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

Continue to work with States and Tribes to implement the SMCRA Amendments of 2006.

Continue to review baseline data and targets for performance measures.

Develop long-term measures that are more outcomes oriented and develop at least one efficiency measure.

Extend the coal fee, which expires on September 30, 2004, to fund the remaining work.

Propose legislative changes to the program's authorization to increase the rate of pre-1977 abandoned coal mine land reclaimed.

Measure: Beginning in FY 2008, eliminate 52,200 acres of AML hazards by end of FY 2012

Explanation:This measure is a long-term outcome measure that shows progress towards OSM's goal to promote reclamation of mined areas left without adequate reclamation prior to the enactment of SMCRA. The targets and actuals for FY 2003-2007 are cumulative totals. In FY 2008, OSM will establish a new base to correspond with the PART review.

Measure: Beginning in FY 2008, reduce the exposure potential to safety risks from abandoned mine lands for 1.2 million people by the end of FY 2012

Explanation:This measure is a long-term outcome measure that shows the impact that reclamation has on the welfare of the public. The targets and actuals for FY 2004-2007 are cumulative totals. In FY 2008, OSM will establish a new base to correspond with the PART review.

Measure: Number of Federal, private and tribal land and surface water acres reclaimed or mitigated from the effects of natural resource degradation from past mining

Explanation:Reclamation problems can involve 17 different types of hazards using five different types of hazards using five different units of measure: miles, acres, feet, counts and gallons per minute. For GPRA purposes, all reclamation efforts are converted to "acres reclaimed" based on standardized conversion factors. Targets are based on trend data. It takes 2-3 years for projects to be completed and data reported. Data is reviewed for adjustments when needed. For example, the targets for FY 2010-2012 considered increases in funding due to the SMCRA Amendments of 2006.

Measure: Number of people with reduced exposure potential to safety risks from abandoned mine lands

Explanation:Measure relates census data with project completions to show the number of people affected within 1 mile of completed projects. Actuals may vary from the targets due to the proximity of sites reclaimed to recreational areas. Targets are based on census data, but through an agreement with the States, OSM allows States to enter data for projects where the census data does not adequately reflect the number of people with reduced exposure. For instance, a reclamation project near a national park, recreation area, or other area widely used by the general public, will reduce the exposure potential to both residents and visitors.

Measure: Percentage of declared emergencies abated within six months

Explanation:This measures the program's success in quickly abating emergency situations. Emergencies, such as subsidence, that are not abated within a reasonable timeframe may cause further harm to people, land, and the environment, thus making reclamation more costly.

Measure: Provide appropriate grant funding within 60 days of a complete grant application

Explanation:OSM's established policy is to process and obligate funds within 60 calendar days of receipt of the grant application by OSM. This measure demonstrates OSM's ability to provide grant funding to States and Tribes in a timely manner, thus facilitating the reclamation of mined areas left without adequate reclamation prior to the enactment of SMCRA. The Federal Assistance Manual is the official location of policies and procedures for management and administration of OSM's financial assistance program.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Yes, the purpose of the Abandoned Mine Land program is clear. The purpose is to promote the reclamation of mined areas left without adequate reclamation prior to the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) in 1977. Left unreclaimed, these areas continue to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, prevent or damage the beneficial use of land or water resources, or endanger the health or safety of the public.

Evidence: 1) The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) at sections 101(h) and 102(h) contains the purpose of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201, 1202); 2) SMCRA, as amended, Title IV- Abandoned Mine Reclamation, contains the authorities granted for fee collection and grants to States and Tribes (30 U.S.C. 1231), http://www.osmre.gov/osmaml/smcra122006L.pdf; 3) DOI GPRA Strategic Plan FY 2007-2012, pp. 21, states that one of OSM's primary goals is to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of coal mining operations, http://www.doi.gov/ppp/Strategic%20Plan%20FY07-12/strat_plan_fy2007_2012.doc; 4) Declaration of Shared Commitment, page 2 (II-B). The National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs [representing the 23 States and 3 Tribes with approved abandoned mine land (AML)] programs and OSM established in 1995 a "Declaration of Shared Commitment," which is still in effect. This vision statement explains the partnership role of the Federal, State, and Tribal governments in implementing the program.

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

Explanation: Yes, the Abandoned Mine Land program addresses a specific and existing problem. This program addresses the environmental, health and safety hazards created by past coal mining practices, which were recognized by Congress when it passed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) in 1977. The hazards addressed by the AML program still exist. There are nearly 5,200 coal-related abandoned mine sites that have yet to be fully reclaimed, amounting to an estimated $3.0 billion worth of health and safety problems and more than $2.0 billion of general welfare, environmental and non-coal problems.

Evidence: 1) The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) at sections 101(h) and 102(h) contains the purpose of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201, 1202); 2) SMCRA, as amended, pp. 3-4, Title IV- Abandoned Mine Reclamation, contains the authorities granted for fee collection and grants to States and Tribes (30 U.S.C. 1231), http://www.osmre.gov/osmaml/smcra122006L.pdf; 3) AMLIS Report - Site Status Detail - National Area Report (3/13/2007), pp. 2. OSM's Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS) contains information (cost, problem type, units, location, etc.) for the 5,150 known listed sites containing remaining cost-related health and safety hazards.

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

Explanation: Yes, the Abandoned Mine Land program is designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort. Congress designated OSM as the sole Federal authority responsible for addressing health, safety, and environmental problems posed by past surface coal mining operations on state and private lands. OSM collaborates with States and Tribes to develop their AML programs, and also provides funding, technical assistance, and oversight to ensure that qualified lands are reclaimed. Other Federal agencies also conduct AML reclamation, but they typically pertain to non-coal-related mines on public lands. For example, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have programs that primarily eliminate the effects of past hardrock mining (rather than coal mining). Additionally, the National Park Service (NPS) reclaims abandoned hardrock, coal, and sand and gravel mines and pits on NPS lands (rather than state and private lands). None of these agencies programs are usually involved in the health, safety, and environmental problems posed by surface coal mining operations.

Evidence: 1) SMCRA, as amended, Title IV at sec. 401-405, outline the AML Fund and its purposes, objectives of the Fund, establishment of a reclamation fee, eligible lands and waters, and the establishment of AML state programs. Section 407 outlines acquisition and reclamation of land adversely affected by past coal mining practices. http://www.osmre.gov/osmaml/smcra122006L.pdf; 2) OSM Directive AML-22, "Evaluation of State and Tribal Abandoned Mine Land Programs," pp. 10. Performance agreements between OSM and States and Tribes developed to ensure agreement on performance measures and goals. http://www.osmre.gov/directives/directive840.pdf.

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

Explanation: No. The FY 2002 PART results recommended that legislation be proposed to (1) increase the rate of pre-1977 abandoned coal mine lands reclaimed (i.e., increase funding to States with high priority coal problems) and (2) extend the coal reclamation fee. In December 2006, Congress passed the SMCRA Amendments of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) to address these two issues, among other things. The amendments modified the AML grant allocation formula so that approximately 83% of coal reclamation fee collections will now be available annually for States with remaining high-priority coal problems. The amendments also extended the coal reclamation fee through 2021, which OSM estimates is long enough to complete the current level of remaining high-priority reclamation work. However, SMCRA, as amended, still contains provisions that provide funding to States and Tribes who have already completed their coal reclamation work, and other entities, for purposes that are not directly related to AML reclamation. OSM currently estimates that $3 billion worth of AML health and safety hazards remain un-reclaimed. Under the current program design (and according to current funding estimates), it may require more than $6 billion to fully address these hazards. OSM's high-priority reclamation work could be completed without the expenditures that are not directly related to reclamation.

Evidence: 1) "PL 109-432, SMCRA Amendments of 2006: Hypothetical Future Funding Projects" spreadsheet from OSM dated 3/23/2007 provides program estimates under the new SMCRA Amendments for all items except the UMWA payments and the discretionary Federal Share. Those estimates are provided by OMB. 2) OSM's FY 2005 Annual Report, page 6 mentions that approximately $3 billion worth of AML health and safety hazards remain unreclaimed. 3) 30 USC 1232(h), as amended by the SMCRA Amendments of 2006 (PL 109-432)

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

Explanation: Yes, the AML program design is effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose (which is to promote AML reclamation, see Question 1.1) and will reach intended beneficiaries. Resources for high-priority reclamation projects are derived through a nationwide reclamation fee collection. The recently enacted SMCRA Amendments of 2006 revise the manner in which those reclamation fees are allocated to eligible States and Tribes. Beginning in FY 2008, approximately eighty-three percent of the reclamation fees coming into the AML Fund will be allocated as grants to eligible States and Tribe's to complete their high-priority reclamation projects. Furthermore, an eligible State or Tribe's coal production history is considered in making the allocations. States and Tribes that mined the most coal prior to the passage of SMCRA in 1977 (and typically have more abandoned mine lands than others) receive additional funds, thereby targeting funds to areas with the greatest needs.

Evidence: 1) SMCRA at sec. 401(f)(3), as amended, http://www.osmre.gov/osmaml/smcra122006L.pdf

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: Yes, the AML program has a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program. One goal of the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Program is the elimination of health and safety hazards brought about by past coal mining practices. OSM has two long-term performance measures addressing this goal: (1) eliminate 52,200 acres of AML hazards by end of FY 2012; and (2) reduce the exposure potential to safety risks from abandoned mine lands for 1.2 million people by the end of FY 2012. The first measure shows long-term performance results for the number of AML hazard acres reclaimed. The second measure shows the outcome that reclaimed land and water has on the lives of people living near (or are otherwise affected by) AML hazards. By reclaiming lands affected by past coal mining practices, OSM reduces potential exposure to these hazards. States and Tribes collaborated with OSM in the development of both measures and report data for both measures through the Abandoned Mine Lands Inventory System (AMLIS).

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Table - FY 2008 OSM Budget Justification, pp. 29-35, identifies performance measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes, http://www.osmre.gov/budget/fy08budgjust.pdf; 2) DOI GPRA Strategic Plan FY 2007-2012, pp. 34, shows that the annual measure comprising the long-term measure, eliminate 52,200 acres of AML hazards by end of FY 2012, is a GPRA measure, http://www.doi.gov/ppp/Strategic%20Plan%20FY07-12/strat_plan_fy2007_2012.doc

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

Explanation: Yes, the AML program has ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures. The long-term targets are based on trend data and anticipated funding, and are the best indicators available. Due to the nature of reclamation and construction contracts, there is a two to three year lag between when a project is funded and when it is completed and the reclaimed acres are reported. Based on funding over the previous years, the cumulative target for acres reclaimed is estimated at 52,200. This target has been adjusted upward to include the increase in funding that eligible States and Tribes will receive per the recent SMCRA Amendments of 2006. Similarly, based on previous funding, the cumulative target for the number of people with reduced exposure potential is estimated at 1.2 million. This target has also been adjusted upward per the recent SMCRA Amendments of 2006. OSM anticipates reclaiming more acres annually in subsequent years, thus there will be a greater impact on the reduction of hazards to the public, health, safety and property. These targets are ambitious based on prior accomplishments.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Table - FY 2008 OSM Budget Justification, pp. 29-35, identifies annual measures that are used to report cumulative accomplishments, http://www.osmre.gov/budget/fy08budgjust.pdf; 2) SMCRA at sec. 401(f), as amended, http://www.osmre.gov/osmaml/smcra122006L.pdf; 3) Internal OSM analysis to determine targets for long-term cumulative measures; 4) DOI GPRA Strategic Plan FY 2007-2012, pp. 34, shows that the output measure comprising the long-term measure is a GPRA measure, http://www.doi.gov/ppp/Strategic%20Plan%20FY07-12/strat_plan_fy2007_2012.doc

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: Yes, the AML Program has a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving its long-term goals. The program includes the following annual performance measures: (1) Number of Federal, private and tribal land and surface water acres reclaimed or mitigated from the effects of natural resource degradation from past mining. This measure demonstrates progress towards OSM's long-term (outcome) goal of eliminating 52,200 acres of AML hazards by end of FY 2012; (2) Number of people with reduced exposure potential to safety risks from abandoned mine lands. This measure reports the outcome that reclamation has on people living near (or are otherwise affected by) AML hazards. It demonstrates progress towards OSM's long-term (outcome) goal of reducing the exposure potential to safety risks from abandoned mine lands for 1.2 million people by the end of FY 2012; (3) Percentage of declared emergencies abated within six months. This measure demonstrates the efficiency, with respect to time, with which emergencies are addressed and abated; and (4) Provide appropriate grant funding within 60 days of a complete grant application. The measure ensures that funding is provided in a timely manner consistent with current laws.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Table - FY 2008 OSM Budget Justification, pp. 29-35, identifies annual performance measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes, http://www.osmre.gov/budget/fy08budgjust.pdf; 2) DOI GPRA Strategic Plan FY 2007-2012, pp. 34, shows that measure 1 (above) is a GPRA measure, http://www.doi.gov/ppp/Strategic%20Plan%20FY07-12/strat_plan_fy2007_2012.doc

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

Explanation: Yes, the AML program has baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures. The targets are based on trend data and anticipated funding, and are the best indicators available. Based on funding over the previous years, the annual target for the number of Federal, private and tribal land and surface water acres reclaimed or mitigated from the effects of natural resource degradation from past mining is estimated at 6,900 for FY 08-09. By FY10, we anticipate the acreage reclaimed to increase due to the increase in funding under the SMCRA Amendments of 2006. The annual target for the number of people with reduced exposure potential to safety risks from reclamation of abandoned mine lands is estimated at 160,000. Annual targets for these measures will increase in subsequent years to reflect the SMCRA Amendments of 2006. For the number of people with reduced exposure potential, the States and Tribes have the option of reporting higher numbers than the census data for those reclaimed areas. OSM has found that the census totals provide better baseline data and therefore uses census data for its targets. OSM also has two efficiency measures for this program that will be reported on an annual basis. These include 1) the percentage of declared emergencies abated within six months and 2) the provision of appropriate grant funding within 60 days of a complete grant application. During the next 5 years, OSM will review trend data and targets for all annual measures and make revisions as necessary.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Table - FY 2008 OSM Budget Justification, pp. 29-35, identifies annual performance measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes, http://www.osmre.gov/budget/fy08budgjust.pdf; 2) SMCRA at sec. 401(f), as amended, http://www.osmre.gov/osmaml/smcra122006L.pdf; 3) Internal OSM analysis to determine targets for annual measures; 4) DOI GPRA Strategic Plan FY 2007-2012, pp. 34, shows that OSM has had ambitious long-term targets for the measure calculating acres reclaimed. Since the Strategic Plan was published prior to the passage of the SMCRA Amendments, the long-term target that appears in the plan will be updated. http://www.doi.gov/ppp/Strategic%20Plan%20FY07-12/strat_plan_fy2007_2012.doc

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: Yes, all partners commit to and work toward the annual and long-term goals of the AML program. OSM policy requires that grantees and OSM field representatives meet at least annually to discuss planning and oversight for upcoming years and document those plans. Mutually agreed plans for the upcoming year are developed and finalized in a written Performance Agreement between the individual reclamation program and OSM. The performance agreement specifies what oversight reviews will be conducted and how the performance of the State's or Tribe's program will be measured. The agreements focus on on-the-ground reclamation success rather than process. The joint oversight plan and performance provides a forum for both OSM and the States and Tribes to evaluate how the individual program can contribute to achieving the overall program goals and what needs to be done in the upcoming year to enhance meeting the overall goals. The meetings, plans and reviews are documented in the OSM State Annual Reports. In addition, OSM, States and Tribes have agreed to and are operating so that States and Tribes enter project and other performance data directly into AMLIS. States and Tribes are committed to starting reclamation and reporting results in a timely manner once they complete projects. OSM has welcomed State and Tribe input while developing new measures. In establishing the measure for the number of people with reduced exposure potential, a State is permitted to provide its own data for sites where the impact of the reclamation may affect more people than generated by the census calculation. This provision allows States and Tribes to account for the impacts that reclamation may have on tourists or seasonal residents.

Evidence: 1) OSM Directive AML-22, "Evaluation of State and Tribal Abandoned Mine Land Programs," pp. 10, http://www.osmre.gov/directives/directive840.pdf; 2) Examples of Evaluation Year 2006 State & Tribal Annual AML Reports, Ohio: pp. 4, 6, 9-10, Utah: pp. 5-III, 7-IV; 3) Sample of Single Audit - Kentucky; 4) OSM Directive AML-1 (Aug. 28, 2000) and Change Notice, Chapter 2, details OSM's policy and procedures for preparation of problem area descriptions and their entry into AMLIS, http://www.osmre.gov/directives/directive892.pdf; 5) "How do I - Enter Performance Measure Information?" - AMLIS Document, 11/28/2006, pp. 7, gives instructions to States and Tribes about entering supplemental information for the number of people with reduced exposure potential, http://192.243.130.34/Amldocs/HOW%20DO%20I%20ENTER%20PERFORMANCE%20MEASURE%20INFORMATION.DOC

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: Audits have been conducted by the Inspector General's office and the General Accounting Office in previous years, but these tended to focus on specific processes rather than overall program performance.

Evidence:

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: Yes, budget requests are explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and the resource needs are presented in a complete and transparent manner in the AML program's budget. OSM's budget requests have integrated planning and performance since FY 2003. OSM presents accomplishments, goals and measures in its Environmental Restoration business line discussions which outline State Program accomplishments and plans in support of its budget requests. OSM's performance measures account for all cost data, both direct and indirect costs, associated with the measures. Measures are presented under each of OSM's Business Lines in its Budget Justification. The mandatory funding provided to non-certified States and Tribes (i.e., those with remaining priority 1 and 2 coal problems) will also be included as part of the costs associated with reclaiming those lands.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Table - FY 2008 OSM Budget Justification, pp. 29-35, lists program accomplishments, http://www.osmre.gov/budget/fy08budgjust.pdf; 2) FY 2008 Budget Justification (pp. 49-50, 60, 146-152) presents OSM's request for State and Tribal funding, http://www.osmre.gov/budget/fy08budgjust.pdf; 3) Internal OSM Analysis to Determine Targets for Long-Term and Annual Measures

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

Explanation: Yes, the AML program has taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies. Responding to PART recommendations from the review conducted for the FY 2004 budget process, OSM, States and Tribes developed additional performance measures to report on program accomplishments. We gathered data from States and Tribes and first reported on those measures in FY 2004. Baseline data has been refined over the past several years. During this PART review and the review of DOI's Strategic Plan for FY 2007-2012, OSM reviewed its AML program measures, updated targets, and reduced the number of measures. OSM will continue to revise targets as it implements the SMCRA Amendments of 2006.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Table - FY 2008 OSM Budget Justification, pp. 29-35, explains changes, and potential changes, in the AML program performance measures, http://www.osmre.gov/budget/fy08budgjust.pdf; 2) FY 2007 Budget Justification (pp. 37-44, 50) shows how OSM addressed previous PART recommendations, http://www.osmre.gov/pdf/final_osm_budget_justification_greenbook_february_%2015_2006.pdf; 3) FY 2006 Budget Justification (pp. 41, 64) shows how OSM addressed previous PART recommendations concerning outcome and efficiency measures, http://www.osmre.gov/greenbook06.htm

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: Yes, OSM regularly collects timely and credible performance information and uses it to manage the AML program and improve performance. Grantees regularly report on the status of their programs through the grant reporting process and provide input into the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS) prior to commencing a project and upon completion of a project. Information gathered is prepared on a Problem Area Determination (PAD) Form (OSM-76), entered into AMLIS and is used to determine program accomplishments, changes in priority, new problem areas and the overall status of the program for funding purposes. In addition to an annual evaluation, quarterly evaluations are also conducted. States and Tribes must have sufficient priority coal problems to justify a grant distribution.

Evidence: 1) AMLIS input as required by OSM Directive AML-1 (Aug. 28, 2000) and Change Notice, Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System, Chapter 2, Problem Area Description Forms (PAD)-OSM 76, http://www.osmre.gov/directives/directive896.pdf; 2) Grant Findings and Recommendations; 3) Grant Agreement Monitoring Statements; 4) Examples of Evaluation Year 2006 State & Tribal Annual AML Reports, Ohio: pp. 9-10, Utah: pp. 4-IV.

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: Yes, Federal managers and program partners are held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results. On an annual basis managers are held accountable for the following: effective performance management, internal management controls, cost and management issues and taking actions as appropriate. Federal managers are also responsible for conducting an annual internal control review of 25 percent of OSM's financial assistance programs as well as periodic reviews specific to OSM's grants program. Action items resulting from these reviews are documented and tracked to ensure that identified deficiencies are corrected. OSM and its grantees, in a partnership effort, determine the performance goals in a published Annual Performance Agreement. Oversight and on-site reviews are conducted to ensure that goals are being met. OSM has procedures in place to rescind grant funds whenever they are not properly used. To comply with the new SMCRA Amendments of 2006, OSM is reviewing its current procedures to ensure that timely and efficient use of funding continues.

Evidence: 1) OSM Directive AML-22, pp. 10, Evaluation of State and Tribal Programs http://www.osmre.gov/directives/directive840.pdf; 2) Grant Agreement Monitoring Statements; 3) SMCRA at sec. 401(f), as amended, http://www.osmre.gov/osmaml/smcra122006L.pdf.

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

Explanation: Yes, funds are obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported. Most grantees (24 out of 26) have mechanisms in place to obligate funds in a timely manner. This is evidenced by the lack of audit findings relating to financial management practices. Procedures are in place for reporting expenditures and comparing actual to planned accomplishments. For example, in FY 2006, $174.282 million was obligated and about 8 percent ($15.29 mil) was carried over for that year.

Evidence: 1) OSM's Federal Assistance Manual, Chapter 5-60A, AML Program-Performance and Financial Reporting; 2) FY 2008 OSM Budget Justification, pp. 171, http://www.osmre.gov/budget/fy08budgjust.pdf; 3) Source of Funds for State and Tribal Grants (AML-Fund 70, 2G)

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: Yes, OSM has procedures in place to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. The procedures include: 1) The AML Enhancement Rule- The rule leverages limited AML funds with outside sources. It provided the OSM with an innovative way for AML agencies, working with contractors, to maximize available funds to increase reclamation. This has always been a primary goal for OSM. 2) The Federal Assistance Manual (FAM) - Sets forth responsibilities for the Administration of Grants and Cooperative Agreements. It outlines the requirements for grant monitoring to assure that the terms, condition, and scope of the grant are being met. 3) AMLIS Manual - Policy and procedures for preparation of Problem Area Descriptions (PAD's) and their entry into the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System. AMLIS contains information on cost, problem type, units, location, completions, etc., This information facilitates effective decision making, determines the cost effectiveness of projects, determines project efficiency, as well as future grant funding.

Evidence: 1) AML Enhancement Rule, 30 C.F.R. 707, 874 (Feb. 12, 1999); 2) Federal Assistance Manual (FAM) at Ch. 5-10A, http://www.osmre.gov/fam/default.htm; 3) OSM Directive AML-1 (Aug. 28, 2000) and Change Notice, pp. 4, details OSM's policy and procedures for preparation of problem area descriptions and their entry into AMLIS, http://www.osmre.gov/directives/directive892.pdf; 4) Goal Performance Table - FY 2008 OSM Budget Justification, pp. 29-35, published in the FY 2008 Budget Justification, identifies efficiency measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes, http://www.osmre.gov/budget/fy08budgjust.pdf; 5) SMCRA, as amended, pp. 3-4, http://www.osmre.gov/osmaml/smcra122006L.pdf; 6) Internal OSM analysis to determine targets for annual measures.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The AML program is the only federal program designed to promote the reclamation of coal mined areas left without adequate reclamation prior to the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) in 1977.

Evidence:

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Yes, the AML program uses strong financial management practices. OSM's Division of Financial Management has received clean audit reports for the past 16 years and has established internal control procedures for proper and timely payments. Detection of erroneous payments is part of OSM's program management function carried out by grants specialists through on-site reviews.

Evidence: 1) OSM 2005 Annual Report (pp. 54). OSM's annual financial audit results which are reprinted in OSM's Annual Report. According to OSM's Division of Financial Management, the erroneous payment rate is not tracked because this figure is insignificant. This has not been an OIG audit issue. http://www.osmre.gov/annualreports/05SMCRA5AdminFinance.pdf (pp. 3). 2) Grant Findings and Recommendations; 3) Grant Agreement Monitoring Statements; 4) Sample of Single Audit - Kentucky.

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

Explanation: Yes, OSM has taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies. OSM's review of AML Programs was changed in 1995 to evaluate performance rather than process. OSM meets annually with each State or Tribe to discuss areas of concern and enters into formal written agreements to address management concerns. The agreements address the areas to be reviewed and establish applicable performance measures. Programs are reviewed every year to determine the progress being made. In addition, OSM reviews issues raised in "Single Audits", contracted by States and Tribes to audit all Federally assisted operations, and works with other Federal agencies to resolve findings.

Evidence: 1) OSM Directive AML-22, Evaluation of State and Tribal Programs, pp. 10, http://www.osmre.gov/directives/directive840.pdf; 2) Examples of Evaluation Year 2006 State & Tribal Annual AML Reports, Ohio: pp. 24-25, Utah: pp. 4-IV.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Yes, the Annual Performance Agreement for each grantee is the basis of oversight. The Agreement includes on-site reviews, reviews of expenditures, and program and performance reviews. OSM annually conducts 1-2 reviews per grantee, focusing on internal controls and management of the program. Oversight, reviews and monitoring are generally performed by program specialists and grants financial specialists located in OSM field and regional offices. Specialists usually work with the same grantees for many years, and use their expertise and familiarity with the particular State or Tribe and AML program to target their oversight and technical assistance to areas of concern.

Evidence: 1) Grant Findings and Recommendations

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Yes, OSM collects, compiles and disseminates grantee performance information through the OSM Annual Report. This report is distributed in hard copy and is available on OSM's Website.

Evidence: 1) OSM 2005 Annual Report (pp. 11), http://www.osmre.gov/annualreports/05SMCRA2AbandMineLandReclam.pdf, (pp. 6)

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

Explanation: Yes, the AML program has demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals. The long-term performance measures and targets were developed by OSM using performance and funding data from 2004-2006, and hypothetical distributions from 2007-2016. OSM determined that the measures (1) eliminate 52,200 acres of AML hazards by the end of 2012 and (2) reduce the exposure potential to safety risks from abandoned mine lands for 1.2 million people by the end of FY 2012, are most appropriate considering the diversity of current coal mining activity and historical AML hazards across states and regions. Prior to this PART, OSM demonstrated progress in achieving its long-term performance goals by exceeding its targets for the measure. In addition, because of its cooperation with States and Tribes, OSM was able to report actual data, rather than preliminary numbers. States and Tribes enter information so that OSM may report annual actual data in a timely manner. Because of OSM's success in this area, OSM updated targets for its long-term measure for acres reclaimed. In addition, OSM added a long-term measure and targets for the number of people with reduced exposure potential, thus emphasizing its commitment to serving communities. Due to the SMCRA Amendments, OSM expects to eliminate more acres of AML hazards and reduce the exposure potential to safety risks above and beyond the targets for previous years. Individual State data is available to address unexpected results in meeting target goals.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Table - FY 2008 OSM Budget Justification, pp. 29-34, identifies current and new performance measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes, http://www.osmre.gov/budget/fy08budgjust.pdf

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

Explanation: Yes, in FY 2006, OSM achieved its annual performance goals. The combined results for all States and Tribes are contained in the goal performance table in the FY 2008 Budget Justification. In addition, individual State and Tribal program partners report results of acres reclaimed in annual reports and enter results into AMLIS. Furthermore, OSM and its program partners establish annual performance agreements. The annual performance agreements outline shared responsibility for achieving the goals of the program.

Evidence: 1) Goal Performance Table - FY 2008 OSM Budget Justification, pp. 29-34, identifies current and new performance measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes, http://www.osmre.gov/budget/fy08budgjust.pdf; 2) Examples of Evaluation Year 2006 Performance Agreements, AR: pp. 7-10, KY: pp. 3-10. EY 2006 Performance Agreement between OSM and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality shows the ways in which OSM and Arkansas cooperate (pp. 7-10). The EY 2006 Performance Agreement between OSM and the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources shows how the Kentucky DNR assists OSM, particularly with AMLIS maintenance and through initiatives that encourage reclamation (pp. 3-10). 3) Examples of Evaluation Year 2006 State & Tribal Annual AML Reports, Ohio: pp. 10, Utah: pp. 4-5.

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

Explanation: Yes, the AML program demonstrates improves efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year. The AML Enhancement Rule leverages limited AML funds with outside sources. It provides OSM with an innovative way to allow AML State agencies, working with contractors, to maximize available funds to increase reclamation. This has always been a primary goal for OSM. As of September 2005, the States completed 14 projects under this rule. The estimated cost of reclamation was $2.5 million but the cost to the State programs was approximately $0.6 million. Therefore, reclamation was achieved for $1.9 million less than projected. In 2006, the States completed 36 projects under this rule. The estimated cost of reclamation was $3.9 million but the cost to the State programs was approximately $0.7 million. Therefore, reclamation was achieved for $3.2 million less than projected. Between September 2005 and 2006 the States completed projects increased by 22 over the previous year and the reclamation was achieved for $1.3 million less. This was possible because the rule allows contractors to retain coal mined during reclamation which encourages contractors to give substantially lower bids and enables OSM, through the States, to accomplish reclamation goals at a significantly reduced cost. In FY 2006 the AML program achieved all targets for its performance measures including the efficiency measure, percentage of declared emergencies abated within six months. For the latter measure, OSM will also review how the amended SMCRA law will affect the measure's baselines. Trend data will be reviewed in FY 2008 for future revisions to the target. Since the measure, provide appropriate grant funding within 60 days of a complete grant application, is newly developed, OSM will reassess the target to determine if a revision is needed as new data is collected.

Evidence: 1) AMLIS Report - Cost Detail by Problem Area Number; 2) AML Enhancement Rule, 30 C.F.R. 707, 874 (Feb. 12, 1999); 3) Goal Performance Table - FY 2008 OSM Budget Justification, pp. 29-34, identifies current and new performance measures, targets and accomplishments, and explanations of any changes, http://www.osmre.gov/budget/fy08budgjust.pdf.

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

Explanation: The only other program established to address health, safety, and environmental problems posed by surfacing mining operations was the Rural Abandoned Mine Land Program (RAMP). The program, administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service under the US Department of Agriculture, was primarily aimed at addressing these problems in rural areas. Appropriations for RAMP ceased in 1995.

Evidence: 1) Abandoned Mine Land Program Overview, pg. 3-4 (RAMP)

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

Explanation: While evaluations done on individual programs are favorable, independent evaluations focusing on the overall effectiveness of the AML program have not been recently conducted.

Evidence: