Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Land Management - Mining Law Administration Assessment

Work with Congress to update the Mining Law, including the authorization of production payments and administrative penalties.

Develop new performance measures to assess whether the program is meeting its goals, including those related to timely permit processing, mine reclamation, and environmental compliance.

Update and link data collection systems to ensure the program has the information it needs to track operator performance and ensure the program is meeting its outcome goals.

Measure: Average time for review and approval of locatable minerals plans of operations

Explanation:

Measure: Percent of incidents of non-compliance corrected within 30 days of notice

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: "The Mining Law Administration Program (MLAP) is responsible for providing access to and managing the environmentally responsible exploration and development of locatable minerals available on public lands under the General Mining Law of 1872 ("the Mining Law") and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). As part of the program, the BLM determines the validity of unpatented mining claims; prepares mineral patents for review by the Secretary of the Interior; initiates mineral contest actions; enforces surface management and environmental requirements; enforces bonding requirements to assure that proper reclamation occurs after a site has been mined; receives recordation of new mining claim locations; collects mining claim location and annual maintenance fees; and processes small miner waiver documents. The Mining Law grants free access to individuals and corporations to prospect for minerals on open public domain lands, and allows them, upon making a discovery, to stake (or ""locate"") a claim on the deposit. A valid claim entitles the holder to develop locatable minerals. The Mining Law applies to a limited set of "locatable" (often referred to as "hardrock") minerals such as gold, silver, and copper and to a defined set of federal lands. While the Law originally applied to all minerals, over time many minerals have been removed from the operation of the Mining Law and its free access principle. Production of energy minerals such as oil, gas, and coal on federal lands is now managed under the Mineral Leasing Act on 1920, while certain common materials such as sand and gravel are sold under the authority of the Mineral Materials Act of 1955. Over time, many federal lands have been "withdrawn" (i.e., removed) from the operation of the Mining Law and are no longer open to mineral entry under the Act. However, approximately 90% of BLM public lands remain open to mineral entry under the Act."

Evidence: "The General Mining Law of 1872 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended (P.L. 94-579; 43 U.S.C. Secs. 1714, 1732, and 1744) 43 CFR parts 3715, 3802, 3809, 3830-3864"

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

Explanation: The program provides access to valuable minerals on federal lands that otherwise would not be available for use. This is particularly important for certain precious metals (e.g., gold) and other minerals where a large portion of the nation's known economic deposits may exist on federal lands. Many minerals are predominately produced in the Western United States, where federal lands represent a significant subset of all lands.

Evidence: "USGS Mineral Commodities Summaries and Maps (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/; http://mrdata.usgs.gov) Public Land Statistics FY 2004, Notices and Plans of Operations filed with BLM for fiscal years 1997 through 2004 (Table 3-23) Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2001 "3809" surface management regulations"

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

Explanation: "BLM retains primary responsibility for authorizing and managing mining activities on BLM public lands and, in limited cases, for split-estate lands where the federal government owns the subsurface minerals. The nature of land ownership patterns in the West creates inherent challenges in efficiently managing subsurface mineral development. However, BLM has established clear guidelines for when the agency will be involved in permitting mining operations and when operations are to be regulated by State authorities. Surface management aspects of the MLAP and some units of state government have similar information requirements based on their respective enabling legislation and regulations, such as plans of operation and financial guarantee requirements. Where appropriate, BLM and the states can enter into formal agreements to create joint programs to reduce administrative overlaps."

Evidence: "FLPMA Regulations at 43 CFR 3809.200 provide for Federal-state agreements to reduce duplication. BLM Instruction Memorandum clarifying policy on split estate lands (2005-114???) Current agreements under the revised regulations AK (CA w/DNR, 2003); CO (MOU w/CDMG, 2002); NV (MOU w/NDEP, 2002); WY(MOU w/DEQ, 2003)"

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

Explanation: The program suffers from several deficiencies relating to its original enabling legislation, the General Mining Law of 1872. Many aspects of the original Mining Law remain in place, some of which remain problematic. Among these issues, some are being managed under temporary authorities. For example, a moratorium on conveying (i.e., "patenting") surface lands to mining claim holders must be renewed annually through appropriations. Prior to a congressional moratorium imposed on patenting on September 30, 1994, the BLM incurred costs in the program due to surface "patent" provisions in the Mining Law that often required burdensome adjudication of patent applications to ensure that claimants proved the existence of valuable mineral deposits before a patent could be issued. Similarly, Congress enacted a mining "claim maintenance" fee in 1993 to help defray BLM program management costs, to replace the annual assessment work requirement, but it is not permanent. Additionally, the Administration would like to see authorization of some form of production payment system and authorization of administrative penalties.

Evidence: General Mining Act of 1872, Ch. 152, 17 Stat. 91, §§1-16. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. 43 CFR subpart 3809, relating to Surface Management. 43 CFR subpart 3715, relating to Use and Occupancy under the Mining Laws. Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Report: Hard Rock Mining Site Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management (No.92-I-636) March 1992. 43 U.S.C. 1474. 31 U.S.C. 9701. 43 U.S.C. 1734. Temporary authorities provided by various Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts (e.g., P.L. 108-108, Pg. 117 STAT. 1245 and P.L. 108-447, Sec. 307).

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

Explanation: Much of the regulatory portion of the program is effectively designed to ensure that exploration and production of locatable minerals occurs in an environmentally responsible manner. The agency has also instituted mining claim location and maintenance fees to replace a "make work" assessment requirement that unnecessarily encouraged the disturbance of natural resources and resulted in an unnecessary workload burden for BLM. However, the claim maintenance fees authorized by Congress are only temporary, and must be renewed periodically to avoid reverting back to the previous assessment system. BLM is also dealing with "legacy" costs in the program due to surface "patent" provisions in the Mining Law that often require burdensome reviews of patent applications. Lack of a production payment from federal hardrock minerals means that program beneficiaries are receiving benefits through avoided costs from not having to compensate the Treasury. While numbers of annual accomplishments or outputs might indicate that the program is effective, recent independent program reviews indicate that the agency can improve on methods to better measure and account for program accomplishments. This would be the first step in determining if some program processes are sufficiently standard to be measured and reengineered for improved efficiency. In 2001, the GAO examined the Mining Law Administration Program and determined that budget and resources were being obligated and utilized in programs and activities that did not directly support the mission and goals of the MLAP. Field offices were instructed to review past expenditures and ensure future expenditures were properly spent. Misdirected resources were restored to the program and subsequent expenditures of MLAP funds have been monitored through the agency's Management Information System (MIS).

Evidence: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701 and 1732. The Surface Resources Act of 1955, 30 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Temporary authorities provided by various Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts (e.g., P.L. 108-108, Pg. 117 STAT. 1245 and P.L. 108-447, Sec. 307). GAO Report 01-356: "Improper Charges Made to Mining Law Administration Program", March 2001. IM No. 2001-144, Change 2 (Instruction Memorandum from BLM to employees dated March 28, 2003 relating to MLAP charges). Public Land Statistics FY 1996-2004. 43 CFR subparts 3833 - 3864. BLM Form 3830-2. Website information (http:/www.nv.blm.gov.minerals/Forms/Index.htm)

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: "While the program has a clear set of objectives and a process for prioritizing activities, the agency lacks quality, outcome-focused performance measures for key components of the program. There are four basic goals of the program: (1) provide access to federal lands for mineral exploration; (2) provide for the timely permitting of mineral production operations; (3) ensure that production occurs in an environmentally responsible manner and does not create long-term environmental problems; and (4) ensure that operators reclaim sites upon termination of operations so that federal taxpayers are not left with these obligations. The first goal is largely accomplished through the Mining Law itself, which provides for free access to most BLM public lands (and other federal subsurface estate) for exploration. The program recently established two measures relating to the timely permitting of operations: (a) the average time to process a plan of operation and (b) the percent of plans processed. However, the program has no measures relating to the last two goals. These aspects of the program are critical given the significant potential for long-term environmental problems from mining operations (particularly those using heap leaching processes) and from incomplete reclamation of mine sites. DOI is working with OMB to identify long-term measures for these goals."

Evidence: FY 2006 BLM Congressional Justifications

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

Explanation: Program received a "No" on question 2.1 because existing measures are not adequate. However, quantifiable targets are being developed for the measures referenced in question 2.1. BLM recently established a system to improve tracking the status of plans of operation, so data quality and consistency for these two measures should improve.

Evidence: FY 2006 BLM Congressional Justifications

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: Annual performance measures will be developed to correspond to the long-term measures that are under development.

Evidence: FY 2006 BLM Congressional Justifications

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

Explanation: Specific annual targets and baseline data will be established for the measures that are under development.

Evidence: FY 2006 BLM Congressional Justifications

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: Program received a "No" on questions 2.1 and 2.3 because existing measures are not adequate. Because the program lacks good performance measures, partners do not recognize their contribution to the program's broader performance goals. However, specific program tasks are often completed through and with partners.

Evidence: N/A

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: "External evaluations have been conducted on various aspects of the Mining Law and the MLAP program in recent years, and many of the findings and recommendations either have been used to support program improvements or remain valid recommendations for future program changes. However, there is no established schedule for regular, independent reviews. Looking forward, the program could benefit from regular reviews, particularly with regard to measuring program effectiveness at meeting reclamation goals and preventing or minimizing long-term environmental impacts from mining (e.g., water quality issues) and the associated costs to taxpayers."

Evidence: "Instruction Memorandum 2001-069; O.I.G. Audit Report No. 96-I-1265 O.I.G. Audit Report No. 92-I-636; GAO Report RCED-90-111: "Unauthorized Activities Occurring on Hardrock Mining Claims", Aug. 1990. National Research Council Report: "Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands", 1999. GAO Draft Report 05-377: "BLM Needs to Better Manage Financial Assurances to Guarantee Coverage of Reclamation Costs", July XX, 2005 (???)."

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: While BLM does collect and report on certain workload measures, budget documents cannot be directly linked to performance because of the lack of adequate outcome-focused performance measures.

Evidence: "BLM FY 2006 Budget Justifications, project budget sheets. PTA analysis for FY 03 budget. Federal Register Vol. 69, No.126 / Thursday, July 1, 2004; Section 120 (a-c) 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Bill; IM2005-062"

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

Explanation: "BLM has taken some steps to improve data quality for two performance measures, but still needs to develop a broader suite of performance measures for the program. DOI will work with OMB to identify additional long-term and annual measures to better gauge the performance of the program in the future. The MLAP has developed new data standards for case file records in its Legacy Rehost 2000 (LR 2000) system to better track the length of time it takes for BLM to approve a plan of operations. This will assist BLM in identifying and solving problems in the review/approval process. BLM is also developing data standards for tracking the data and trends of mining-related occupancies (both authorized and unauthorized) on federal lands."

Evidence: "BLM Instruction Memorandum 2005-126 DOI Report to Congress in response to Section 120 of P.L. 108-447(118 Stat. 3065), June XX, 2005."

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: "Under FLPMA, BLM has a responsibility to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands. The regulations promulgated by the MLAP are necessary to ensure that exploration and development of locatable mineral deposits occurs in an environmentally responsible manner that protects the federal government's interest in these lands and balances mineral development with competing land uses. The current regulations are also necessary to effectively administer requirements of the Mining Law regarding the location of mining claims on federal land, the processing of patent applications, and the transfer title of public land to patent applicants if BLM confirms validity of a claim. Wherever possible, manuals and handbooks are used to clarify the purpose of regulations and provide consistency in application."

Evidence: MLAP Information Website (www.blm.gov/nhp/300/wo320/minlaw.htm) FLPMA 43 CFR parts 3715, 3800 BLM Manuals and Handbooks (MS 3060, MS 3800, MS 3070, MS 3895, H 3870-1, & H 3890-3)

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: "BLM's LR 2000 information system is the primary system that BLM uses to track claims, notices, plans of operation, and other program information. BLM's Management Information System (MIS) tracks the primary outputs and ties the accomplishments to expenses in administering each output. GAO recently identified significant problems with the information that BLM collects in LR 2000 regarding mining plans of operation, associated reclamation costs, and required financial assurances from operators. Specifically, GAO found that: (1) LR 2000 is not reliable because of insufficient management attention toward keeping the information in the system current, and (2) LR 2000 is not sufficient because it does not track some critical information regarding plans of operation, reclamation costs, and financial assurances."

Evidence: "MIS reports and LR 2000 data. GAO Draft Report 05-377: "BLM Needs to Better Manage Financial Assurances to Guarantee Coverage of Reclamation Costs", July XX, 2005 (???). Instruction Memorandum No. 2004-120 provided clarification to field offices to improve data quality in MIS and LR 2000 for the mining law program. 2005 AWP Directives "

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: BLM indicates that managers are held accountable through the personnel appraisal system, but that managers' appraisals are not yet linked to broader program goals or performance measures.

Evidence: None provided.

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

Explanation: Funds are obligated in accordance with the annual work plan, which lays out the proposed use of base funding and special project funding. In the last few years, the program has had a relatively high level (6%) of unobligated funds at year end primarily due to more restrictive policies on appropriate use of funds. This is a result in part from a 1999-2000 GAO audit which found that the MLAP budget had been used to fund the activities of other BLM programs. Those funds were returned to the MLAP for appropriate projects. Now that policies have been incorporated and funds have been redirected to priority work, BLM expects to have no more than 2% of funds remaining at year end in future years.

Evidence: "BLM Annual Work Plan (AWP); Planning Target Allocation (PTA); End of Year MIS Report. GAO Report 01-356: "Improper Charges Made to Mining Law Administration Program", March 2001."

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: Little evidence is available to suggest that the program has processes in place to measure efficiencies and cost effectiveness of the program. The program does not have any efficiency measures in place at this time.

Evidence: N/A

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: "BLM enters into a variety of agreements with state governments and with other federal agencies which have jurisdiction of and interest in the development and regulation of mineral development. States can choose to manage certain program activities (e.g., managing a bond pool for small miners) and BLM provides states with this flexibility so long as federal interests are protected. In addition, the program closely coordinates with other BLM programs to perform NEPA analyses and to insure compliance with surface management requirements. One example of coordination: BLM has co-hired a liaison position with the State of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (Nevada DEP) with the sole responsibility of helping process updates to operators' financial assurance requirements for mine reclamation. BLM is also exploring the feasibility of having the State of Nevada post a statewide bond funded by the state bond pool so that small miners can more easily acquire permits. If established, the state would agree to cover any reclamation costs in excess of amounts deposited in the fund by individual miners."

Evidence: Various State-level MOUs such as a Nevada MOU between BLM, Forest Service, and the Nevada DEP (July 2002) and a BLM-State of Alaska MOU on operation of a state bond pool (August 2003). BLM Legacy Rehost 2000 System Internal Service Level Agreement, July 2004.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: BLM has received seven consecutive unqualified audit opinions, of which the MLAP is a significant component. The availability of timely and accurate financial information made available to all employees through its MIS is an important factor. BLM has also met or exceeded its goals under the Prompt Payment Act and goals to reduce or eliminate erroneous payments. BLM has implemented recommendations from an earlier GAO review that identified some improper expenditures in the program. There are no current material weaknesses identified in the program.

Evidence: "BLM audited financial statements and consolidated balance sheets. BLM/State 3809 MOU/agreements. BLM Planning Target Allocation Cost Management Review. GAO Report 01-356: "Improper Charges Made to Mining Law Administration Program", March 2001."

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

Explanation: "While a number of problems still exist, BLM has taken significant steps over the last several years to address program management deficiencies. Most significantly, in 2001, BLM implemented new surface management regulations to address deficiencies in the regulatory framework for managing hardrock mining on public lands. In particular, requirements for operators to provide financial assurances (e.g., surety bonds) to cover reclamation costs and long-term groundwater monitoring and treatment needs were significantly strengthened. As GAO found, BLM still needs to improve its implementation of these requirements. BLM is making modifications to its LR 2000 system to improve the tracking of information related to financial assurances and recently issued program guidance to clarify standards for calculating and updating bonding estimates. In addition, BLM has implemented GAO recommendations to correct deficiencies that had previously led to the use of some program funds for other BLM activities. The agency is also in the process of implementing OIG recommendations regarding the processing of mineral patent applications. Addressing the program's strategic planning deficiencies will help identify new areas for management improvement."

Evidence: "BLM Instruction Memorandum 2004-047 National Research Council Report: "Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands", 1999. GAO Draft Report 05-377: "BLM Needs to Better Manage Financial Assurances to Guarantee Coverage of Reclamation Costs", July XX, 2005 (???); BLM Instruction Memorandum 2003-082 Change 1. GAO Report 01-356: "Improper Charges Made to Mining Law Administration Program", March 2001; BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2001-144, Change 2. OIG Report No. 01-I-356 titled Audit Report on Processing of Mineral Patent Applications."

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: BLM spent several years developing the 3809 Surface Management rulemaking amid substantial public, industry, and Congressional interest. The agency completed a full regulatory analysis. Per Congressional direction, the agency took steps to ensure that the final rule was generally consistent with the recommendations of the National Research Council. Based on continuing industry and Congressional interest in certain aspects of the rule, BLM revisited certain provisions of the final rule after it took effect in January 2001. The agency solicited additional public comments on the newly-proposed changes and addressed these comments in the publication of a new final rule in October 2001.

Evidence: Final Regulations: 43 CFR 3800--Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws; Surface Management (including preamble and response to public comments as published in November 2000 and October 2001).

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: BLM's review of its 3809 surface management regulations included all necessary regulatory analyses. BLM prepared a detailed regulatory impact analysis and benefit-cost analysis for the 3809 rule. BLM originally found that the new subpart 3809 regulations constituted a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under NEPA, and BLM prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed rule. In subsequent reconsideration of the rule, BLM decided to remove a provision that significantly added to the economic cost of the rule. Thus, BLM determined that the final 2001 regulation would not have significant annual impacts on the economy.

Evidence: "Final Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed 3809 regulations, February 1999. Final Regulations: 43 CFR 3800--Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws; Surface Management (including preamble and response to public comments as published in November 2000 and October 2001)."

Does the program systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among all regulations in accomplishing program goals?

Explanation: Supporting statements for the Paperwork Reduction Act are submitted every three years to OMB for the regulations used to implement the MLAP. The newly revised 3809 regulations are largely consistent with the recommendations of the National Research Council. The 3830 regulations were revised in 2003 to clarify the collection of fees and adjudication of interest documents for mining claims.

Evidence: "Federal Registers Vol. 65, 66, and 68; OMB Control Numbers 1004-0169, 1004-0194 Final Regulations: 43 CFR 3800--Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws; Surface Management (including preamble and response to public comments as published in November 2000 and October 2001). "

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

Explanation: "The 2001 regulations amended BLM's 1980 surface management regulations in several general areas. Changes included: (1) Modifying the definition of unnecessary or undue degradation to provide a closer link between the performance standards and prevention of unnecessary or undue degradation; (2) Requiring mineral operators to file a plan of operations for any mining activity beyond casual use regardless of disturbance size; (3) Requiring operators to provide reclamation bonds for any disturbance greater than casual use; (4) Specifying outcome-based performance standards for conducting operations on public lands; and, (5) Providing options for Federal-state coordination in implementing the regulations. While BLM was not able to quantify the net benefits of the original rule due to substantial uncertainties regarding the calculation of benefits, BLM ultimately chose to remove the a provision in the rule that would have resulted in substantial economic costs. The regulations were largely consistent with the recommendations from the National Research Council's independent review, providing some indication that the net benefits of the rule should be substantial."

Evidence: "Final Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed 3809 regulations, February 1999. Final Regulations: 43 CFR 3800--Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws; Surface Management (including preamble and response to public comments as published in November 2000 and October 2001)."

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

Explanation: Program received a 'No' in reference to Question 2.1. Adequate long-term performance measures and targets have not yet been established.

Evidence: FY 2006 Budget Justifications

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

Explanation: Program received a 'No' in reference to Question 2.2. Adequate annual performance measures and targets have not yet been established.

Evidence: N/A

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

Explanation: Program received a 'No' in reference to Question 3.4 because the program does not have any efficiency measures in place at this time. BLM has not provided sufficient evidence that the program has made any substantial improvements in its efficiency and/or cost effectiveness.

Evidence: None provided.

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

Explanation: Though a few other Federal land management agencies have some similar surface management responsibilities for mining on federal lands, the authorities and programs vary so much from BLM's broad authorities that they are not readily comparable. No known studies comparing such programs have been completed to our knowledge. The MLAP is also somewhat unique in that the Mining Law provides broad authority for individuals or companies to explore for locatable minerals on federal lands open to entry under the Law.

Evidence: "The General Mining Law of 1872 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended (P.L. 94-579; 43 U.S.C. Secs. 1714, 1732, and 1744) 43 CFR parts 3715, 3802, 3809, 3830-3864"

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

Explanation: External evaluations have been conducted on various aspects of the Mining Law and the MLAP program in recent years, and most have found significant flaws in the program. In many cases, the agency has made positive changes to address these recommendations. For example, the agency has significantly strengthened its regulations to address recommendations identified by the Inspector General and the National Research Council. Congress has also enacted GAO recommendations to institute mining claim maintenance fees and stop past abuses of the Mining Law's patent provisions. However, these legislative provisions are only temporary and must be renewed regularly by Congress. Moreover, other aspects of Mining Law reform have yet to be enacted (e.g., establishment of a royalty on production), and GAO has recently identified problems with BLM's implementation of the new financial assurance requirements in its 2001 surface management regulations.

Evidence: GAO Report RCED-90-111: "Unauthorized Activities Occurring on Hardrock Mining Claims", Aug. 1990. OIG Audit Report No. 96-I-1265, "Occupancy Trespass Resolution" and related changes to 43 CFR 3715 regulations, 1996. Final Regulations: 43 CFR 3800--Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws; Surface Management (including preamble and response to public comments as published in November 2000 and October 2001). National Research Council Report: "Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands", 1999. GAO Report 05-377: "BLM Needs to Better Manage Financial Assurances to Guarantee Coverage of Reclamation Costs", June 2005.

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

Explanation: "BLM, after careful analysis, selected a surface management rulemaking alternative which balanced the program goals, while minimizing the cost to the government and mine operators. One of the key changes made in the 2001 surface management regulations was a strengthening of operator financial assurance requirements to ensure that operators, rather than taxpayers, bear the ultimate responsibility for reclaiming mined lands. Work remains to implement these new requirements. Although the change did increase operator costs, the evidence suggests that the new regulations have significantly improved the protection of public resources through the use of financial guarantees."

Evidence: "Final Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed 3809 regulations, February 1999. Final Regulations: 43 CFR 3800--Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws; Surface Management (including preamble and response to public comments as published in November 2000 and October 2001). GAO Draft Report 05-377: "BLM Needs to Better Manage Financial Assurances to Guarantee Coverage of Reclamation Costs", July XX, 2005 (???); BLM Instruction Memorandum 2003-082 Change 1."