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 3, 1983, the Secretary of the Interior approved Utah's AML reclamation plan ("State Reclamation Plan") under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). This approval allows Utah to reclaim abandoned mines in the State in non-emergency AML projects. The Abandoned Mine Reclamation (AMR) Program of the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM) in the Department of Natural Resources operates Utah's AML program. OSM's Western Regional Coordinating Center, Denver Field Division (DFD), works with the Utah AMR Program to fund and evaluate AML reclamation in Utah.

OSM awarded $1,500,000 to the Utah AMR Program in its 1998 grant. The grant funded the Program's staffing of 9 full-time equivalent positions. Table 1 describes Utah's AML reclamation accomplishments and remaining reclamation needs based on data 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 formed a team in January 1996 that includes representatives of the Colorado Inactive Mine Reclamation Program (CIMRP), Utah's 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 Division of Minerals and Geology; 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 team selected two principles of excellence, and one specific performance measure for each principle, for the review of the Utah AMR Program in the 1998 evaluation year. They 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?

The results of the team's 1998 review of performance measures 1(b) and 2(c) described above for the Utah AMR 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 and meetings. 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 Utah, 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 Utah AMR 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

Mark Mesch, Administrator

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining

1594 West North Temple, Suite 1210

Box 145801

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5801

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 noncoal project reclaimed by the Utah AMR Program before January 1995. The final review sample included four noncoal projects in the Promontory Point, Wasatch Front, and Tintic areas of the State. The team visited 30 sites of those 4 projects that the Utah AMR Program reclaimed from 6 to 13 years ago. The average age of reclamation at those sites was about 10.3 years. Utah's reclamation included closures built in vertical and inclined shafts (vertical openings, created as shafts or by subsidence) and in adits (portals) at priority 1 noncoal projects. The team observed the Utah AMR Program's reclamation of 15 vertical and inclined shafts and 15 adits by use of 6 different closure methods.

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

Hazard abatement measures were intact and functional at the majority of the mine closures the team visited. Conditions at only 2 closures visited required work to address situations the team considered hazardous. In one case, a small opening under the concrete footer of a rebar closure over a vertical shaft allowed access to the shaft. In the second case, a gated portal closure was open as a result of repeated vandalism and allowed access to underground workings. The team recommended that the Utah AMR Program take measures to correct both situations.

The team also concluded that reclamation it observed continued to be a long-term improvement compared to the abandoned conditions of those sites. By closing mine openings and revegetating certain closures and access roads, Utah improved the condition of mined areas. Building gated closures to allow drainage from certain adits ensures their continued contribution to the water supply of Utah's largest metropolitan area while supporting outdoor recreation and riparian ecosystems in popular canyon areas. Gated and rebar closures that Utah built in mine openings preserve actual and potential wildlife habitat throughout the State while protecting public health and safety. In another area, the AMR Program preserved historically significant headframes and placed an interpretive marker describing their importance to the mining district. These efforts increase public awareness and an appreciation for Utah'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 concluded that Utah'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 summarized the process Utah goes through in which it compiles information to submit with requests for ATP's to DFD. It also summarized the process DFD follows to review Utah'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 did not identify specific steps in Utah's ATP process that could be eliminated, though the State and OSM have taken measures to expedite it.

For example, Utah uses a notice to proceed checklist to reduce delays of ATP request submittals. This checklist tracks the ATP and related National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes and all the AMR Program's other project planning and approval requirements. Also, the Program reviewed its memoranda of understanding (MOU) with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) district offices and plans to readdress consultation needs in one MOU with the BLM State Office. This should reduce approval delays by defining both agencies' responsibilities and by setting time frames for each to follow. In 1998, Utah also worked closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to acquaint new Federal personnel with the AMR Program's interagency consultation. This effort increased USFWS's awareness of the State's experience protecting wildlife during reclamation and should reduce delays in the consultation process.

To further reduce project approval delays, DFD committed to a two-week turnaround time for issuing ATPs upon receipt of requests from Utah. Of five ATP requests Utah submitted in the 1998 evaluation year, two needed more information to complete NEPA and other documentation before DFD could issue ATPs. Once DFD had all the needed information, it issued the five ATPs to Utah in an average of 1.4 days. Including the extra time needed for the State to submit additional information for the two requests, DFD's average turnaround time for all ATPs it issued was 2 days. DFD made every effort to ensure that it issued ATPs either within the two-week period or as soon as Utah provided the necessary additional information, especially for time-critical projects. DFD will continue to work with Utah's AMR Program to expedite the ATP process to ensure that the State is able to proceed with construction as planned.

* 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