Fiscal Year 2000 Annual Performance Plan

Fiscal Year 2000 Annual Performance Plan

Section I. Introduction and Overview 1

I.1 Introduction 1

I.2 Mission Statement 2

I.3 Relationship to Departmental Goals 2

I.4 Linkage to Strategic Plans and Budget 2

I.5 Additional Annual Performance Plan Requirements 3

I.5.1 Customer Service Standards 3

I.5.2 Use of Non-federal Parties in Preparing this Annual Plan 3

I.5.3 Crosscut Issues 4

I.5.4 Management Issues 4

I.5.5 Adjustments to the Strategic Plan 5

I.5.6 Capital Assets/Capital Programming 6

I.5.7 Waivers for Managerial Accountability and Flexibility 6

Section II. Mission-Related Goals 7

II.1 Mission Goal #1: Better AML 7

II.1.1 Description of GPRA Program Activity 7

II.1.2 Strategic Issues Related to the GPRA Program Activity 8

II.1.3 Related Budget Accounts, Budget Activities, Subactivities 8

II.1.4 Proposed Legislation 8

II.1.5 Impact of FY 2000 Budget Changes 8

II.1.6 Exhibit A-1 - Performance Plan 12

II.1.7 Performance Plan Detail and Narrative 13

II.1.8 FY98 Annual Performance Report for Mission Goal # 1-Better AML 21

II.2 Mission Goal #2: Better Protection 23

II.2.1 Description of GPRA Program Activity 23

II.2.2 Strategic Issues Related to the GPRA Program Activity 24

II.2.3 Related Budget Accounts, Budget Activities, Subactivities 24

II.2.4 Proposed Legislation 24

II.2.5 Impact of FY 2000 Budget Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

II.2.6 Exhibit A-2 - Performance Plan 26

II.2.7 Performance Plan Detail and Narrative 27

II.2.8 FY98 Annual Performance Report for Mission Goal-Better Protection 36

II.3 MISSION GOAL #3: BETTER SERVICE 41

II.3.1 Description of GPRA Program Activity 41

II.3.2 Strategic Issues Related to the GPRA Program Activity 42

II.3.3 Related Budget Accounts, Budget Activities, Subactivities 42

II.3.4 Proposed Legislation 42

II.3.5 Impact of FY 2000 Budget Changes 42

II.3.6 Exhibit A-3 - Performance Plan 43

II.3.7 Performance Plan Detail and Narrative 44

II.3.8 FY98 Annual Performance Report for Mission Goal-Better Service 52

II.4 MISSION GOAL #4: BETTER OPERATIONS 55

II.4.1 Description of GPRA Program Activity 55

II.4.2 Strategic Issues Related to the GPRA Program Activity 56

II.4.3 Related Budget Accounts, Budget Activities, Subactivities 57

II.4.4 Proposed Legislation 57

II.4.5 Impact of FY 2000 Budget Changes 57

II.4.6 Exhibit A-4 - Performance Plan 58

II.4.7 Performance Plan Detail and Narrative 60

II.4.8 FY98 Annual Performance Report for Mission Goal-Better Operations 69

Section III - Performance Measures and Verification (Exhibit B) 75

Appendix
Index of Common Terms 81

Section I. Introduction and Overview

I.1 Introduction

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was established by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), Public Law 95-87, August 3, 1977.

OSM's mandates are carried out primarily through grants and cooperative agreements with States and Tribes that implement regulatory and reclamation programs according to the standards in the SMCRA and its implementing regulations. SMCRA and OSM established a unified level of environmental performance standards for the coal industry. Coalfield citizens were provided the same rights as residents of other rural communities: safe lives, clean water and secure lands for homes, pastures, farms and recreation.

Currently, 24 States have "primacy," or approved State regulatory programs. Each State program includes key elements such as: permitting and bonding requirements, on-the-ground performance standards which mining operations must meet, mine inspection and enforcement requirements and procedures for designating lands as unsuitable for mining. In primacy States, OSM's mission is one of oversight, backup enforcement and providing programmatic and technical assistance to the States.

In the absence of a State or Tribal program, or a cooperative agreement with a State to regulate mining on Federal lands, OSM serves as the regulatory authority. For FY 2000, OSM will continue to implement Federal programs for Tennessee and Washington. OSM will also continue to regulate some of the largest mines in the country on Indian lands located in Arizona and New Mexico.

SMCRA provides the means for restoring abandoned coal mines through establishment of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund which derives its monies from the collection of a tonnage-based reclamation fee assessed on current coal production. Each year, Congress appropriates monies from the Fund which are used primarily by 23 Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program States and three Indian programs for on-the-ground reclamation projects. These projects remove safety hazards, eliminate highwalls and treat or eliminate causes of water and air pollution. Monies are used to fund Federal and State AML emergency programs aimed at addressing unanticipated occurrences; such as: subsidence and landslides and the damage these events cause to human life and property. OSM conducts similar activities in non-program States and on Federal and other Indian lands. For States and Indian Tribes having approved AML programs, OSM conducts oversight activities and provides programmatic and technical assistance to the States and Tribes.

OSM is field-oriented, with three regional coordinating centers, ten field offices, six area offices and headquarters in Washington, D.C. OSM oversees 24 state programs and administers 12 federal programs, AML emergency programs, the AML fee compliance program and the Indian lands program.

OSM's Annual Performance Plan describes the major initiatives and anticipated accomplishments for Fiscal Year 2000. All of the projects described on the following pages are a part of the Agency's Performance Plan. They facilitate implementation of our "Mission and Vision" statements, our Director's Performance Agreement and satisfy the strategic goals of the Agency.

I.2 Mission Statement

OSM's mission is to carry out the requirements of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in cooperation with States and Tribes. Our primary objectives are to:

• ensure that coal mines are operated in a manner that protects citizens and the environment during mining,
• assure that the land is restored to beneficial use following mining and
• mitigate the effects of past mining by aggressively pursuing reclamation of abandoned coal mines.

I.3 Relationship to Departmental Goals

This performance plan is OSM's annual effort to satisfy, on a continuing basis, its comprehensive strategic plan. The plan consists of two goal categories and four mission goals, associated with accomplishing the mission of the Office and supporting the Department of the Interior's goal to "Protect the Environment and Preserve Our Nation's Natural and Cultural Resources." The two goal categories are: Program Goals, those goals that reflect the mission and statutory mandates of SMCRA and directly relate to protecting and restoring the environment as a result of surface coal mining and Management Goals, those that are necessary to improve its operations in order to accomplish and support the program goals and the organization.

I.4 Linkage to Strategic Plans and Budget

There is a direct link between OSM's annual performance goals to the strategic plan and budget. OSM developed its mission statement and mission goals from which long-term goals and business lines were created to carry out the mission. The annual performance goals are the yearly implementation of the long-term goals.

OSM developed core business lines to achieve each of its goals. They are: (1) Environmental Restoration; (2) Environmental Protection; (3) Technology Development and Transfer; and

(4) Financial Management. An additional business line is used for budgetary purposes. It is (5) Executive Direction and Administration.

OSM then developed a new budget structure. The new structure, which is based on the business lines, reflects the way OSM does business in carrying out its mission and meeting its goals. This structure links budgetary resource requests to OSM's core business lines and supporting program activities. This allows OSM to communicate its resource requests in a way that the public can understand and still meet Congressional requirements. OSM submits its budget requests based on the business line structure and Congress appropriates funds in that manner. OSM then allocates funds internally for its operating budget within each business line.

I.5 Additional Annual Performance Plan Requirements

I.5.1 Customer Service Standards

One of OSM's strategic mission goals is to provide better service to its customers, partners and stakeholders by strengthening the capabilities of States, Tribes and OSM staff to enforce the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act effectively. This in turn, supports the mission outcomes of the Office. Better decision making information and skills will be provided by improving service through open communications, technical training opportunities, technical assistance and the transfer of technology

OSM's annual performance goals for FY 2000 reflect the commitment to provide better service. They are:

• OSM will maintain an 89% customer satisfaction rate in the quality of our technical training.
• OSM will maintain an 86% customer service rate for technical assistance activities.
• OSM will attain an 87% customer satisfaction rate for technical training/assistance of the Technical Information Processing System (TIPS).
• OSM will maintain an 86% customer satisfaction rate for our technical transfer activities.
• OSM will attain an 86% customer satisfaction rate in the quality and timeliness of Applicant Violator System provided services.
• OSM will maintain a 95% customer service rate in the accuracy, timeliness and overall satisfaction of grants financial management.

I.5.2 Use of Non-federal Parties in Preparing this Annual Plan

The staff and management of OSM prepared this plan in conformance with Section 220.7 of OMB Circular A-11 and without any input from non-Federal parties.

I.5.3 Crosscut Issues

OSM participates, along with a number of other natural resources agencies, in the Natural Resource Performance Management Forum (Forum). The Forum was established in 1995 to discuss strategic goals and to coordinate agency planning activities. The Forum includes almost all of the Federal natural resource agencies including: Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Minerals Management Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Energy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Tennessee Valley Authority, Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers and Office of Management and Budget. OSM's contribution to this is its Appalachian Cleans Streams Initiative, which leverages OSM appropriated funds and outside funds for the clean-up of acid mine drainage pollution.

I.5.4 Management Issues

In 1998, the Department of the Interior's Inspector General identified ten major management issues in the Department. The only issue related to OSM concerns revenue collection. In September 1997, the Inspector General issued a report, "Fee Compliance Program, OSM Reclamation and Enforcement" (No. 97-1-1303). The Inspector General found that OSM generally conducted its Fee Compliance Program, which collects and audits Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund fees, in an efficient and effective manner in accordance with authorizing legislation and regulations. However, OSM could improve the efficiency of the fee collection process by requiring for coal mine operators to transmit fee reporting data electronically.

Status of Recommendation: OSM has sent a letter to the Office of the Solicitor seeking a legal opinion on the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's "notary requirement" regarding allowability and feasibility of requiring coal operators to electronically transmit completed OSM-1 forms to OSM.

In March 1996, the Inspector General issued a report, "Division of Debt Management, OSM Reclamation and Enforcement" (No. 96-I-639). The Inspector General found that although OSM's Debt Management Division and the Department's Office of the Solicitor had made significant progress in streamlining operations and reducing the backlog of debt cases, certain improvements could further reduce debt collection costs, ensure compliance with laws and regulations governing the debt collection function and result in more accurate data on delinquent debt. The report recommended that OSM take actions to reduce administrative costs, to ensure compliance with Federal debt collection requirements and to more accurately record and report debt. The report also recommended that the Solicitor initiate action to transfer some administrative tasks related to debt processing to OSM.

Status of Recommendations: OSM reduced staff to the level recommended in the report, thus achieving an estimated $820,000 in cost savings. OSM has completed all actions on the recommendations.

I.5.5 Adjustments to the Strategic Plan

This Annual Performance Plan reflects a refocusing of OSM's mission goals in its Strategic Plan which have been restated to have a more strategic outlook of what OSM wants to do.

I.5.6 Capital Assets/Capital Programming

OSM has no capital assets and therefore there is no need for any capital programming in FY 2000.

I.5.7 Waivers for Managerial Accountability and Flexibility

This Plan requests no waivers of administrative requirements to provide managerial accountability and flexibility.

Section II. Mission-Related Goals

II.1 Mission Goal #1: Better AML

II.1.1 Description of GPRA Program Activity

* Civil Penalty Collections ($275,000) are included in total with no change estimated in FY 2000.

This goal will be achieved through OSM's Environmental Restoration business line. The Environmental Restoration business line involves all functions that contribute to reclaiming lands affected by past coal mining practices. It provides for the use of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (AML) funds to protect public health, safety and general welfare from extreme danger and adverse effects of past coal mining practices. It also restores land and water resources and the environment previously degraded by these practices. In addition, OSM funds the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative within this business line.

The majority of OSM's total funding request for this business line is devoted to AML State and Tribal reclamation grants funding. In addition to funding regular reclamation projects, these grants provide monies for State-operated emergency programs. The Environmental Restoration business line supports the costs of the Federal reclamation program (both high priority and emergency reclamation projects) in States without their own reclamation programs. This business line also funds the costs of AML program development by providing resources for policy direction and program evaluation. The program emphasizes protection of public health, safety and general welfare by: correcting problems associated with past mining practices, reclaiming mined land abandoned before the passage of SMCRA (including certain interim program and insolvent surety coal sites abandoned after August 3, 1977) and constructing beneficial public facilities.

II.1.2 Strategic Issues Related to the GPRA Program Activity

Long-term Goal: BETTER AML: Repair, reclaim and restore as much land and water as possible that was degraded by past mining - in order to provide America with cleaner and safer land and water and to provide employment and economic opportunities in depressed coal regions.

Resources, Skills and Technology Needed: OSM and the AML program States and Tribes will continue to need a diverse and multidisciplinary cadre of scientific and engineering skills. These human resources establish reclamation project design and construction criteria either directly or in conjunction with contractors. Program analysts, grant specialists and other support personnel are needed to implement the State/Tribal grants program and to conduct program evaluations. Computer systems personnel and contractors are needed to maintain the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System. OSM maintains the system and network by which the States and Tribes manage their data.

II.1.3 Related Budget Accounts, Budget Activities, Subactivities

II.1.4 Proposed Legislation

None of OSM's current performance goals are contingent on enactment of legislation.

II.1.5 Impact of FY 2000 Budget Changes . . . . +$25,335,000

Since the inception of the first AML reclamation programs, much reclamation has been accomplished. Still, over half of the abandoned mine reclamation sites remain unchanged. The increase is to substantially accelerate the reclamation of AML sites and the recovery of streams polluted from acid mine drainage from past mining practices.

a. Reclamation Program Grants +$20,500,000

In FY 2000, OSM proposes a $20.5 million increase for "regular" (i.e., non-emergency, non-Clean Streams) grants to States and Indian tribes. This increase supports OSM's goal of increasing the proportions of reclaimed pre-SMCRA coal high priority sites to total abandoned sites.

The FY 2000 increase will be directed to high priority and environmental problems caused by historic abandoned coal mine sites. This increase is consistent with the President's Clean Water Action Plan. The additional funds will result in approximately 1,200 acres more being reclaimed than otherwise would be the case.

In addition to restoring land and waters to productive use and removing existing health, safety and general welfare hazards, the increased funds will generate additional economic benefits to local communities. Since many of these sites are in areas of the country that have not experienced an improving economy, the direct and ancillary jobs created through the increased expenditures will be especially beneficial. Residents will refocus away from the past negative impacts from coal mining and towards a safer and environmentally healthier community.

For the past several years, appropriated funds have been provided to the States and Tribes through a formula that considers the amount of reclamation fees collected in each State/Tribe (i.e., the State/Tribal Share) and the amount of pre-SMCRA coal production that occurred in each State/Tribe (i.e., Historical Coal Share). Taken into account is the certification by a State/Tribe that it has completed all known coal related reclamation work, as well as making the required adjustment in funding for the minimum program States. OSM will continue to use this formula for the majority of the granted funds. However, the $20.5 million increase will be directed specifically to those States and Tribes who are using AML funds to address environmental problems caused by historic abandoned coal mining sites. The increased funding will be targeted to those States and Tribes who obligated all of their distributed portion of the FY 1999 AML appropriation. These two special provisions will focus the increase on coal mining related problems in States and Tribes with a demonstrated ability to use the appropriated reclamation funds.

b. Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative +$3,000,000

In FY 2000, OSM proposes to increase support for clean water efforts by $3,000,000. Proposed is $2,000,000 for the Appalachian Clean Streams grant funding to States and $1,000,000 for OSM cooperative agreements with local organizations such as not-for-profit groups, especially small watershed organizations. The increase directly supports OSM's goal of improving water quality in streams damaged by acid mine drainage (AMD).

Through the traditional State grant processes, eligible States receive special grant funding to be used as "seed"money to combine with other available funding sources for the planning, design and construction of AMD restoration projects related to pre-SMCRA coal mining water pollution. The success of the Clean Streams Initiative has generated an ever-increasing network of project sponsors and cooperators. The special grants, unlike the regular AML grants, require partners and have achieved an overall 1:1 leverage rate.

In FY 1999, funds are being devoted to the new OSM watershed cooperative agreement program. Application procedures for not-for-profit watershed groups are being announced in the Federal Register, the Commerce Business Daily and through other appropriate mechanisms. The Clean Streams grants to the States are mainly "seed" money to start attracting partners and get the project going. The cooperative agreement program provides the "finishing" money, the final amount necessary for the project to proceed to construction.

The requested $3,000,000 increase takes the Clean Streams Initiative to its targeted annual level of $10,000,000 and will enable OSM and its partners to build upon the solid, early success of the Initiative. OSM will continue to consult with the States and our non-government partners to determine how best to maximize our assistance by providing "seed" money through the State grant process and "finishing" funds through direct cooperative agreement assistance. The Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative responds to several Administration initiatives, including the Clean Water Action Plan and American Heritage Rivers. Our FY 2000 goal for environmental restoration is to increase the number of new Clean Streams projects to 42 and to leverage the funds so that 60% of the money comes from other sources.

c. State Emergency Programs Grants +$1,500,000

In FY 2000, OSM proposes to increase support for approved State Emergency Programs by $1,500,000. This increase supports OSM's goal of abating emergency hazards in States who administer their own emergency programs.

For the past several years, the total appropriation for both the Federal and the State emergency programs has been $18 million. Appropriation language has imposed a 25% limitation on funds going to any single state. Thus, when the appropriated level of emergency funds is $18 million, a maximum of $4.5 million may be spent by any one state. This creates difficulties in meeting emergency needs. Under the current law, if a State receiving the maximum, such as West Virginia, needs to spend all of its funds during the first portion of a year, there would be no current year funding available for emergencies which might occur toward the end of the year. This happened in West Virginia during FY 1997 and FY 1998, when the State experienced above-average localized precipitation in coalfield communities. To meet West Virginia's emergency needs, OSM used unallotted prior year State emergency funds. By FY 2000, these unallotted funds will be greatly diminished. OSM proposed elimination of this 25% limitation provision in FY 1999 and does so again in FY 2000.

Adequate funding for State emergency programs is a priority item. Such emergency work not only protects people from immediate physical danger, but it often protects water resources from pollution caused by debris, acid mine drainage, etc. being introduced to a nearby stream from the abandoned coal mine site causing the emergency. By States agreeing to take over the Federal responsibility for emergency response, the overall cost of the emergency program is lowered and efficiencies gained. If OSM had to respond in a timely manner to emergencies nationwide, additional Federal employees and travel dollars would be necessary. Also, State operation of both the AML emergency and non-emergency reclamation program better enables a seamless transition in many cases from the emergency work to the high priority work that may remain to be done after the emergency is abated.

By using unallotted prior year recoveries, OSM has been able to meet all identified State emergency program needs. However, we believe that by FY 2000, the combination of weather-induced emergencies, suburban growth and aging underground support structures will have exceeded OSM's ability to deal with them at the FY 1999 level of appropriated funds. A sufficient level of recoveries will no longer will available. This increase will enable OSM to meet its responsibilities to those States operating their own emergency programs.

II.1.6 Exhibit A-1 - Performance Plan

Note: Budget dollars shown related to the Mission Goal are approximate and have been rounded to the nearest $100,000. 1/ A statistical conversion has been applied to the numerous types of Priority 1,2 and 3 reclamation projects which are measured in various units such as miles, acres, sites, counts, etc. in an attempt to make comparisons and summarizations possible. 2/ Estimate reflects full number of projects funded by increase; actual completion of projects funded by increase may occur one to three years after initiation.

II.1.7 Performance Plan Detail and Narrative

a. Goal Purpose: The FY2000 annual performance goals reflect the Surface Mining Program's commitment to reclaiming lands left abandoned prior to the Surface Mining Act and the abatement of emergency hazards and acid-mine polluted waters. OSM's first performance goal is to award AML grants to the States and Tribes in a minimum amount of time. This will enable them to carry out their responsibilities in meeting the overall mission goal and to effectively and efficiently manage their human, fiscal and informational resources to reclaim abandoned mine lands. The second goal is OSM's attempt to narrow the gap between the number of hazards being reclaimed and the number of hazards being identified and added to the AML Inventory. If the gap can be narrowed, progress is being made to overall reclamation. The third goal is the overall outcome measure of number of acres being reclaimed. This could be interpreted as an output, but the quality of the reclaimed land reflects the outcome of the Surface Mining Program's mission. The fourth goal demonstrates the Program's mandate and commitment to abate any emergencies that arise as a result of past mining that may have an effect on the safety and protection of people, land and property. The fifth and sixth goals relate to OSM's participation and commitment to the President's Clean Water Action Plan in providing seed money to fund grassroots projects cleaning up watersheds polluted by acid mine drainage.

Legislative mandates for this mission goal and the subsequent performance goals are: Section 102(h) of the SMCRA - promote the reclamation of mined areas left without adequate reclamation prior to the enactment of SMCRA.... and Title IV of SMCRA - Abandoned Mine Reclamation.

b. Status: Progress is being made in all of the performance goals. The preceding table shows the status of goal accomplishment. Analysis and evaluation of selected performance goals tested in FY98 are discussed below in the FY98 Annual Performance Report.

c. Goal Achievement: The overall achievement of the mission goal for Better AML will be accomplished through: more funds appropriated to the States for the restoration of abandoned mine lands - more funds means more projects which means more acres of land reclaimed and more miles of streams cleaned; the use of "Enhanced AML" reinvention concepts by reinventing new ways of funding and/or reclaiming land and water with minimal use of taxpayer dollars; the "Appalachian Cleans Streams Initiative" which allows for every dollar OSM invests, a dollar is generated from outside sources; and support and conviction for better remediation and applied technology research.

Specifically the strategies for achieving the annual performance goals are:

Goal 1.1 Awarding grants - Monies from the AML Fund are appropriated for the use of State and Tribal programs for on-the-ground reclamation projects. This goal provides a direct measure of the time between when a complete grant application is received from the State or Tribe and when the funds are available for their use. State and Tribal programs depend on these grant funds to operate and delays in providing funding could result in program interruptions that should be avoided. OSM, through its grants and program specialists, will strive to improve its grants program with its current level of resources.

Goal 1.2 & 1.3 High-priority AML sites & Acres Reclaimed - with an increase in appropriated funds for State AML grants, more money will be available to reclaim more abandoned high priority projects which will increase the number of acres reclaimed and decrease the ratio of high priority sites to total sites.

States and Indian tribes will be encouraged to immediately begin taking the steps required to get additional AML projects under way in FY 2000. Since they have been conducting AML reclamation for many years, the States and Indian tribes are capable of increasing the number of on-the-ground projects for reclamation. OSM is requesting an increase of $22 million for FY 2000 which could result in approximately a twenty-five percent increase in acres reclaimed over the FY 1999 estimate. In addition, we will also stress to the States and Indian tribes the importance of getting completed reclamation projects into the data base quickly so that there accomplishments can be reported timely in accordance with this mandate. In the area of technology and information, we will continue to enhance our inventory data base (The Abandoned Mine Land Information System). Improvements to this system will not only make the States and Indian tribes more eager to report their accomplishments, but will provide useful planning tools that would enable them to more efficiently conduct their reclamation.

Goal 1.4 Emergencies hazards abated - this measure is very important as an indicator of the protection of health and safety in the coal fields from abandoned mines, but, is reactionary and cannot be predicted. OSM will assure an adequate amount of funding for the emergency program in order to abate those hazards that arise. OSM is requesting $10,970,000 for the emergency program in FY 2000 and estimates there could be as many as 426 emergencies. Skills required to satisfy this goal are reclamation specialists, inspectors, engineers, environmental scientists, grants specialists, and contract specialists.

Goal 1.5 and 1.6 Acid mine drainage projects and their funding - OSM will continue to seek increased funding for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI) , which, will provide more seed money for projects which supports the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan. Through the ACSI, OSM supports community efforts to accelerate the cleanup of rivers and streams polluted by contaminated runoff from abandoned coal mines, predominantly in Appalachia. Through the State AML grant process, States receive AML grants for clean streams projects. This money is utilized as Aseed@ monies to combine with other available funding sources for acid mine drainage (AMD) remedial projects. In FY 1999, a total of $7,000,000 has been appropriated for ACSI. Of this total, $5,900,000 in grants has been distributed to 11 States. OSM also received authorization in FY 1999 to provide $750,000 in funding to local watershed organizations in the form of Cooperative Agreements with local organizations, such as non-profit groups, especially small watershed organizations, to support local AMD reclamation projects. So far, OSM has been successful in leveraging one dollar of outside funds for every dollar of clean streams funds.

To continue these programs in FY 2000, OSM has proposed a total of $10,000,000 for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative. This would include an increase of $2,000,000 for Clean Streams Grants to States, bringing the total for State Grants to $7,900,000. There would also be a $1,000,000 increase for Cooperative Agreements with local watershed organizations, bringing the total Cooperative Agreement funding to $1,750,000.

Other current actions or programs and subprograms that are being conducted to contribute to the overall accomplishments of OSM's goals are:

(1) State and Tribal Funding - SMCRA established the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (AML Fund) to finance the restoration of land mined and abandoned prior to August 1977. Coal mining had disturbed more than one million acres of land, resulting in significant health and safety problems for coalfield citizens and the public in general. An adequate AML Fund is essential to ensure that these problems are abated by providing the financial resources for State, Tribal and Federal reclamation efforts. Although substantial progress has been made, more than $2.5 billion of priority 1 (threats to public health and safety) and priority 2 (general welfare problems) sites remain unreclaimed and over $1.7 billion of unreclaimed priority 3 (environmental hazards) sites have been identified by States and Tribes.

(a) Reclamation Program Grants - OSM provides grants to States and Tribes who have approved reclamation programs. States and Tribes use the grants to address hazards and problems such as underground fires, subsidence, landslides, open shafts, unstable or burning refuse piles, acid mine drainage and dangerous, unstable, man-made cliffs. Reclamation grants to States and Tribes comprise the vast majority of this program activity.

Under the Act, each State must have an approved regulatory (Title V) program and a reclamation (Title IV) program before it is eligible to receive reclamation grant funding. Tribes are allowed access to AML funds derived from reclamation fees if they have an approved reclamation program. Currently, three Tribes (Crow, Hopi and Navajo) have approved programs and receive AML grant distributions. Twenty-three States and three Tribes will continue to receive reclamation grant funding in FY 2000. An increase of $20.5 million is requested for non-emergency, non-clean stream grants.

The National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs supports a restoration of the $2 million minimum level for program States. The minimum program States have said they need the $2 million level but did not want it at the expense of impacting other States/Indian tribes as total grant funding remained stable. With the increase of $20.5 million in non-emergency, non-Clean Streams grants, OSM supported the States' request that the minimum program amount be returned to the statutory $2 million.

The following eight States qualify for the minimum program funding level of $1.5 million in FY 1999: Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, North Dakota and Oklahoma. These are expected to qualify again in FY 2000. At the $2 million level, New Mexico and Utah may qualify for minimum program status.

(b) Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative - Acid mine drainage (AMD) is a major environmental and public health problem related to mining, especially in the Appalachian region. More than 8,000 miles of streams have been destroyed or damaged in Appalachia alone. AMD problems are occurring in other regions as well. In FY 2000, OSM proposes to increase funding support for the Clean Streams Initiative, a major AMD abatement action, by $3 million.

Many of OSM's and the States' demonstration projects that received Clean Streams funding in FY 1997 and FY 1998 are now under construction, or in design with construction to begin soon. OSM's emphasis on the Clean Streams Initiative has also helped promote a general increase in State project activity related to, or incorporating, AMD treatment.

( c) State Emergency Programs Grants - In FY 2000, OSM will continue to encourage States to assume responsibility for emergency AML reclamation projects. In FY 1998, two additional States (Missouri and Oklahoma) assumed responsibility for such emergency projects. States who operate their own emergency programs fund the emergency projects from their AML grants. States have developed considerable expertise in performing reclamation. More effective reclamation occurs when States perform the emergency abatement and immediately follow-up by completing the reclamation project through their regular AML programs. Transferring this responsibility to the States results in better control of program costs and eliminates cost duplication. The following thirteen States now operate their own emergency programs: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia and West Virginia. For FY 2000, an additional $1.5 million is requested to support the State Emergency Programs.

(2) State Program Evaluation - SMCRA requires OSM to monitor the progress and quality of each State and Tribal program to ensure that their reclamation programs function effectively.

OSM analyzes documents submitted by States and Tribes (e.g. grants, amendments, reports) and conducts onsite observations of selected reclamation projects. OSM provides the States and Tribes expert assistance on reclamation projects. OSM, States and Tribes hold conferences to discuss reclamation issues, technology and solutions to problems.

In consultation with States and Tribes, OSM has developed a review system that provides for enhancement and performance evaluation of programs, rather than oversight. This system, which is based on principles of excellence, recognizes that evaluation involves an ongoing relationship between OSM and State or Tribal agencies -- who have the autonomy to run their programs. OSM is responsible for assisting in program enhancement while monitoring compliance with the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.

The revised evaluation system does not require that each program be reviewed each year in each of the six areas covered under the principles of excellence. Instead, the system allows each State or Tribe to develop, with the appropriate Field Office, a programmatic agreement which addresses the areas to be reviewed and establishes applicable performance measures. Since much of the enhancement and performance evaluation is trend analysis and the interaction between the programs and OSM is continual, the programmatic agreements can be for periods longer than one year. However, they are reviewed each year to determine the progress being made. This system allows the State or Tribe the autonomy to conduct its program and still provides OSM the vehicle to ensure that the program is functioning properly.

These agreements first address the overriding goal of the AML program - reclamation. They recognize that if the State or Tribe is permanently reclaiming abandoned minesites by abating hazards, reducing/mitigating adverse effects of past mining and restoring adversely affected lands and water to beneficial use, it is conducting an overall successful program.

(3) Federal Reclamation Program -This program activity funds the following components:

(a) Federal Emergency Projects OSM manages emergency abatement projects in States and on Tribal lands where the State/Tribe has no approved regulatory program and is therefore ineligible for an AML program, or because the State/Tribe has determined it does not want to have an emergency reclamation program. Many coal-producing States, including two with high numbers of emergency projects, Pennsylvania and Kentucky, do not have an approved emergency program. Consequently, OSM performs over half of the emergency abatement work done in the U.S. each year.

The Federal Emergency Projects component provides immediate relief from abandoned mine hazards that threaten public health and safety on Federal and Indian lands in non-emergency States. Emergencies are generally the result of two different types of events. One is subsidence, the caving in of old underground mines and shafts. Subsidence is life-threatening when occurring in areas where there is frequent human activity. Such as, in parks, playgrounds, other residential areas or when subsidence impacts buildings or other structures. Subsidence is most common in the Anthracite region of northeastern Pennsylvania.

The second type of event is landslides. These are usually the result of unstable mine spoil (excavated overburden) placed on steep hillsides. Landslides can impact structures or block streams which can cause flooding.

(b) Federal High-Priority Projects OSM manages projects in States and on Tribal lands where the State/Tribe has no approved regulatory program and is, therefore, ineligible for an AML program.

During FY 1998, OSM spent $2.4 million reclaiming non-emergency projects. Projects were initiated in California, Georgia, Michigan, Tennessee and Washington. This ensures continuation of the systematic reclamation efforts underway in Washington and Michigan; and the completion of almost all inventoried projects in Georgia. Tennessee, with an unfunded inventory of over $17 million of high-priority sites to reclaim, remains the largest consumer of OSM's high-priority funds. As of the end of FY 1998, there was approximately $17.9 million in known problems outstanding at 170 sties to be reclaimed under the Federal High-Priority Program.

( c) Outcrop and Underground Fire Control Projects Pursuant to Public Law 83-738, as amended by Public Law 102-486 (Energy Policy Act of 1992), funds are provided to control or extinguish outcrop and underground fires. Funds for this purpose are used for coal fire control or extinguishment. These projects are not eligible for funding under the AML program. Coal outcrops are ignited by forest/brush fires, lightning and campfires and occur mostly in the western States. The purpose of these projects is to prevent injury and loss of life, protect public health, conserve natural resources and protect public and private property. This program was originally authorized under the former Bureau of Mines and subsequently transferred to OSM.

(d) Program Operations OSM performs all the work related to emergency reclamation occurrences on Federal and Tribal lands and in States without an emergency program. This begins with the initial investigation of the site in order to make two threshold determinations: (1) does an emergency condition exist? and (2) is the condition mining-related? In some instances, extensive field and office work is needed to determine if the condition is, in fact, mining-related. This determination can, at times, be particularly challenging when the mining activities in the area occurred decades ago. Another challenge is that since these are emergency situations, time is of the essence. There are instances when abatement activities occur within hours of OSM's initial investigation.

OSM performs the technical work related to the compliance of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Historic Preservation Act. This involves determinations and consultations with other State and Federal agencies, along with the documentation of all the requests to approve a project as an AML emergency.

(e) Civil Penalty Reclamation Projects As authorized in appropriations, Federal civil penalties collected under Section 518 of SMCRA are authorized to be used to reclaim lands mined and abandoned after August 3, 1977. These lands are not eligible to be reclaimed with monies from the AML Fund. These funds are derived from civil monetary penalties from OSM-issued citations nationwide and are also available to help reclamation of bond forfeiture sites. These funds are divided among projects proposed by both State and Federal regulatory authorities and used for project costs only.

In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, OSM estimates $275,000 will be collected and used annually to fund similar reclamation projects.

(f) Bond Forfeitures These funds are received through offsetting collections to be used to reclaim lands where the bond was forfeited and OSM is the regulatory authority. Forfeited funds are site-specific and cannot be transferred for use at other sites. Using the forfeited funds, OSM issues and administers contracts for reclamation to be performed in accordance with the mining plan developed during the permit process. OSM is mandated under SMCRA to reclaim sites that have been abandoned and forfeited in Federal Program States. Bond forfeiture is an important component of OSM's mission to restore lands abused by mining.

(4) Program Development and Maintenance

This program activity provides funding for reclamation program management and programmatic guidance to States and Tribes.

OSM helps States and Tribes to build on successes and enhances primacy by implementing the reengineered grants process, ensuring National Environmental Policy Act compliance and by conducting program-focused enhancement and performance evaluation. OSM encourages States to assume responsibility for their reclamation and emergency reclamation programs and supports implementation of their AML programs through technical and program assistance as needed.

(a) AML Inventory OSM manages the National AML Inventory which serves as a planning and evaluation tool for the States, Tribes and OSM. The States and Tribes also use the inventory to assist them in planning and to make funding decisions and to report program accomplishments.

The inventory is maintained on a computer system known as the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS). AMLIS is the system OSM uses to record and report AML Program accomplishments under GPRA. The public can easily access AMLIS via the Internet. OSM is working with States and Tribes to expand the use of the new AMLIS capabilities. In FY 1998, training on the inventory computer system was provided to States at the three OSM Regional Offices.

(b) Grants Management OSM takes a decentralized team approach to grants management with a small policy staff in the headquarters office. The day-to-day grants and program management are performed in the regional/field offices and the financial tracking occurs under the Financial Management business line. Under the grants management program, the OSM team and the State/Tribal grantees cooperate to maximize the use of available funding and operate an effective program. Grantees provide input to the program by participating on ad hoc teams and by reviewing and commenting on proposed changes in the program. This cooperative working relationship contributes to: streamlined application and awards processes, faster obligation of Federal funds, innovative program monitoring and less paperwork-intensive reporting and close-out of grants. In addition, OSM periodically holds meetings/workshops with the State/Tribal grantees to provide training for grantees and to keep them abreast of policies and procedures.

( c) AML Enhancement Initiative OSM plans to issue final rules that allow more AML eligible sites to be reclaimed without significant additional cost to the government in FY 1999. The intent of the new rules is to achieve more AML reclamation by allowing contractors to offset reclamation costs by removing and selling coal found incidental to reclamation projects.

d. Benefits Derived

The most obvious benefits, of course, are the reclamation or abatement of land that was previously environmentally damaged and a hazard to life. Acreage is restored to productive use; grazing, farming, recreation, wildlife habitats and forests are restored; and miles of streams are cleaned-up directly leading to health and safety protection. Indirectly there are socio-economic benefits that come from the funds, jobs and projects that reclamation creates. For instance, it is estimated that for every $1 million spent on AML reclamation construction projects, it creates 17 on-site jobs, 14 off-site jobs and 28 ancillary jobs. Personal income increases in the damaged area can reduce public assistance rolls and State and local revenues increase from enhanced income and sales tax base. These benefits can restore community pride and enable self-sufficiency long after reclamation projects end.

II.1.8 FY98 Annual Performance Report for Mission Goal # 1 - Better AML

Repair, reclaim and restore as much land and water as possible that was degraded by past mining - in order to provide America with cleaner and safer land and water and to provide employment and economic opportunities in depressed coal regions.

a. 1998 Annual Performance Goals:

• OSM will award grants within 60 days 90% of the time.
• The Surface Mining Program will increase the ratio of reclaimed/funded pre-the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act coal high priority abandoned sites to total AML inventory sites by 0.5% over FY 1999.
• The Surface Mining Program will reclaim approximately 8,000 acres.
• The Surface Mining Program will abate 390 emergency hazards that arise.
• The Surface Mining Program will begin 12 new cooperative Acid Mine Drainage projects under its Clean Streams Initiative.
• The Surface Mining Program will increase the non-Surface Mining Program funds to 52% for the Clean Streams Initiative.

b. Description

FY1998 was a pilot year for the collection and establishment of goals and performance measures. This report does not report on all of the performance goals cited above, but provides a pilot report on a select few which OSM deems to be important.

c. Analysis of Performance and Strategies for Improvement

In FY 1998, 7,201 acres of land and water were reclaimed. While this is a shortfall of 799 acres from the goal of 8,000 acres, it represents and increase of 401 acres over the prior year. The Abandoned Mine Land program can be impacted by adverse weather conditions which can delay construction, shorten growing seasons and increase the costs of materials and equipment. This past year, heavy rainfall in many areas slowed construction. This wet weather caused some states to shift the focus of their construction to more costly problems. For example, heavy rains forced some work to concentrate on costly, time consuming landslides which have a low acreage completed to cost ratio.

Most of the emergencies abated during 1998 were in Pennsylvania, Kansas, West Virginia and Kentucky. Although not reflected in the total number of emergency hazards abated, the total amount of funds spent to abate the emergencies was higher than in previous years. This was due to a series of storms in Eastern Kentucky during April and a mine fire in Pennsylvania. The storms produced unusually large amounts of rainfall in very short time periods, causing old spoil banks to become saturated and slide down the steep slopes. The significance to the total cost of the program is that landslides cost much more to abate than most other types of abandoned mine land emergencies. Therefore, in any year when the percentage of landslide projects increases, the total cost to abate emergencies can be expected to also rise that year. Mine fire emergencies are the most costly type of abandoned mine land emergency problem to abate.

While OSM experienced continuing success with the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative, the number of projects started in 1998 decreased compared to 1997. A number of factors contributed to this decline. First, the amount of project funding made available to States decreased from $4.0 million in 1997 to $2.517 million in 1998. Several States were unable to finance new projects with their smaller allotment even with the addition of partner funds. In some cases, States used their 1998 Appalachian Clean Streams grants to continue or expand projects started the previous year. There was less advance planning for candidate projects in 1998, versus the intense pre-planning that preceded the 1997 projects. Every state was involved in planning or design of prospective Appalachian Clean Streams projects during the year.

II.2 Mission Goal #2: Better Protection

II.2.1 Description of GPRA Program Activity

* Reflects transfer (PL 105-174) and re-programmings since President's Budget submitted.

This goal will be achieved through OSM's Environmental Protection business line. Program activities within this business line include functions that directly contribute to ensuring that the coalfield citizens, their property and the environment are protected during surface coal mining operations. Included are those activities that assure that coal operators adequately reclaim the land after mining is completed.

As with the Environmental Restoration business line, the principal means of delivering environmental protection within the framework of SMCRA is by providing regulatory grants to the primacy States. OSM provides oversight of the State programs through evaluation processes and inspections.

The Environmental Protection business line provides OSM with the resources needed to implement Federal and Indian programs. It includes direct permitting, inspection and enforcement activities in States not having primacy, in States that have not entered into cooperative agreements to oversee Federal lands within their borders and on Indian lands. It provides for OSM's costs for regulatory program development and processing mine plans for Federal lands.

II.2.2 Strategic Issues Related to the GPRA Program Activity

Long-term Goal: BETTER PROTECTION - Improve OSM's regulatory program for protecting the environment, people and property during current mining operations and subsequent reclamation through a more effective and efficient oversight and evaluation of State programs and carrying out its regulatory responsibilities - in order to safeguard people and the environment.

Resources, Skills and Technology Needed: Program analysts, grant specialists and other support personnel are needed to implement the State regulatory grants program and to conduct program evaluations. OSM and the primacy States will continue to need a diverse and multi-disciplinary cadre of personnel skilled in scientific and engineering areas to review mine permits, determine whether performance bond coverage and amounts are sufficient to ensure reclamation, conduct mine site inspections and implement enforcement actions when necessary. Computer systems personnel are needed to help maintain various data systems such as the Mine Site Evaluation and Inspection Reporting System which contains data from OSM's oversight and regulatory program inspections.

II.2.3 Related Budget Accounts, Budget Activities, Subactivities

II.2.4 Proposed Legislation

None of OSM's current performance goals are contingent on enactment of legislation.

II.2.5 Impact of FY 2000 Budget Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +$700,000

Budget changes in this business line are required to cover uncontrollable payroll costs such as workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, retirement costs and pay rate increases.

This constant level of funding will enable OSM to continue to improve its regulatory program through a more effective and efficient oversight and evaluation. OSM and the States will continue the current successful revised approach to oversight for which OSM and States received Vice President Gore's National Performance Review "Hammer Award". OSM will expand its participatory outreach approach: to address concerns related to the loss of stream headwaters as a result of mountaintop removal operations, to evaluate its ownership and control rules, to advance remining efforts and to ensure that contemporaneous reclamation is occurring. The Surface Mining Program's performance will be able to increase Phase III bonding releases and to maintain its planned FY 1999 levels in other areas.

II.2.6 Exhibit A-2 - Performance Plan

Note: Budget dollars shown related to the Mission Goal are approximate and have been rounded to the nearest $100,000.

II.2.7 Performance Plan Detail and Narrative

a. Goal Purpose: The FY2000 annual performance goals reflect the Surface Mining Program's commitment to protecting people, environment and property while current mining is being conducted and subsequent reclamation is performed. OSM's first performance goal is to award regulatory administrative and enforcement grants to the States and Tribes in a minimum amount of time. This will enable regulatory authorities to carry out their responsibilities in meeting the overall mission goal and to effectively and efficiently manage their human, fiscal and informational resources to protect people, environment and property. The second goal reflects the Surface Mining Program's commitment to protection outside of the permitted mining area by minimizing the number of impacts that occur. If off-site impacts are minimized, damage will be minimized. Therefore, protection will be maximized. The third and fourth goals reflect the Surface Mining Program's commitment to put mined and reclaimed land back into productive use. Because of the qualitative standards placed on meeting this output result, acreage released at the final stage of a performance bond is considered to be as or more productive than before the land was disturbed.

Legislative mandates for this mission goal and the subsequent performance goals are: Section 102(a) of the SMCRA - establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment form the adverse effects of surface mining operations; Section 201( c) of the SMCRA; and Title V of SMCRA - Control of the Environmental Impacts of Surface Mining.

b. Status: Progress is being made in all of the performance goals. The table above shows the status of accomplishment toward these goals. Analysis and evaluation of selected performance goals tested in FY98 are discussed below in the FY98 Annual Performance Report.

c. Goal Achievement:

Goal 2.1 Awarding grants - Monies are appropriated for the use of State and Tribal to operate their programs. This goal provides a direct measure of the time between when a complete grant application is received from the State or Tribe and when the funds are available for their use. State and Tribal programs depend on these grant funds to operate and delays in providing funding could result in program interruptions that should be avoided. OSM, through its grants and program specialists, will strive to improve its grants program with its current level of resources.

Goal 2.2 Off-Site Impacts - OSM will be working with the States, Tribes and coal industry to strive for and maintain a minimum number of occurrences.

The actual goal being targeted is for each mine site or inspectable unit to achieve the goal of having no off-site impacts each year.

OSM has taken the most important step towards this goal by evaluating for off-site impacts where it is the regulatory authority and through the oversight process in States with primacy. The results have been tabulated for all mine sites nationwide for two consecutive years. Operators, the States and OSM have just now begun to realize the importance of achieving this goal. To continue improving or reducing the number of off-site impacts, OSM needs to review and evaluate the numbers and types of off-site impacts being encountered and prescribe program improvements needed to cut into the impacts. This may include making permit adjustments, targeting inspections, etc. Skills required to satisfy this goal are primarily carried out through OSM's program analysts and field inspectors.

The use of analytical software in making permitting decisions will help to achieve on the ground compliance and lessen the chance of off-site damage. Trend analysis of monitoring data will help focus attention to problematic areas before it leads to a violation. Use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to map various layers of a mine permit will assist in visualizing the plans and data available. It will also afford the permitting and inspection staff the ability to categorize land areas and keep better track of the status of reclamation. OSM will continue to raise awareness within OSM staff, the States and the coal industry of the importance and meaning of this goal through continually improving policy guidelines, expanding understanding of GPRA and continuing to educate those most responsible for achieving the goal.

Goal 2.3 & 2.4 Phase I, II and III Bond Release - OSM is exploring strategies to improve performance in this area by working with the operators and States to develop mechanisms by which disturbed and reclaimed lands can be better and consistently identified.

OSM has taken the most important step toward improving performance in relation to this goal by measuring and reporting performance nationwide for two consecutive years. The States and operators are beginning to recognize the importance of this goal. To continue, OSM needs to develop requirements for annual reports in order to track the status of permitted and disturbed areas as the land is mined and backfilled and during the reclamation process. Without such a process no information is available on the status of such lands. OSM's Western Regional Coordinating Center has already begun to monitor disturbed lands and the result is that States and operators become more involved in the reclamation and bond release process. Skills required to satisfy this goal are primarily carried out through OSM's program analysts, field inspectors, reclamation specialists and revegetation specialists.

Through the technology transfer business line, OSM is providing training, technical assistance and conducting workshops and interactive forums on topics dealing directly with bond release issues. Bond release depends on successful achievement of the performance standards and success criteria in SMCRA, regulations and the reclamation plan contained in a specific permit. Understanding the yardstick to be used to measure success is an important factor in achieving bond release. Also, continued inspection of sites provides assurances that reclamation is progressing as scheduled and in accordance with plans. Technology such as Global Positioning System (GPS) units, analytical software, use of geo-statistics and other predictive techniques will help the professionals in the effort. Training courses and workshops will help by sharing experiences in conducting bond releases and cross training on techniques applied successfully in State and Federal programs. Use of geographic information systems (GIS) technology will allow regulators to keep better track of the status of the phase of bond release each parcel is in until released. OSM will continue to raise awareness within OSM staff, the States and the coal industry of the importance and meaning of this goal through continually improving policy guidelines, expanding understanding of GPRA and continuing to educate those most responsible for achieving the goal.

Other current actions or programs and subprograms that are being conducted to contribute to the overall accomplishments of OSM's performance goals are:

(1) State and Tribal Funding

(a) State Grants Twenty-four States have approved permanent regulatory programs (primacy) for the regulation of coal mining activities. Primacy States have the most direct and critical responsibilities for conducting regulatory operations. The States have the unique capabilities and knowledge to regulate the lands within their borders. Providing a 50% match of Federal funds to primacy States in the form of Administration and Enforcement (A&E) Grants results in the highest benefit and the lowest cost to the Federal Government. If any State relinquished primacy, OSM would have to hire sufficient numbers and types of Federal employees to implement the program. The cost to the Federal government would be significantly higher.

(b) State Regulatory Activities Activities of State regulatory authorities include: permit review and issuance, with reliance on the Applicant Violator System (AVS) to ensure that permits will not be issued to operators with outstanding violations; inspection and enforcement; designation of lands unsuitable for mining; and administration of bonding and bond release programs for reclamation of lands after mining. Special activities are conducted by individual States to address specific needs. These activities may include expanding permitting programs, computerizing systems to improve review of pending permits and drafting regulations that respond to changes in Federal rules.

All active and inactive sites, facilities and areas in support of coal mining and reclamation within a State are inspected by the State regulatory authority (SRA) for compliance with all program requirements. SMCRA requires all active inspectable units under the permanent program to have four complete and eight partial inspections per year. Four complete inspections are required annually for all inactive units.

( c) Cooperative Agreement Funding States which have cooperative agreements with OSM review and issue permits and conduct the required inspections of regulated facilities on Federal lands. Cooperative agreements provide for uniform enforcement of State program requirements at all facilities within the State and reduce both direct Federal program costs and Federal staff requirements. Section 705 ( c) of SMCRA sets the amount that a State may receive through a cooperative agreement as up to 100% of the amount that the Federal Government would have to spend to do the same work. Thirteen States have entered into cooperative agreements with OSM to administer most surface coal mining requirements on Federal lands: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming. Kentucky entered into a cooperative agreement with OSM on November 2, 1998. At the present, there is no mining activity on Federal Lands in Indiana, but activity is anticipated in the future. OSM expects that Indiana will enter into a cooperative agreement at some point during FY 1999.

(d) Tribal Regulatory Development Program Grants As allowed by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and SMCRA Section 710(I), OSM has provided grants to the Crow, Hopi, Navajo and Northern Cheyenne tribes to assist them in developing regulations and programs for regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. The grant amounts are based on each Tribe's anticipated workload to develop Tribal regulations and SMCRA program policies, to assist OSM with surface coal mine inspections and enforcement (including permitting activities, mine plan review and bond release) and to sponsor employment training and education in the area of mining and mineral resources. These grants fund 100% of the Tribal primacy development activities.

(2) State Program Evaluation

(a) Oversight Strategy OSM's current oversight strategy (as revised in FY 1996) focuses on whether the public protection requirements and environmental protection standards of SMCRA are being met with primary focus on end results and the on-the-ground success of States in meeting the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's environmental protection goals. These include prompt and effective reclamation of land mined for coal and public participation. This approach is consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act.

OSM and the States have experienced a more positive attitude and spirit of cooperation with the current strategy. In FY 1998, an OSM team completed a report based on interviews with about 100 OSM inspectors and field staff involved in oversight. The team found the current oversight is beginning to take hold and many view it as an opportunity to work cooperatively to improve State program performance.

(b) OSM-State Performance Agreements OSM's oversight directive outlines the performance agreement as a framework for OSM and the State to agree on a plan to conduct oversight activities and, to this end, the performance agreement concept works. The concept of a performance agreement is also a means to maintain and improve the relationship between OSM and the State. Efforts are made to prepare workable agreements. This process leads to improved relationships, shared responsibilities, growing interest in joint reviews and a more open discussion of difficult issues are achieved.

Inspections are identified in performance agreements and are planned and conducted to collect data related to the oversight directive and the annual evaluation report. In some instances, they are designed to address problems or issues specific to an individual State program. Many reviews were designed to investigate some previously-identified areas of concern. Inspections often are the means to collect the data. Joint inspections provided the opportunity for OSM's field offices to work cooperatively with the States and industry to resolve problems.

( c) Public Participation OSM's oversight directive also provides great flexibility to conduct oversight activities in a manner consistent with the needs of individual State programs and, in particular, inspection and public participation activities. Central to identifying potential needs and oversight topics are the views of the public. In 1998, OSM conducted a successful National Symposium on Coal that included a wide range of Federal agencies as well as industry and public groups. This was followed by regional symposia conducted by each of OSM's three Regional Coordinating Centers. Meetings were also held in each state by our Field Offices to receive input from the public regarding what to consider as OSM developed its FY 2000 budget request. These efforts were highly successful and the results as related to the Environmental Protection Business Line are reflected in respective areas of emphasis identified within this justification.

(d) Oversight Inspections SMCRA requires the Secretary to conduct mine inspections to evaluate the administration of State programs. Inspections range from those regarding current coal mining activities to forfeited bond sites awaiting reclamation. OSM's policy is to allow its regional and field managers discretion and flexibility. They stratify and selectively target their inspections to focus on those topics and activities that present the best opportunity for environmental improvement or the best means of evaluating the impact of program implementation on society and the environment. For example, inspections may focus on high-priority problems such as acid mine drainage and other problem areas, as well as current coal mining operations and abandoned sites awaiting reclamation. This policy provides the most effective use of available resources.

The vast majority of inspections were performed by the States: about 106,000 in 1998. This is consistent with the intent of SMCRA that States take the lead in regulatory programs. In contrast, OSM conducted just over 2,500 inspections in primacy States.

The projected FY 2000 oversight inspection workload includes an estimated 2,500 program evaluation inspections. The actual number will be adjusted depending on the program areas, the presence or absence of problems, input from the public and the terms of the performance agreements in each State. Also, the regulated facilities on Federal lands in those States that have cooperative agreements with OSM are subject to OSM inspections similar to those done on non-Federal lands.

(e) Ten Day Notices The primary emphasis of inspections is to identify and resolve problems and to evaluate whether the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's environmental protection and reclamation goals are being achieved. When an inspection reveals violations of State programs (other than imminent danger of significant environmental harm or danger to the public which requires immediate issuance of a cessation order), a Ten-Day Notice (TDN) is issued to the State. All such notices require written responses from the State regarding the actions taken to resolve the alleged violations or a statement of good cause for not taking such action. A Federal inspection is conducted following a TDN where the State does not act or show good cause for not doing so. If the inspection shows that a violation exists and the State fails to take appropriate action, a Federal enforcement action may be taken. While OSM does not second-guess States on judgment calls, the agency's ability to take enforcement actions to address isolated State program violations is far less drastic, disruptive and costly than a Federal takeover.

(3) Federal Programs

This program activity regulates coal mining activities in non-primacy States (i.e., those with a Federally-administered regulatory program). Within this program activity, OSM implements a full regulatory program including a considerable permitting workload. Other significant regulatory program components OSM must conduct include: establishing and maintaining performance standards, bonding, inspecting and enforcing (including civil penalty assessment and collection) and conducting technical functions related to the release of performance bonds and bond forfeitures. OSM processes petitions to designate lands as unsuitable for mining.

The largest Federal program that OSM administers (in terms of the number of permits) is in Tennessee. Other Federal programs with current regulatory activity include Georgia, Arizona and Washington, with the bulk of that activity in Washington. Programs are in place for California, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island and South Dakota. While none of those States currently have any coal exploration or mining activities, OSM continuously monitors events to initiate regulatory operations when new coal exploration occurs or mining operations resume.

(4) Federal Lands Program

This program activity includes: direct OSM regulatory activities on Federal lands in States without cooperative agreements, implementing cooperative agreements with primacy States to regulate coal mining on Federal lands within their borders, preparation of Mining Plan Decision Documents under the Mineral Leasing Act and processing Valid Existing Rights (VER) claims that involve Federal Lands. This involves consultation with State Historic Preservation Offices, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and National Park Service. The processing of Mining Plan Decision Documents constitutes the largest part of the workload under this program activity.

(5) Indian Lands Program

OSM oversees and manages surface coal mining and reclamation activities on Indian lands. The Crow, Hopi, Navajo and Ute Mountain Ute tribes currently have coal mining activities on their lands. The Crow, Navajo, Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribes are evaluating coal properties for future development. The Hopi/Navajo Tribes jointly have one permanent program permit, two pending permits and eight inspectable units. The Navajo Tribe has three permanent program permits, one pending permit, four initial program operations undergoing reclamation and seven inspectable units. The Crow Tribe has one permit and one inspectable unit. The Ute Mountain Ute has two permits and two inspectable units. The Indian lands mines are among the Nation's largest and together