Detailed Information on the
Office of Surface Mining - Federal Managed Regulation of Surface Coal Mining and Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Assessment

Continuing to implement the established annual and long-term measures for the Federal regulatory an reclamation programs.

Implementing newly developed efficiency measure to ensure that targets are met and continue to be ambitious.

Collaborate with the states and Indian Tribes to develop at least one long-term and one efficiency measure for the regulatory component by early 2006. Measures should incorporate the level of mining activity and measure adherence to on-site regulations.

Assess developing mechanisms to encourage contemporaneous reclamation at mine sites to the extent practical.

Evaluate civil penalties and incentives to determine the efficacy of OSM's enforcement mechanisms.

Target funds in the FY 2006 Budget to increase the technical capacity of OSM staff and inspectors.

Include the Federal Program components in PART's conducted for the AML and Regulatory Program when reassessing because OSM does not manage the Federal Program with distinct performance measures and targets.

Implement the revised civil penalties and incentives to better enforce the regulation of coal mining activities.

Work with states and Tribes to implement the performance measures.

Measure: Percent of mined acreage reclaimed: Cumulative reclaimed (restored) acres to cumulative mined acreage (represented by bonded acreage).

Explanation:Ratio of reclaimed to mined acreage is the number of acres that have been reclaimed to the number of acres that have been mined annually. The timelines of the acres released from bond in conjunction with the mined acres is an indicator whether reclamation is current with mining, i.e. contemporaneous reclamation. Utilize cumulative data for mined acres and combined Phases I, II, and III bond release acres for three reasons (1) year to year variations are "smoothed out", (2) annual targets would be difficult to predict, and (3) all reclaimed acres are counted. Estimated target is 45%. This is a not a static number, i.e. exact number of acres reclaimed versus acres mined, but a dynamic target since the number of acres will continuously change as areas are mined and then reclaimed. The average time from mined to reclaimed differs depending on the area. The timeframe between mining versus reclamation is much shorter in the Appalachian mining region than in the west, particularly for the vast surface mines in the Powder River basin in Wyoming. The recommended ratio, 45 percent, is based on 10 years of available data.

Measure: Number of acres where reclamation goals are achieved as evidenced by release from Phase III Performance Bonds (Federal Program only statistic).

Explanation:Release from Phase III returns land to use, other than coal mining, in accordance with the reclamation plan for the permit. Acreage released under Phases I and II is also reported on an annual basis.

Measure: Percent of active sites that are free of off-site impacts (Federal Program only statistic).

Explanation:During mining, some activities may impact people, land, water or structures outside the permit area. Data is reported in annual reports on the degree and type of impact, and the resource affected. The measure is percentage of sites free of off-site impacts as compared to the total number of inspectable units. The term and type of this measure have been revised.

Measure: Completion of the technical review of Federal/Indian Land permit actions within 90 days.

Explanation:OSM receives permits and permit revisions for the two regulatory programs with active mining and on Indian lands. The most labor intensive portion of the review of the permit application is the technical review. It is important that this be completed in a timely manner so that a decision for a permit can be made without delay. If the target goal is not met, it would indicate the need for more resources to conduct these reviews in order to provide a timely answer to the applicant about his/her permit application.

Measure: Number of land acres reclaimed or mitigated from the effects of degradation from past mining (Calculated equivalent acres) (Federal Program only).

Explanation:Completed projects are reported by States, Tribes and OSM in the abandoned mine land inventory system, which contains a list of all Priority 1 and 2, and some Priority 3 projects for each State/Indian Tribe. (Wide fluctuations possible due to measure's reliance on limited number of projects).

Measure: Number of people with reduced exposure potential to safety risks from abandoned mine lands (Federal Program only statistic).

Explanation:Reclamation reduces potential danger to the public, land and water.

Measure: Percentage of declared emergencies abated within six months.

Explanation:Proposed PART efficiency measure.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program consists of the regulation of current surface coal mining and the reclamation of abandoned coal mine (AML) sites for those states and tribes that have chosen not to take over these program elements as primary states and tribes. The primacy state programs were PARTed separately in earlier PARTs. The Federal Program implements the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) which protects society from the effects of surface coal mining while satisfying the nation's need for coal, and abates or reclaims land scarred and abandoned prior to the passage of the Act.

Evidence: 1) The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), as amended, authorizes these programs in sections 410 (Emergency Powers), 504 (Federal Programs), 710 (Indian Lands), 523 (Federal Lands). 2) Implementing regulations for conducting surface coal mining operations in each state can be found at 30 CFR 900. 3) The U.S. Department of Interior Draft Strategic Plan, FY 2007-2012, page 19, includes OSM's mission.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program elements of regulation of active mines and reclamation of abandoned coal mine programs mirror those of primacy States and Tribes except the programs are carried out by the Federal Government. In total, there are 26 States and 3 Tribes that have active surface coal mining and 23 States and 3 Tribes that have abandoned coal mine restoration activities. Of these the Federal Government runs 2 State active surface coal mining regulation programs and an Indian lands program covering the 3 Tribes; and 8 State abandoned coal mine site restoration programs, many of which do not have active mining but have high priority abandoned coal work, and 3 on Indian lands. Federal implementation occurs when no entity provides oversight; States chose not to oversee to enforce SMCRA; mining operations reside on Indian lands; and abandoned mined lands need emergency reclamation. The Federal program also remediates problems stemming from abandoned mine land (AML) emergencies for the Tribes and in 20 States without emergency programs.

Evidence: The foundation for the programs is found in 1) SMCRA, Title I. 2) Legislative history of SMCRA: Senate Report No. 95-128, May, 1977 and House Report No. 95-218, April, 1977. 3) Federal Lands component has origins in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (MLA). 4) Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Inventory System contains information (cost, problem type, units, location, etc.) for hazardous abandoned mines sites (http://www.osmre.gov/).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: While other agencies govern miner safety or control water pollution, OSM's program covers the complete mining cycle. While primacy States and 3 Tribes are authorized by statute and do administer abandoned mine land AML programs, non-primacy States and other Tribes cannot. Therefore the Federal Reclamation Program must administer AML funds in those States and on other Tribal lands and in States that choose to have no emergency program.

Evidence: 1) The program is designed by law and regulations in SMCRA, Titles I, IV, V, VI, and VII (specifically 702, 523(a) and 710(c) and (d)). 2) Tennessee Federal Program: 30 CFR 942, page 635. 3) Washington Federal Program: 30 CFR 947, page 665. 4) OSM Directive REG-22 Developing and Processing State/Federal Cooperative Agreements for State Regulation on Federal Lands identifies requirements for formal agreements-14 States in place. Examples of Agreements for Kentucky and Oklahoma outline the program for those states. (5) August 15, 2003, report to Congress on coal waste impoundments identifies interaction with other agencies.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: No major flaws were identified in the program design that would substantially impact the program's effectiveness or efficiency. Since SMCRA makes no provision for Tribes to regulate coal mining on Indian Lands, OSM is responsible for coal mining and reclamation activities on Indian lands. The earlier PART review found this as a program flaw. However, while SMCRA did not provide for Tribal primacy, DOI did study the issue. The absence of primacy affected the access of 3 Tribes to AML funding that had accumulated from active operations on their lands since operating a regulatory program was a statutory prerequisite to having an AML plan approved and funded. To resolve this funding link, Public Law 100-71 (1987) expressly authorized those 3 Tribes to seek AML programs without having regulatory primacy. Tribes were afforded additional considerations in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 which required OSM to provide grants to Crow, Hopi, Navajo and Northern Cheyenne Tribes for training, development of Tribal regulatory programs, and assistance to OSM in inspections, mine plan review and bond release. These grants fund 100% of the Tribal primacy development activities. Though there may be concern about Tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian activities, particularly on off-reservation Indian Lands, Tribal primacy is a policy issue and not an issue of efficiency or effectiveness.

Evidence: Program reviews can be found in: 1) OSM's final reviews are referenced in various documents such as the Director's Annual Assurance Statement on Internal Control, OSM's Annual Reports (available on the OSM web-site), and OSM's Financial and Performance Accountability Report. 2) The DOI Office of the Inspector General issued an Evaluation Report on State Operated Coal Regulatory Programs in October 2004. That report focused on the adequacy of inspection and bond release activities and potential regulatory program cost savings related to GPRA measures. 3) OSM's Financial and Performance Accountability Report for FY 2005 contains financial statements and a statement of compliance with legal and financial requirements. 4) The Budget Justifications contain specific program descriptions and accomplishments on all Federal Programs, including the Indian Lands Program.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Unlike the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) programs operated by the States, the Federal Program does not include funding for States that have certified programs. For example, if a State has an AML program and it has certified completion of its Priority 1 and 2 coal problems, it may use the AML funding provided for other uses. Under the Federal Program, a limited amount of funding ($1 million in FY 2006) is available to apply to high priority coal AML problems. If there are no remaining high priority coal AML problems in a Federal Program State, then there would be no Federal Program expenditures in that State. In Tennessee and Washington, OSM operates the regulatory program and works directly with stakeholders such as citizens, citizens' groups, the mining industry, local government and others regarding the permit application and review process, inspection and enforcement, and other program issues. Throughout the country, OSM works directly with Tribes. OSM also handles emergency programs in States who choose not to have an emergency program and reclamation of high priority abandoned mine land programs in Federal Program States. Funding is identified in the Budget Justifications for these programs and that funding is spent on its intended purposes. OSM designs the program to ensure that surface coal mining is conducted to prevent off-site impacts during mining, to return the lands disturbed by mining to productive uses and to reclaim mined areas left without adequate reclamation.

Evidence: Program reviews and results can be found in: 1) FY 2005 Annual Report. 2) Knoxville Field Office Annual Evaluation Summary Report, 2005. 3) FY 2006 and 2007 Budget Justifications include performance data. 4) OSM Directive AML-4, Procedures for Federal Reclamation Program Emergencies and High Priority Projects, May 2000, provides guidance on conducting project reviews.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Measures are displayed in the Goal Performance Tables, contained in OSM's budget justifications. OSM developed several new performance measures related to the abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation program and collected data from States and Tribes for those measures in FY 2004. These measures include the number of acres reclaimed or mitigated from the effects of degradation from past mining, the number of people with reduced exposure potential to safety risks from abandoned mine lands, and the percentage of declared emergencies abated within six months. For the regulatory programs, OSM has two long-term performance measures: percent of sites free of off-site impacts and the percent of mined acreage reclaimed. Both measures focus on outcomes. Even though the measures are the same, Federal Program data is reported separately from the nationwide data in the PART database.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Tables, published in the FY 2007 Budget Justification, identify current and new performance measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes (pp. 37-44), https://max.omb.gov/app/part/program/assessment/"http://www.osmre.gov/budget.htm". 2) The FY 2007 Budget Justification (p. 71) discusses previous PART recommendations and the step taken to support the PART recommendations (pp. 12-13). 3) The FY 2005 and 2006 Budget Justifications show the inclusion of these measures into OSM's reporting process.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The long-term measures are based on trend data and the AML measures were recently revised to reflect more accurate baseline data. Reclamation work on abandoned sites is dependent upon the amount of funding appropriated. High priority projects are allocated about $1 million per year for Federal program projects. Emergency funding is allocated at almost $9 million per year, and emergencies, by their very nature, are hard to predict. Funding not used in the AML program, carries over to the next year. On the regulatory side, due to the nature of mining, changes in the industry and development of policies, there are many impacts that would encourage more or less mining. OSM's target is based on trend data and is the best indicator that it has available.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Tables, published in the FY 2007 Budget Justification, identify current and new performance measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes (pp. 37-44), https://max.omb.gov/app/part/program/assessment/"http://www.osmre.gov/budget.htm". 2) The FY 2007 Budget Justification discusses funding for Federal High Priority Projects and Emergency Funding (pp. 51, 61-62). 3) FY 2005 and 2006 Budget Justifications show performance measures and accomplishments.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Both the AML and regulatory measures apply: acres reclaimed for high priority Federal Program projects are at a stable pace and eliminate projects on the inventory; percentage of declared emergencies abated within 6 months indicates the timeliness with which emergencies are addressed; sites free of off-site impacts indicate how well operators are complying with SMCRA; Phases I, II and III bond release indicate that mining is done and being returned to its intended land use.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Tables, published in the FY 2007 Budget Justification, identify current and new performance measures, specific annual performance measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes (pp. 37-44), https://max.omb.gov/app/part/program/assessment/"http://www.osmre.gov/budget.htm"). 2) The FY 2005 and 2006 Budget Justifications show performance measures and accomplishments.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Baseline data have been established for the AML measures and targets are being met. On the regulatory side, due to the nature of mining, changes in the industry and development of policies, there are many impacts that would encourage more or less mining. Therefore, the measures are based on trend data and have changed over time due to the mining industry actions. Accomplishment data is reported on an annual basis.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Tables, published in the FY 2007 Budget Justification, identify current and new performance measures, specific annual performance measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes (pp. 37-44), https://max.omb.gov/app/part/program/assessment/"http://www.osmre.gov/budget.htm". 2) The FY 2005 and 2006 Budget Justifications show performance measures and accomplishments.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Partners assist in collecting data and developing performance measures to evaluate all aspects of the Federal Programs. The States and Tribes are an integral part of achieving the goals for the Surface Mining Program. The partners in the reclamation component are generally contractors with set schedules for work performance.

Evidence: Measures were developed with State, Tribal partners and/or contractors as shown in: 1) AML performance measures at the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP) in October 2003. 2) Federal Programs also report the programmatic statistics as outlined in OSM Directive REG- 8, "Oversight of State Regulatory Programs", and the requirements of Directive AML-22 " Evaluation of State and Tribal AML Programs." 3) Boilerplate contract language for AML projects.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The OSM program evaluation system is an ongoing process of assessing program accomplishments and communicating those assessments to management. OSM and States develop performance agreements on an annual basis which includes the topics or areas where program evaluations will be conducted. Those evaluations are included as part of the oversight and annual evaluation reports and contribute to developing an accurate picture of progress in accomplishing OSM's mission. In addition, OSM conducts Internal Control Reviews, Alternative Internal Control Reviews, and audits under the auspices of OMB's A-123 guidance and the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act. Reviews of OSM's Certification and Accreditation of information technology systems, which includes its financial system containing grants data, are conducted by third party contractors on a recurring basis.

Evidence: 1) OSM has a plan of all appropriate program components and a schedule for review of those components. Reviews are conducted periodically depending on the risk rating for each component, usually by a team of appropriate staff, with management review and input. In addition, DOI requires functional reviews of several administrative and financial components on an annual basis, including financial assistance. Reviews are conducted and submitted to DOI. DOI's Office of Financial Management and Office of Inspector General examine a representative sample of final reports to ensure compliance with all standards. This process is outlined in the November 4, 2005, memorandum, "Guidelines for FY 2006 Internal Control and Audit Follow-up Programs." OSM's final reviews are referenced in various documents such as the Director's Annual Assurance Statement on Internal Control, OSM's Annual Reports (available on the OSM web-site), and OSM's Financial Performance and Accountability Report. 2) The DOI Office of the Inspector General issued an Evaluation Report on State Operated Coal Regulatory Programs in October 2004. That report focused on the adequacy of inspection and bond release activities and potential regulatory program cost savings related to GPRA measures, and included Tennessee in the scope of the review. (S-IN-OSM-0087-2003). 3) Annual Independent Auditors' Reports for OSM are contracted by DOI's Inspector General Office to KPMG LLP an independent certified public accounting firm.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: OSM's budget requests since FY 2003 have included the integration of planning and performance. OSM presents accomplishments, goals and measures in its Environmental Restoration and Environmental Protection business line discussions which outline Federal accomplishments and plans in support of its budget requests. Long-term and annual performance goals include those that pertain to both the reclamation (abandoned mine lands) and regulatory programs. Providing adequate funding for reclamation programs is essential to protect the public from hazardous situations and correct situations when they occur. Providing adequate funding for regulatory programs is equally important to protect the public and environment during active mining. When funding falls below program needs, programs may be unable to keep active sites free of off-site impacts, reclaim mined acres, reclaim hazardous sites, and prevent injuries.

Evidence: Performance results and budget requests are contained in: 1) OSM Budget Justifications and Performance Information for FY 2006 and 2007. 2) Recent program statistics are contained in OSM's FY 2005 Annual Report.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: OSM identified deficiencies in its program performance measurement, and re-designed its strategic goals and measures with state and Tribal partners. For the reclamation program, OSM has been reporting under new measures since FY 2004. OSM recently developed a new long-term measure, "percent of mined acreage reclaimed" which is calculated as the ratio of cumulative reclaimed (restored) acres to cumulative mined acreage (represented by bonded acreage) to reflect the accomplishments of the regulatory program.

Evidence: OSM has identified several performance measures as outlined in: 1) Goal Performance Tables, published in the FY 2007 Budget Justification, identify specific annual performance measure, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes (p. 37-44), https://max.omb.gov/app/part/program/assessment/"http://www.osmre.gov/budget.htm". 2) The DOI Office of the Inspector General issued an Evaluation Report on State Operated Coal Regulatory Programs in October 2004. That report identified a deficiency in one of OSM's regulatory measures, which is now addressed. 3) Previous PART reviews and progress reports provided illustrate progress on new regulatory measure.

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: Regulations to establish permanent regulatory procedures for active surface coal mining that minimize damage to the environment and to the productivity of the soil and to protect the health and safety of the public. Regulations are also essential in order to insure that competition in interstate commerce among sellers of coal produced in different States will not be used to undermine the ability of the several States to improve and maintain adequate standards on coal mining operation s within their borders Because of the diversity in terrain, climate, biologic, and other physical conditions in coal mining areas, States are intended to take the primary responsibility for regulating surface coal mining and reclamation. Regulations implementing this program generally address five major program components required by SMCRA: (1) designation of areas as unsuitable for mining; (2) performance standards; (3) permitting requirements and procedures; (4) performance bond; and (5) inspection and enforcement requirements.

Evidence: The first Federal final rules were published March 13, 1979, and addressed all SMCRA regulatory requirements. Changes to these Federal rules occur as a result of passage of law that directly or indirectly affects SMCRA requirements, court decisions affecting the interpretation of SMCRA requirements or the changing nature of technology. OSM reviews any changes to the Federal rules and updates the Federal programs as appropriate.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Data and information is collected from inspections, citizen complaints, state-federal cooperative agreement annual performance reports, the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS), and the Applicant Violator System (AVS) to assist OSM in adjusting priorities and effectively allocate resources. Data is entered in automated systems on a regular basis and reported annually. Bureau-level measures are contained in OSM's budget justifications and data is verified and validated before the time of annual reporting. Accomplishments are reviewed to manage the program and evaluate needs as part of workforce planning efforts. In recent efforts to develop a new nationwide measure for the regulatory program, several meetings were held with various OSM and State representatives in 2003 and 2004 and performance measures were drafted, and then approved for presentation in the FY 2007 Budget Justifications. The reclamation measures were re-designed in FY 2003 under a similar process for reporting in FY 2004.

Evidence: Data is collected via: 1) Federal programs report similar data as that contained in OSM Directive REG-8, "Oversight of State Regulatory Programs". 2) Mine Site Inspection Information (OSM Directive INE-23, December 28, 1998) contains data on inspections and site specific information. 3) OSM Annual Report, FY 2005 and earlier years, contains statistics on reclamation projects and accomplishments, and regulatory statistics as well as program descriptions. 4) State-Federal Cooperative Agreement Annual Performance Reports (OSM Form 51) and Narrative; and Grant/Cooperative Agreement Financial Information Reports (OSM Form 52). 5) Various internal management database systems used for program data and tracking. 6) The Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS) is an automated system that contains reclamation accomplishment data. 7) AVS application evaluation report (document), accessed on http://www.avs.osmre.gov. 8) Data validation and verification assessment form is completed by responsible program officials annually for evaluation of performance data prior to reporting.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Managers must plan and conduct program activities in accordance with regulations and OSM Directives. Appropriated funding is provided to the Regional Directors responsible for implementing the Federal Programs. Spending plans are developed and periodic reviews are conducted to ensure that spending is consistent with financial plans. In addition, OSM uses activity-based costing which includes program activities codes for Federal Programs, Indian Lands, Federal emergencies and high priority projects, as well as automated systems such as the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS) and the Applicant Violator Systems (AVS). OSM field managers and staff have employee performance appraisal plans which include responsibility for meeting performance goals in at least one critical element of the plan. OSM currently uses the performance appraisal plan to evaluate managers and, thus, demonstrate they use established goals to manage their programs.

Evidence: Performance results and schedules can be found in: 1) Federal regulatory program annual evaluation reports for 2005. 2) FY 2005 Annual Assurance Statement on Management Controls. 3) Internal OSM Management FRP Tracking System (sample page). 4) OSM Directive GMT-10, Federal Assistance Manual. 5) OSM Directive AML-4, Procedures for Federal Reclamation Program Emergency and High Priority Projects, May 8, 2000. (They include timeframes to expend funds in accordance with the Federal Assistance Manual and procurement regulations; and prepare reports and annual evaluations.) 6) OSM's FY 2006 Activity Based Costing Dictionary describes program components that are used to charge time and costs for Federal Programs. 7) DOI Performance Appraisal Handbook (370 DM 430), dated 10/4/04, page 6, outlines requirements for all employees to have at lease one critical measure related to GPRA.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Regional management oversees the allocation and expenditure of funds by field units operating the federal program. The largest portion of the operating budget (approximately 80 percent) is spent on salary and benefits for staff. Federal program management teams regularly monitor non-salary expenditures. The agency's financial system and internal management systems track funds for reclamation projects or emergency abatement.

Evidence: Purposes of funding and expenditures can be found in: 1) Annual budget submission. 2) FY 2005 Annual Assurance Statement on Management Controls. 3) ) OSM Directive AML-4, Procedures for Federal Reclamation Program Emergencies and high Priority Projects, May 8, 2000. 4) State-Federal Cooperative Agreement Annual Performance Reports (OSM Form 51) and Narrative; and Grant/Cooperative Agreement Financial Information Reports (OSM Form 52). 5) Data contained in OSM's ABACIS financial system.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: OSM continues to use newer technology, like electronic permitting and GIS tools that improve program performance by increasing the speed of permit review and inspection. Additionally, OSM uses the activity based costing system and competitively sources nearly all emergency construction contracts. An internal database allows project managers to compare current and previous project costs in similar geographic areas, assuring that OSM receives the best value for its expenditures.

Evidence: 1) The FY 2007 Budget Justifications (pp. 92-93, 101-103), https://max.omb.gov/app/part/program/assessment/"http://www.osmre.gov/budget.htm", highlights OSM's performance on permit review and inspection. 2) The FY 2007 Budget Justification discusses OSM's ABC system and competitive costing (p. 63); 3) The FY 2007 Budget Justifications describes the internal database (p. 129).

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: OSM directives contain detailed procedures of coordination. Memorandum of Understanding are established among bureaus and/or agencies, as appropriate, to coordinate activities and outline responsibilities. For example, during reclamation of abandoned or emergency sites, OSM works closely with the State Historical Preservation Officer and Fish and Wildlife agencies to minimize historical sites and assure the livelihood of threatened species during reclamation or abatement of AML hazards. OSM collaborates effectively with various stakeholders. Through the Forest Reclamation Approach (FRA), representatives from government, citizen, environmental groups, and others have signed a Statement of Mutual Intent to restore active/abandoned surface mine lands to productive, useful forests. This effort has resulted in (1) more hardwood trees planted; (2) increased survival of tree plantings due to new techniques; and (3) successful, permanent new reforestation demonstration plots. OSM and State representatives have also developed the AMD-Treat software to assist government and mine water practitioners to better estimate the cost of abatement of polluted mine drainage discharges.

Evidence: Collaborative efforts and coordination are illustrated in the following documents: 1) SMCRA Sections 503(a)(6) and 504(h) 30 CFR 773.6(a)(3). 2) Memorandum of Understanding BIA-BLM-OSM Management of Coal Mining on Indian Lands, October 23, 2002. 3) Memorandum of Understanding between the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation and Enforcement and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX on the Process for Obtaining A NPDES Permit Under Subpart H - Western Alkaline Mine Drainage Category, December 19, 2003. 4) OSM Directive AML-4 (Procedures for Federal Reclamation Program Emergency and High Priority Projects, May 2000). 5) The ARRI's (Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative) "First Two Years" brochure outlines the efforts and approaches being taken to restore lands to forestry. 6) The AMD-Treat Computer Model is available on OSM's website under Research and Technology, Acid Mine Drainage Information. 7) Environmental Impact Statement for Mountain Top Mining, October 2005, describes extensive outreach for this controversial issue. [http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/pd/mtm-vf_fpeis_full-document.pd].

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: OSM's Division of Financial Management has received clean audit reports for the last 15 years. OSM was the only bureau in DOI to receive a 'clean opinion' in all three areas: financial statements, reports on internal controls and compliance with laws and regulations. No material weaknesses were identified. For OSM program activities, OSM uses activity based costing. This assists management in identifying costs for each defined activity. Codes and outputs are under review and will be revised as OSM moves to DOI's Finance and Business Management System in FY 2007.

Evidence: 1) The Director's Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Assurance Statement on Management Controls dated September 15, 2005, outlines reviews conducted, no material weaknesses, and compliance with appropriate rules and regulations. 2) OSM's Financial and Performance Accountability Report for FY 2005 contains financial statements and a statement of compliance with legal and financial requirements.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: No material weaknesses were identified in OSM's annual assessment of agency programs and systems in accordance with the Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act and OMB circular A-123. In 2005 OSM conducted assessments of selected programs and administrative functions that were sufficient to ensure the adequacy of controls in place. Areas for improvement were identified and corrective actions are being implemented. In general, management controls are adequate to safeguard OSM programs and systems against waste fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Currently, neither the General Accounting Office (GAO) nor Interior's Office of Inspector General has identified any major performance or management challenges that limit OSM's effectiveness in carrying-out its mission. OSM is in compliance with the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA).

Evidence: 1) The Director's Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Assurance Statement on Management Controls dated September 15, 2005, outlines reviews conducted, no material weaknesses, and compliance with appropriate rules and regulations. 2) OSM's Financial and Performance Accountability Report for FY 2005 contains financial statements and a statement of compliance with legal and financial requirements.

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: OSM is required seek affected party views in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. In additional to listing regulations in the Federal Register, OSM often conducts outreach when proposing significant revisions to Federal regulations. Additionally, OSM notifies outside parties at the earliest stage of proposed rulemaking to obtain their views.

Evidence: Requests for comments and how they were addressed can be found in: 1) Proposed and final rule preambles (VER and 522(e)). 2) Documentation of outreach (stream buffer outreach plan), 3-21-03. 3) Public hearings on Excess Spoil Rulemaking (OSM Press Release of Mar. 1, 2004). 4) Promulgation of Tennessee Federal Program: 30 CFR 942, page 635. 5) Promulgation of Washington Federal Program: 30 CFR 947, page 665. 6) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Bonding and Other Financial Assurance Mechanisms for Treatment of Long-Term Polllutional Discharges and Acid/Toxic Mine Drainage (AMD) Related Issues, May 17, 2002 (67 FR 35070).

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: The Federal Program complies with all requirements. The Programs reference the 30 CFR and are updated automatically with changes in Federal regulations. Examples of major analyses include: Fall Creek Falls, Tennessee Petition Evaluation Document/EIS and Environmental Impact Statement and Economic Analysis on Valid Existing Rights.

Evidence: Support documents are included in: 1) Promulgation of Tennessee Federal Program: 30 CFR 942, page 635. 2) Promulgation of Washington Federal Program: 30 CFR 947, page 665. 3) Fall Creek Falls, Tennessee, Petition Evaluation Document, Environmental Impact Statement, Volumes I and II, February 2000. 4) Valid Existing Rights, Final Economic Analysis and Environmental Impact Statement, July 1999.

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: OSM regulations are designed to provide the threshold of requirements with which acceptable compliance is necessary. If states cannot comply they relinquish control of their regulatory and AML program to the federal program.

Evidence: Examples of reviews conducted can be found in: 1) Information Collection, Supporting Statement, Question 3 (for 30 CFR Part 779). 2) Proposed rule: Ownership and Control Settlement Rule, 68 FR 75036, December 29, 2003. 3) Paper on "Enhance Computer Software Applications for Mining and Reclamation."

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The Federal programs are managed to reduce exposure potential to safety risks from AML sites and to address Federal high priority projects on the inventory. On the regulatory side, the long-term goal is not an end point, but reflects what is happening in the coal mining industry. The progress is an indicator of other forces impacting the industry and variations of this indicator are reviewed and explained.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Tables, published in the FY 2007 Budget Justification, identify current and new performance measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes (pp. 37-44), https://max.omb.gov/app/part/program/assessment/"http://www.osmre.gov/budget.htm". 2) The FY 2007 Budget Justification details OSM's Federal AML activities (p. 61) and its Regulation of Federal Programs (pp. 82-84).

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Emergency projects abated exceed the goal, as do the percentage of sites free of off-site impacts. Due to the nature of mining, changes in the industry and development of policies, there are many impacts that would encourage more or less mining. OSM is not in a position to request an operator to apply for bond release. Therefore, OSM's achievement in this area may not always meet its projected target.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Tables, published in the FY 2007 Budget Justification, identify specific annual performance measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes (pp. 37-44), https://max.omb.gov/app/part/program/assessment/"http://www.osmre.gov/budget.htm". 2) The Code of Federal Regulations [Cite: 30CFR800.40, Revised as of July 1, 2005] explains the requirements needed to release performance bonds. https://max.omb.gov/app/part/program/assessment/"http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi".

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: OSM has two efficiency measures as highlighted in the Goal Performance Table. OSM has implemented activity-based costing and cost codes are reviewed annually to ensure appropriate categories are being costed. OSM also continues to demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness through improvements in the IT infrastructure in the use of E-gov, e-grants, electronic permitting, and analytic tools to assist inspectors and industry with hydrologic assessments, quantifying potential effects of coal mining. Examples of efficiencies include technical initiatives to assist in reclaiming sites, such as 1) the use of mobile computing technologies requiring up to 85% less time and resources to collect field and GIS data collections and analysis; and 2) the development of tools such as AMDTreat software, which helps predict long-term costs to treat acid mine drainage. As an example of the use of AMDTreat, a team of OSM and State personnel created a GIS database of all AMD remediation projects for AML and bond-forfeited projects statewide. Information collected contains funding data, water quality of discharges and treated water, organizational information, descriptions of the treatment technology, observations of the effectiveness of the system, and the total capital cost of the projects. Projects in the database have a total capital investment of over $50 million.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Tables, published in the FY 2007 Budget Justification, identify current and new performance measures, efficiency measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes (pp. 37-44), https://max.omb.gov/app/part/program/assessment/"http://www.osmre.gov/budget.htm". 2) The FY 2007 Budget Justification details OSM's improvements in the IT infrastructure (p. 88). 3) The FY 2006 ABC/M Dictionary defines the activity based costing codes which OSM uses to measure efficiencies and cost effectiveness. 4) Technical initiatives assist in the reclamation of sites. The use of mobile computing technologies, discussed in the FY 2006 Budget Justification (p. 103), https://max.omb.gov/app/part/program/assessment/"http://www.osmre.gov/greenbook06.htm" and AMDTreat software, detailed in the FY 2007 Budget Justification (p. 103) are examples of cost effectiveness.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While there are no comparative studies of the Federal regulatory and reclamation with comparable state-managed programs, it is generally found that though the cost and effectiveness of the programs are equal, OSM is a model for states in some areas, such as bonding. However, states have additional local resources and connections at the regional level that enable them to be more efficient.

Evidence: Collaborative efforts are identified in: 1) OSM's Annual Report. 2) OSM Budget Justifications and Performance Information for FY 2006, 2007. 3) Environmental Impact Statement for Mountain Top Mining, October 2005, [http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/pd/mtm-vf_fpeis_full-document.pd]. 4) Report to Congress: Responses to Recommendations In the National Research Council's Report Coal Waste Impoundments: Risks, Responses, and Alternatives, August 15, 2003. 5) AVS website at http://www.osmre.gov/. 6) FY 2006 Technical Training Catalog.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: OSM is audited annually by an independent firm on all of its spending and programs. In addition, there have been past IG audits of the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System and Evaluation of Regulatory Programs that included Tennessee. Further, OSM conducts Internal Departmental Control Reviews, Alternative Internal Control Reviews, and audits under the auspices of OMB's A-123 guidance and the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act. Reviews of OSM's Certification and Accreditation of information technology systems, which includes its financial system containing grants data, are conducted by third party contractors on a recurring basis. Also see response to question 2.6 for more details on regular reviews conducted.

Evidence: Evaluations of programs are illustrated in: 1) OSM Budget Justifications and Performance Information for FY 2006 and 2007. 2) Program accomplishments reported in OSM's 2005 Annual Report. 3) The DOI Office of the Inspector General issued an Evaluation Report on State Operated Coal Regulatory Programs in October 2004. That report focused on the adequacy of inspection and bond release activities and potential regulatory program cost savings related to GPRA measures. 4) Annual Independent Auditors' Reports for OSM are contracted by DOI's Inspector General Office to KPMG LLP an independent certified public accounting firm. 5) In the FY 2005 appropriations bill, Congress directed OSM to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a coal study. That report is due for completion in FY 2007.

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: As shown in the agency annual reports, OSM continues to make progress in encouraging the surface coal mining industry to avoid and reduce the incidence of off-site impacts and to reclaim affected land. Likewise, the statistics show the progress being made on AML reclamation, including those made by watershed organizations.

Evidence: 1) OSM Budget Justifications and Performance Information for FY 2006 and 2007 show trend data for accomplishments. 2) Program accomplishments reported in OSM's 2005 Annual Report. 3) Annual Independent Auditors' Reports for OSM (Contracted by DOI Inspector General Office to KPMG, LLP, an independent certified public accounting firm), 2005.