Street, Room 215

Denver, Colorado 80203

(303) 866-3567

Principle of Excellence 1: The State's on-the-ground reclamation is successful.

Performance Measure (b): Is reclamation successful on a long-term basis?

Summary of Findings: For the purposes of the 1998 evaluation, the review population was every coal and noncoal AML project in the southwest quarter of Colorado that CIMRP reclaimed before January 1995. The final review sample included four coal projects and seven noncoal projects. The team visited 47 sites of those 11 projects that CIMRP reclaimed from 4 years to over 14 years ago. The average age of reclamation at the visited sites was about 8.8 years. Colorado's reclamation included closures built in vertical and inclined shafts (vertical openings) and in adits (portals) at priority 1 noncoal projects and in coal projects. One coal project involved pit backfilling, while it and another coal project also required grading and revegetation. The team observed CIMRP's reclamation of 28 portals and 19 vertical openings (created as shafts or by subsidence) by use of 15 different closure methods. It also observed a reclaimed pit at one abandoned surface coal mine and reclaimed coal spoil piles at another.

The team concluded that Colorado's AML reclamation was successful on a long-term basis at almost all sites it visited. Two basic factors formed the basis of the team's determination of long-term reclamation success. First, the team considered if measures prescribed in project specifications to abate hazards were intact and functional. Second, it considered if long-term reclamation continued to improve restored areas over their previously abandoned condition.

Hazard abatement measures were intact and functional at 98 percent of the mine closures the team visited. Of 47 completed closures visited, only one had a problem the team considered hazardous. Subsidence that occurred uphill of a portal closure created a small opening with access to underground workings. The team recommended CIMRP take measures to abate that condition.

Reclamation continued to improve restored areas over their previously abandoned condition. By closing mine openings, backfilling an abandoned pit, regrading spoil piles, reclaiming access roads and revegetating backfilled areas, CIMRP improved the condition of the project areas visited. Further, by building a mine closure in conjunction with water treatment facilities funded by EPA at one project, Colorado contributed to testing passive water treatment methods while helping to ensure a continued water supply for a nearby town. Bat grates CIMRP constructed in mine openings help preserve actual and potential wildlife habitat throughout the State while abating health and safety hazards. Also, preserving historically significant headframes during and after reclamation encourages public appreciation for Colorado's mining heritage.

Principle of Excellence 2: The State's AML program's procedures are efficient and effective.

Performance Measure (c): Is the State's Authorization-to-Proceed (ATP) submittal, and OSM's response, efficient in allowing the State to proceed with construction as planned?

Summary of Findings: The team summarized the process Colorado goes through in which it compiles information to submit with requests for ATP's to DFD. The summary also described the process DFD follows to review Colorado's submittals that ends when it issues ATPs. The team reviewed each step of the process, situations that can delay it, and whether the process could be streamlined.

The team concluded that Colorado's ATP submittals, and OSM's responses, are efficient in allowing the State to proceed with construction as planned. It recognized that variations between projects can require different, or additional, planning adjustments at any point in the process. The team did not identify specific steps in Colorado's ATP process that could be eliminated, though the State and OSM have taken measures to expedite certain parts of the process.

For example, to reduce delays of ATP request submittals caused by project-specific conditions, CIMRP developed a system to track milestones in the ATP and related National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes that is integrated with its tracking of other project planning and approval requirements. Also, to expedite its consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on issues involving threatened and endangered species and other species of interest, CIMRP follows-up with USFWS by telephone if a response on its initial written request for review and concurrence is not received within 30 days.

To further reduce project approval delays, DFD committed to a two-week turnaround time for issuing ATPs upon receipt of requests from Colorado. Four of ten ATP requests Colorado submitted in the 1998 evaluation year needed additional information to complete NEPA and other documentation before DFD could issue ATPs. Once DFD had the information needed for all ten requests, it issued ATPs to CIMRP in an average of 1.1 days. Including the extra time needed for the State to submit the needed additional information, DFD's average turnaround to issue all ATPs was 14.5 days, just over the two-week target time. Every effort was made to ensure that ATPs were issued either within the two-week period or as soon as the necessary information was provided, especially for time-critical projects. DFD will continue to work with CIMRP to expedite the ATP process whenever, and however, possible to ensure that Colorado is able to proceed with construction as planned.

Principle of Excellence 3: The State must have systems to properly manage AML funds.

Performance Measure (d): Do State AML program managers have adequate financial information to manage the projects and the program?

Summary of Findings: Originally, the team scheduled this review for Evaluation Year 1997. State staff turnover led the team to delay completing this review to allow new finance staff to become familiar with the program. The team resumed its review in the 1998 evaluation year after new staff had been on board about a year. The team interviewed CIMRP managers about financial information they need and how those needs are being met. It also interviewed State financial staff about information they provide to CIMRP and about their experiences with program staff. The review emphasized identifying specific reports being used by CIMRP, the data being provided to it, and the usefulness of that information to the AML program.

The team concluded that Colorado resolved basic financial performance problems in the 1998 Evaluation Year. When this review started in early Evaluation Year 1997, the State submitted financial reports very late and completed cash drawdown actions long after money was spent. At that time, CIMRP staff received little or no help from financial staff because providing information and assistance to the AML program was not a priority. Those situations improved considerably in Evaluation Year 1998, however. Colorado submitted cost reports on time and completed drawdown actions regularly. Working relationships between CIMRP and accounting staff also improved significantly. The 1998 review showed that CIMRP and financial staff are working together to resolve problems and are willing to work together even more closely in the future. This is a very important improvement, and the team commends State staff in both areas for making it happen. The return of the State to acceptable performance of basic financial functions is a major accomplishment.

Colorado's accounting system, COFRS, continues to be the subject of controversy. Financial staff members appreciate all the capabilities the system can offer. One CIMRP staffer who has worked with it finds it adequate, and CIMRP staff who are not familiar with it find it too complex to use or understand. Most people interviewed by the team agree that the system is not easy to learn or use.

The team encourages continuing discussions between CIMRP and financial staff to address system problems and improvements as well as operational questions. The operational and working relationship improvements of 1998 are encouraging, and have the potential to allow Colorado to resolve long-term concerns.

* This table is based on a Problem Type Unit and Cost Summary Report from the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System as of 1/6/99