Hardrock Mining: BLM and Forest Service Have Taken Some Actions to Expedite the Mine Plan Review Process but Could Do More
Published: 2016-01-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Mining Law of 1872 encouraged development of the West by opening up federal land to exploration, extraction, and development of hardrock minerals such as gold, silver, and copper. Because mining creates the potential for serious health, safety, and environmental hazards, BLM and the Forest Service have processes for reviewing mine plans submitted by operators to help prevent and mitigate these hazards. A mine plan details the proposed mine's operations, such as the methods for mining and reclaiming the site once operations have concluded.
GAO was asked to assess the mine plan review process. This report examines (1) the number of mine plans BLM and the Forest Service approved from fiscal years 2010 through 2014, among other things, and (2) challenges that have affected the length of time for BLM and the Forest Service to complete the review process, as well as actions these agencies have taken to address these challenges. GAO obtained and analyzed mine plan review data from fiscal years 2010 through 2014, and interviewed agency officials in 23 offices, representing the 12 western states where hardrock mining occurs. The results are not generalizable to all locations conducting mine plan reviews.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: From fiscal years 2010 through 2014, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service approved 68 mine plans of operation. The length of time it took the agencies to approve the mine plans ranged from about 1 month to over 11 years, and averaged approximately 2 years. Of the 68 approved mine plans, 13 had not begun operations as of November 2015. Agency officials attribute this to difficulties mine operators may face, such as obtaining other required federal and state permits.
BLM and Forest Service officials GAO interviewed said they experienced 13 key challenges that affected the length of time to review hardrock mine plans. The two most frequently cited were (1) the low quality of information operators provided in their mine plans and (2) the agencies' limited allocation of resources for their hardrock mining programs. To address the low quality of information in mine plans, some BLM and Forest Service officials held pre-mine plan submittal meetings with operators. However, officials do not always do so because BLM does not have specific guidance on how to implement these meetings, and Forest Service does not have any guidance instructing them to do so. Federal standards for internal control state that management should ensure there are adequate means of communicating with, and obtaining information from, external stakeholders that may have a significant impact on the agency achieving its goals. Without taking further actions to improve the quality of mine plan submissions, BLM and the Forest Service may be missing opportunities to help expedite the review process. To address the limited allocation of resources, BLM and Forest Service officials are leveraging existing resources by collaborating with other agencies, among other actions, but neither agency has fully used its authority to collect fees for conducting mine plan reviews as authorized by law. In addition, Forest Service is not authorized to retain these fees, as BLM is, but has not proposed the legislative changes that would allow it to retain fees, as is suggested by Office of Management and Budget guidance. BLM officials said the agency has not prioritized cost recovery for certain types of environmental analyses, and Forest Service officials were unaware of these authorities. By not using these authorities, BLM and Forest Service may be missing opportunities to expedite the mine plan review process.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends, among other things, that the agencies take actions to improve the quality of mine plan submissions and seek additional recovery of the costs associated with conducting mine plan reviews. The agencies generally concurred with these recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Mining Law of 1872 encouraged development of the West by  opening up federal land to exploration, extraction, and development of  hardrock minerals such as gold, silver, and copper. Since then,  thousands of operators have extracted billions of dollars worth of  hardrock minerals, which play an important role in our nation’s economy.  For example, according to the Department of the Interior (Interior), at  least 2.5 million ounces of gold were extracted from federal land in 2014,  with an average price of $1,270 per ounce. Two federal agencies  oversee the extraction of hardrock minerals on federal land—the Bureau  of Land Management (BLM) within Interior and the Forest Service within  the Department of Agriculture. Together, these two agencies manage  about 450 million acres of federal land, comprising about 38 percent of  the combined land area of the 12 western states where these lands are  located.
Because mining, by its very nature, disturbs the land and creates the  potential for serious public health, safety, and environmental hazards,  BLM and the Forest Service have processes for overseeing mining  operators to help prevent, mitigate, or manage these hazards. The  primary method BLM and the Forest Service use to analyze the  potentially harmful effects of mining is known as the mine plan review  process. Under agency regulations, a mine operator must submit a plan,  known as a mine plan of operation (mine plan), that details the  operational aspects of the mine, such as the mining methods and  techniques that will be employed and how the site will be reclaimed once  operations are concluded. BLM and the Forest Service typically then  conduct an environmental review of the mine plan under the National  Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires federal agencies to  evaluate the likely environmental effects of a proposed project using an  environmental assessment (EA) or, if the project is likely to significantly  affect the environment, a more detailed environmental impact statement  (EIS). At the conclusion of the environmental review, the agencies may  then approve the mine plan or approve it subject to possible changes or  conditions to prevent environmental damage. The agencies may also  withhold approval of the mine based on the findings of the environmental  analysis; however, BLM and Forest Service officials told us that they were  not aware of any instances where this had occurred.
Because an operator cannot generate revenue until the mine plan review  process has been completed, and the mine has been constructed, mine  operators typically seek to expedite the time it takes to complete the mine  plan review process so that they may begin to recoup their costs. These  costs may include expenses for exploration to locate and study the  mineral deposit, environmental studies at the mine site and surrounding  areas, engineering studies to develop a mine plan, and third-party  contractors to provide analytical services to the federal agencies to help  facilitate their review. For large and complex hardrock mines, it can be  very costly to develop a mine and complete the mine plan review process.  For example, according to an industry estimate, operators may spend  more than $100 million even before constructing a mine.
You asked us to review the mine plan review process for hardrock mines  on federal land. This report examines (1) the number of mine plans BLM  and the Forest Service approved from fiscal years 2010 through 2014, the  time it took these agencies to approve these mine plans, and the extent to  which these agencies track this process; and (2) the challenges, if any,  that have affected the length of time for BLM and the Forest Service to  complete the review process, and the actions, if any, these agencies have  taken to address these challenges.
To determine the number of mine plans that were approved from fiscal  years 2010 through 2014, we examined data from BLM’s Legacy  Rehost 2000 (LR2000) system and the Forest Service’s Locatable  Minerals database—automated information systems the agencies use to  track key dates and milestones in the mine plan review process. Through  interviews with agency officials, our analysis of these data, and  comparisons to other publicly available information from federal agencies,  we determined that these data from these databases were not sufficiently  reliable to measure the time it took these agencies to complete the mine  plan review process, as discussed later in the report. Consequently, we  did not rely on data from LR2000 and the Locatable Minerals database,  but instead worked with agency officials to collect data from paper and  electronic records maintained by BLM field offices and Forest Service  ranger districts to develop a list of mine plans approved from fiscal years  2010 through 2014. To ensure that we reviewed data on comparable  projects, we requested data on mine plans that were 5 acres in size or  larger, and were plans for new mines or mine expansions. We obtained  detailed information on dates and milestones associated with these mine  plans from BLM and Forest Service field and district officials. We asked  BLM and Forest Service officials from the agencies’ Washington, D.C.,  offices to verify the accuracy and completeness of these data and then  reviewed these data and compared them to other publicly available  sources, such as published NEPA documents. Based on this review, we  determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes of  determining the time frames for completing the mine plan review process.  Using these data, we calculated and summarized the elapsed days  between key milestones in the mine plan review process. We also  analyzed the extent to which the data systems used by BLM and the  Forest Service reflected practices consistent with federal standards for  internal control for tracking and recording events and transactions.
To examine any challenges that have affected the length of time for BLM  and the Forest Service to review the mine plans, and any actions officials  have taken to address these challenges, we identified and refined a list of  13 challenges based on interviews with agency officials, industry  representatives, nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions,  and a review of nine studies and reports issued from 1997 through 2014  on the mine plan review process and its associated challenges. We  identified these studies and reports with assistance from mining  associations, industry consultants, and federal agencies. From our list of  mine plans approved from fiscal years 2010 through 2014, we selected  23 BLM and Forest Service locations for additional interviews. We  selected locations in each of the 12 western states where hardrock  mining occurs. At least one mine plan was reviewed in each of these  states in this time frame.  We also selected locations to ensure that the  mine plans reviewed by the agency officials varied in the length of time it  took for the officials to complete their review. Further, we selected 2  additional locations where officials had conducted mine plan reviews that  were particularly difficult or complex, according to agency headquarters  officials. Because we selected a nonprobability sample of BLM and Forest  Service locations, our findings are not generalizable to all BLM and Forest  Service locations conducting reviews of mine plans. The officials we  spoke with had worked on about three-fourths of the mine plans that were  approved from fiscal years 2010 through 2014. In each of these  interviews, we used a standard set of questions that we developed to  discuss this list of challenges with officials who review mine plans. We  asked these officials to indicate whether they had experienced each of  the challenges and, if so, whether the challenge affected the length of  time necessary to complete the mine plan review process and the  approximate length of time each challenge added to the process. In  addition, we asked whether they experienced other challenges not  already identified and the actions they had taken to address these  challenges. Other challenges mentioned by officials were all related to  one of the 13 identified categories of challenges we asked them about,  and these responses were included with those results. We then compiled  and analyzed information from these interviews and compared this  information to applicable laws and regulations, federal standards for  internal control, and agency handbooks and guidance to identify ways, if  any, in which these challenges could be further addressed.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 to January 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I provides additional  information on our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: This section provides information on the four primary stages of hardrock  mining operations, the organizational structure of BLM and the Forest  Service, and the agencies’ five-step process for reviewing mine plans.
subsections: section_title: The Primary Stages of Hardrock Mining Operations
paragraphs: Hardrock mining operations consist of four primary stages—exploration,  development, production, and reclamation. Some of these stages can  take place simultaneously, depending on the characteristics of the  operation. Exploration involves staking a mining claim, prospecting, and  other steps, such as drilling, to locate and define the extent and value of  mineral deposits. The development stage entails completing the mine  plan approval process by investigating how mining will impact the  environment, determining how to mitigate the risks associated with  mineral extraction, and obtaining permits and authorizations associated  with the entire life cycle of the mine from federal, state, local, and  regulatory entities. After obtaining permits and authorizations, the mine  operator constructs the mine infrastructure, such as the necessary  buildings, roads, and facilities that will facilitate production. The  production stage generally entails drilling, blasting, and hauling ore from  mining areas to processing areas. During production, operators crush or  grind the ore and apply chemical treatments to extract the minerals of  value. The material left after the minerals are extracted—waste rock or  tailings (a combination of fluid and rock particles)—is then disposed of,  often in a nearby pile or tailings pond. In addition, some operators use a  leaching process to recover microscopic hardrock minerals from heaps of  crushed ore by percolating solvent (such as cyanide for gold and sulfuric  acid for copper) through the heap of ore. Through this heap-leaching  process, the minerals adhere to the solvent as it runs through the leach  heap and into a collection pond. The mineral-laced solution is then taken  from the collection pond to the processing facility, where the valuable  minerals are separated from the solution for further refinement.
Reclamation activities can include reshaping and revegetating disturbed  areas; measures to control erosion; and measures to isolate, remove, or  control toxic materials.
section_title: Organizational Structure of BLM and the Forest Service
paragraphs: BLM manages and oversees hardrock mining on public land through its  headquarters office, 12 state offices, 49 district offices, and 126 field  offices. Within headquarters, the Energy, Minerals, and Realty  Management Directorate is responsible for administering the mining laws  and establishing hardrock mining operations policies. The state offices  manage BLM programs and land in the geographic areas that generally  conform to the boundary of one or more states. Each state office is  headed by a state director who reports to the Director of BLM in  headquarters, and oversees the implementation of the hardrock mining  program by the district and field offices. The district and field offices are  responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the hardrock mining  program, including reviewing proposed mine plans and inspecting  approved mine operations to ensure they comply with laws and  regulations. Figure 1 shows BLM-managed land and the location of  BLM’s headquarters and state offices.
The Forest Service oversees hardrock mining operations on the lands it  manages through its headquarters office, 9 geographic regions, 174  national forests and grasslands, and its over 600 ranger districts. Within  its headquarters office, the Director of Minerals and Geology  Management advises the Chief of the Forest Service on issues related to  the extraction of minerals from Forest Service managed lands and  conducts reviews of the regions’ mineral extraction programs, including  their hardrock mineral programs. The Director of Minerals and Geology  Management also manages a program known as the Locatable Mineral  Administrators program. This program is designed to ensure that the  Forest Service employees located in various forest and ranger district  offices who are responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the  hardrock mineral program have sufficient training and expertise to  achieve consistency and quality administering the hardrock minerals  program. Under this program, Forest Service employees are to  demonstrate an understanding of hardrock mining laws, regulations, and  processes to be a certified Locatable Minerals Administrator.  Furthermore, only employees who have been certified through this  program may implement the hardrock minerals program, for example, by  reviewing proposed mine plans and inspecting approved mines to ensure  they comply with applicable laws and regulations. Figure 2 shows the  location of Forest Service-managed lands and the Forest Service  headquarters and regions.
section_title: Five-Step Process for Reviewing Mine Plans
paragraphs: BLM and the Forest Service generally follow similar five-step processes  for reviewing hardrock mine plans: (1) reviewing the completeness of the  proposed plan; (2) conducting an analysis under NEPA of potential  impacts to the environment, human health, and cultural and historical  resources; (3) approving of the mine plan; (4) establishing a reclamation  bond; and (5) authorizing mine operations.
subsections: section_title: Review of the Completeness of the Proposed Plan
paragraphs: Under each agency’s regulations, before BLM and the Forest Service can  perform a substantive evaluation of a mine plan, they must first determine  whether the mine plan is complete and has the information specified in  the regulations. To do this, the agencies review the mine plan to help  determine if it meets regulatory requirements, which call for information  on the operator, the proposed mine site, the proposed mine operations,  and a description of the existing and proposed means of accessing the  mine, among other things.
section_title: NEPA Analysis
paragraphs: BLM and the Forest Service analyze the potential impact of the proposed  mine on the environment, human health, and cultural resources by  conducting an analysis under NEPA. In particular, under NEPA agencies  must prepare either an EA or an EIS depending on whether the proposed  mine operations are expected to have a potentially significant  environmental impact.
The agencies are to prepare an EA to determine whether the proposed  project is expected to have a potentially significant environmental impact.  According to regulations implementing NEPA, an EA is intended to be a  concise public document that, among other things, provides sufficient  evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a  finding of no significant impact. It is to include brief discussions of the  need for the project, alternatives, the environmental impacts of the  proposed project and alternatives, and a listing of individuals and  agencies consulted.
The agencies are to prepare an EIS if they determine the proposed  project may have significant environmental impacts. An EIS is more  detailed than an EA, and NEPA regulations specify that the agency must  request comments from the public on the draft EIS. An EIS must, among  other things, (1) describe the environment that will be affected, (2) identify  alternatives to the proposed project and identify the agency’s preferred  alternative, and (3) present the environmental impacts of the proposed  project and alternatives.
According to BLM and Forest Service officials, while the agencies  occasionally develop and produce NEPA documents, they also rely on  contractors to complete the EA or EIS. Per NEPA regulations, the  agencies are responsible for the content and scope of the NEPA  document. For EISs, BLM regulations state that the operator must pay for  BLM’s internal costs to process a mine plan that requires the preparation  of an EIS. These regulations do not require operators to pay for the  review of a mine plan that only requires the preparation of an EA. The  Forest Service’s regulations do not require operators to pay for a review  of a mine plan. Instead, the costs associated with conducting the mine  plan review must be covered by the Forest Service, unless the mine  operator voluntarily choses to do so.
section_title: Approval of Mine Plan
paragraphs: After completing the environmental review, the agency issues a decision  on the mine plan. The decision document indicates whether the plan is  approved as submitted, approved subject to changes or conditions, or  disapproved. However, BLM and Forest Service officials told us that  operators generally agree to the agencies’ changes to the mine plan that  are required to meet all applicable laws and regulations. Consequently,  these officials said that they were unaware of an instance where an  agency had disapproved a mine plan based on the results of an  environmental analysis.
section_title: Establishment of a Reclamation Bond
paragraphs: Before a plan may be approved, agency policies require the operator to  estimate the costs associated with reclaiming the mine site once the  operations have ceased. The operator typically cannot estimate this  cost until the mine plan review has sufficiently progressed to determine  the size and scope of the mining operations. Once the operator provides  the estimate, the agency determines whether it is adequate to fully cover  anticipated reclamation costs. If the agency determines that the bond is  not adequate, it directs the operator to furnish a new estimate. After the  reclamation cost estimate is approved, the operator must furnish the bond  prior to commencing operations.
section_title: Authorization of Mine Operations
paragraphs: Once the agency has approved the mine plan and the operator furnishes  the bond, the agency authorizes operations under its jurisdiction.  However, an operator may need to obtain additional permits or  authorizations from other federal, state, local, and regulatory entities in  order to actually begin operations. For example, operators may need to  obtain a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material,  such as soil from mine excavations into certain waters.
section_title: BLM and Forest Service Approved 68 Mine Plans from Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014, Time Frames for Approval Varied, and Tracking Is Limited
paragraphs: From fiscal years 2010 through 2014, BLM approved 66 mine plans, and  the Forest Service approved 2 mine plans for hardrock mines that varied  by mineral type, mine size, and location. The length of time it took for the  agencies to reach the third step of the five-step mine plan review  process—the step in which the mine plan is approved—ranged from  about 1 month to over 11 years and averaged approximately 2 years.  Nineteen percent (13 of 68) of the approved mines are not operating as of  November 2015 due to various factors. BLM and the Forest Service’s  tracking of the mine plan review process is hindered by limitations with  their data systems; as a result, BLM does not have adequate information,  and the Forest Service does not have complete information, necessary to  track the length of time to complete the mine plan review process.
subsections: section_title: BLM Approved 66 Plans and Forest Service Approved 2 Plans for Hardrock Mines of Various Types, Sizes, and Locations
paragraphs: From fiscal years 2010 through 2014, BLM approved 66 plans for  hardrock mines of various commodity types, sizes, and locations, and the  Forest Service approved 2.
Commodity types. Most of the mine plans that BLM and Forest Service  received and approved were for gold, clay, and stone, according to  agency data, and collectively these commodities accounted for 46 of the  68 total mine plans (68 percent) approved from fiscal year years 2010  through 2014 (see table 1).
Mine size. The sizes of the mines proposed in these 68 plans varied  greatly, ranging from 5 to 8,470 acres. The average proposed mine was  approximately 529 acres, and the 68 mine plans totaled nearly 36,000  acres. Figure 3 shows the total mine acreage by state.
Mine location. All of the mine plans were located in 12 western states— Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico,  Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Nearly half were  located in Nevada or Wyoming—with 11 and 21 mine plans, respectively.  Washington had the fewest—with 1 proposed mine (see fig.3).
section_title: Time Frames for Approving Plans Ranged from About 1 Month to Over 11 Years and Averaged 2 Years, with 19 Percent of Approved Mines Not Yet Operational Due to Various Factors
paragraphs: The average length of time it took BLM and the Forest Service to  complete the first three steps of the mine plan review process and  approve 68 mine plans from fiscal years 2010 through 2014 was  approximately 2 years. However, the time varied widely, ranging from  about 1 month to over 11 years, among the 68 mine plans we reviewed.  For example, 1 mine plan took less than 1 month for Forest Service  officials in Washington to review and approve. A Forest Service official  told us this was, in part, because the mine was located in an area with  existing mining operations, and the Forest Service determined that there  was no need to conduct additional NEPA analyses. In contrast, another  mine plan in Idaho took over 11 years for BLM to review and approve,  primarily because of disagreement with the operator over what needed to  be included in the mine plan, according to BLM officials. Figure 4 shows  the time frames for approving these 68 mine plans.
Of the 68 mine plans that BLM and the Forest Service approved over this  period, 13 (19 percent) have not begun operations as of November 2015,  according to the agencies’ data. For 4 of these 13 mines, the operator  had not completed the fourth step of the mine plan review process— establishment of a reclamation bond, which entails furnishing bonds  sufficient to fully cover estimated reclamation costs. According to BLM  officials, acquiring such bonds can be difficult for some operators,  particularly operators with limited financial resources.
For the remaining 9 of the 13 mine plans where operations had not begun  as of November 2015, the operator had completed all five steps of the  mine plan review process. However, BLM and Forest Service officials  said that various factors may explain why these mines have not begun  operating. BLM officials noted that, in some instances, an operator may  complete the mine plan review process but have difficulties finding  investors or securing capital to fund the construction of the mine. In  addition, BLM and Forest Service officials stated that mine operators may  have met all BLM and Forest Service requirements but may be working to  obtain additional permits or approvals from other federal, state, and local  entities. For example, mine operators may need to obtain air and water  quality permits, business licenses, and utility approvals, among other  requirements. Based on a review of NEPA documents, state permitting  guides, and studies of hardrock mining requirements, we identified six  categories of federal permits and authorizations that mine operators may  need to obtain from entities other than BLM and the Forest Service and  seven categories of state and local permits and authorizations across 12  western states that may be required depending on the nature of the  mining operations, as shown in tables 2 and 3.
section_title: Data Limitations Hinder BLM and Forest Service’s Tracking of the Mine Plan Review Process
paragraphs: BLM field and Forest Service ranger district offices maintain records on  the mine plans they review and centrally track some data on the time  frames related to the mine plan review process in their automated  information systems and use these data in agency reports. For example,  BLM tracks the length of time required to complete the mine plan review  process and reports this information in its annual budget justification.  Similarly, the Forest Service tracks and reports in its annual budget  justification the number of mineral permits processed in a year, which  combines all types of minerals, including hardrock minerals as well as  nonhardrock minerals, such as coal, oil and gas.
However, limitations with the data in the systems that BLM and the Forest  Service use to compile these reports hinder the agencies’ ability to track  the mine plan review process. Specifically,
BLM’s LR2000 system was not designed to distinguish between  different types of mine plans and cannot adequately track newly  proposed mine plans and mine expansions separately from other  mine program activities, such as processing requests for mine plan  modifications and large-scale exploration permits. In particular, the  system does not contain separate codes through which different types  of mine program activities could be identified. New mine plans and  mine expansions are generally more complex and time-consuming to  review than mine plan modifications and mine plans for exploration,  according to an agency official. Distinguishing between the length of  time needed to review new mine plans and mine expansions versus  mine plan modifications and large-scale exploration permits entails  making minor modifications to the LR2000 system, which is feasible  according to BLM officials.
The Forest Service’s Locatable Mineral database has codes to  separately track new mine plans from other types of activities;  however, because this system was initially designed as an optional  tool to use, the Forest Service did not originally require its staff to use  the system. As a result, when we compared data from the Locatable  Mineral database against data provided by Forest Service officials, we  found the database was incomplete and did not contain records for all  mine plans the Forest Service reviewed. We also found that the data  that were available were often missing key information, such as dates  for completing certain milestones in the mine plan review process. In  recognition of these types of problems, the Forest Service issued a  memorandum in February 2014 requiring its staff to use the Locatable  Minerals database, according to Forest Service officials. In April 2015,  the Forest Service officials noted that gaps in its data remained and  reiterated the need to correct these gaps in another memorandum to  Forest Service staff. As of November 2015, Forest Service officials  told us that they are correcting and updating incomplete information in  the database.
Federal standards for internal control state that control activities, such as  properly recording information that would be relevant and valuable to  management, are an integral part of an entity’s planning, implementing,  reviewing, and accountability for stewardship of government resources  and achieving effective results. Without modifying the system to provide  adequate information necessary to track the time frames for completing  the mine plan review process, BLM is limited in its ability to effectively  facilitate the extraction of minerals from federal land and manage the  mine plan review process.
section_title: BLM and Forest Service Officials in Our Review Experienced 13 Key Challenges That Affected the Time Needed to Review Mine Plans and Have Taken Some Actions but Could Do More
paragraphs: BLM and Forest Service officials we interviewed in the 23 offices (19 BLM  and 4 Forest Service) we selected for our review said they have  experienced one or more of the 13 key challenges we identified that  affected the length of time to review the hardrock mine plans approved  from fiscal years 2010 through 2014 (see table 4). BLM and Forest  Service officials said they have taken actions to address the two most  frequently cited key challenges—the low quality of information operators  provided in their mine plans and the agencies’ limited allocation of  resources for their hardrock mining programs—but the agencies could do  more. Of the remaining 11 key challenges, BLM and Forest Service have  taken some steps to address them, while others are not necessarily within  these agencies’ control to affect.
subsections: section_title: BLM and Forest Service Have Taken Actions on the Two Most Frequently Cited Challenges but More Could Be Done
paragraphs: BLM and Forest Service have taken some actions to address the two  most frequently cited challenges—the low quality of mine plans and  limited allocation of resources—but could take additional actions  regarding these challenges. Specifically, to address the low quality of  mine plans, some BLM and Forest Service officials are holding meetings  with operators before they begin developing their mine plans, but the  agencies could do more to encourage better quality plans. To address the  limited allocation of resources, BLM and Forest Service officials are  leveraging existing resources, but the agencies could more fully use their  authorities to collect fees and possibly expedite the time it takes to review  hardrock mine plans.
subsections: section_title: BLM and Forest Service Have Taken Some Actions to Address the Low Quality of Mine Plans but Could Do More to Encourage Better Quality Plans
paragraphs: Of the 13 key challenges BLM and Forest Service officials said they  experienced, they cited the low quality of information operators provided  in their mine plans most frequently. Specifically, in 21 of the 23 locations  we contacted (18 BLM and 3 Forest Service), officials said the low quality  of the information operators provided in their mine plans has been a  challenge during the mine plan review process and has added from 1  month to 7 years to the length of time to review plans. These agencies  are responsible for ensuring the mine plan is in compliance with  applicable regulations and that the information is accurate and complete.  BLM officials said that when they reviewed the completeness of the  proposed mine plans—the first step in the mine plan review process— they found that some mine plans were incomplete or that data needed for  NEPA analyses was incorrect. When plans were of low quality, some  officials said they worked with the mine operators to obtain the necessary  additional information, which can require the mine operator to conduct  additional analyses. However, these officials said that providing this  information can take time, thereby increasing the time it takes to review  and approve mine plans. In some cases, these increases can be  substantial; for example, according to BLM officials, it took approximately  6 years for a mine operator to provide needed information, such as plans  for reclaiming the site and addressing water quality issues. In another  example, Forest Service officials said one operator did not provide  additional information at the level of detail needed for the Forest Service  to review the mine plan, resulting in a delay of about 18 months. One  Forest Service official we contacted attributed the varying mine plan  quality, in part, to the size of the mining company. The official said  companies that have more resources are more likely to provide higher  quality mine plans because they can dedicate these resources to the  plan’s development.
BLM and Forest Service have taken some actions to address this key  challenge. Specifically, in nine locations we contacted, across offices in  Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming, BLM  and Forest Service officials said they have requested that operators  voluntarily meet with them and other relevant agencies before the  operators begin developing their mine plans. During these pre-mine plan  submittal meetings, officials have, for example, provided operators with  information on relevant regulations, guidance on the review process and  conducting baseline surveys, and examples of mine plans. In addition,  three BLM state offices—Alaska, Arizona, and Nevada—have developed  guidance on holding pre-submittal meetings with mine operators and  other relevant agencies to help ensure critical information is collected.  BLM’s surface management handbook states that BLM officials may meet  with operators and other agencies before a mine plan is submitted to  discuss what information to include in the mine plan and what data may  be needed to support a NEPA analysis. BLM Alaska, Arizona, and  Nevada officials said these pre-submittal meetings have been helpful in  reducing the length of the review process. In addition, Nevada BLM state  officials said the meetings have helped them improve their workforce  planning efforts because they have been better able to determine the staff  needed for mine plan reviews and plan accordingly. Furthermore, Nevada  BLM staff said the guidance and its implementation throughout the state  helps the operators working in multiple locations within the state know  what to expect during the permitting process.
However, some BLM and Forest Service officials in other states do not  always meet with operators prior to their mine plan submittals to help  mine operators to improve the quality of information in their mine plans.  While BLM’s surface management handbook states that BLM officials  may meet with operators and other agencies, it neither provides specific  guidance on how to implement pre-submittal meetings nor does it instruct  BLM offices to notify operators of the option of pre-submittal meetings. As  a result, use of these meetings varies among BLM offices. Similar to  BLM, the Forest Service has not developed guidance for ranger districts  and mining operators on holding pre-plan submittal meetings. According  to an official at one Forest Service office, it has held pre-plan submittal  meetings, and the official stated this has helped streamline the process.  One operator also commented on the advantages of these meetings and  said it would have been helpful to know that such meetings were an  option to help avoid delays and reduce costs; these costs were roughly  $20,000 to $30,000 per month, according to the operator. BLM and  Forest Service officials leading the hardrock mining programs said they  did not think it was necessary to further encourage offices to hold pre- plan submittal meetings, leaving discretion to the regions.
Federal standards for internal control state that management should  ensure there are adequate means of communicating with, and obtaining  information from, external stakeholders that may have a significant impact  on the agency achieving its goals. In addition, internal control activities  should provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of the agency  are being achieved through effectiveness and efficiency of operations  including the use of the entity’s resources. Without taking further actions  to improve the quality of mine plan submissions by, for example,  developing specific guidance to encourage offices to hold pre-mine plan  submittal meetings whenever possible, BLM and the Forest Service may  be missing opportunities to help expedite the mine plan review process.
section_title: BLM and Forest Service Have Taken Some Actions to Address Limited Allocation of Resources but Could Collect More Fees
paragraphs: In 15 BLM and 4 Forest Service locations we contacted, officials said the  agencies’ limited allocation of resources for their hardrock mining  programs has added a few days to 1 year to the mine plan review  process. This was the second most frequently cited key challenge. In  particular, BLM and Forest Service officials said they do not have enough  staff in certain critical positions involved in NEPA analyses, such as  archaeologists and biologists. This causes “bottlenecks” in the review  process and increases the length of time it takes to review hardrock mine  plans, according to officials. BLM and Forest Service officials also said  that they have had difficulties recruiting and retaining qualified staff, in  part, because private mine operators seek similarly qualified staff and can  generally offer higher salaries.
Each agency has taken some actions to address this key challenge. For  example, BLM has worked to leverage existing resources by collaborating  with other agencies, such as by requesting assistance from U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service employees on a NEPA analysis in one BLM field office.  BLM has also undertaken some workforce planning to assess its goals,  resource needs, and any existing resource gaps, and the agency has  increased salaries for some key positions related to the mine plan review  process. BLM also charges operators fees to review EISs and, under the  Federal Land Management Policy Act of 1976, can retain those fees to  cover the agency’s costs. BLM uses these fees to offset the costs  associated with reviewing the mine plan for which the fees were  recovered, which supplement the hardrock mining program funds it  receives through annual appropriations.
Similarly, Forest Service officials told us they have collaborated with state  agencies to leverage existing resources and have provided training for  Forest Service staff to more effectively manage the mine plan review  process. In addition, some Forest Service officials said they have  encouraged some operators to keep their mining activities below 5 acres  and under a significant level of disturbance so that they are not subject  to the mine plan review process. The Forest Service also began  conducting regional program reviews in 2013. For these reviews, which  occur every 1 to 2 years, staff are requested to perform self-evaluations  of their minerals and geology programs, including their staffing and  budget planning. Depending on the findings, a program review report may  include recommendations on issues, such as the need to develop  workforce needs analyses. Further, a Forest Service official at a  national forest said the forest requested that an operator voluntarily cover  the costs associated with preparing and reviewing EISs and hiring  contractors to help prepare and review NEPA documents. The operator  agreed to do so, which has offset some of Forest Service’s costs  associated with conducting the NEPA analysis and expedited the mine  plan review process, according to a Forest Service official.
However, neither BLM nor the Forest Service has used all of the tools  available to address its resource limitations. Specifically, BLM has not  fully used its authority to establish fees to recover some costs associated  with conducting mine plan reviews, which could be used to address  resource needs. A 1996 opinion by Interior’s Solicitor said that BLM has  authority to “recover the reasonable processing cost of services that  provide a special benefit not shared by the general public to an  identifiable recipient and has an obligation to establish fees for all  services for which it has cost recovery authority.” Moreover, Interior’s  department-wide cost recovery guidance in its accounting handbook  states Interior should recover these costs. In 2005, Interior finalized a  rule that included a schedule of fees, or costs, associated with a wide  range of mineral extraction programs, including reviewing mine plans for  locatable minerals. This rule established fees for reviewing mine plans  that involve conducting an EIS, and the preamble to the rule stated that  BLM would later consider issuing a separate rule to propose fees to  recover costs associated with reviewing mine plans involving an EA.  However, as of December 2015, BLM has neither issued a separate rule  nor set a timeline for doing so because officials said they have not made  recovering costs for EAs a priority. Consequently, BLM relies on annual  appropriations to cover agency costs associated with reviewing mine  plans that require only an EA. By issuing a rule establishing fees  associated with reviewing mine plans that involve conducting an EA, BLM  may be able to cover some of its costs associated with conducting mine  plan reviews, including costs to hire and retain qualified staff, and  possibly expedite the time it takes to review hardrock mine plans.
Similar to BLM, the Forest Service relies on annual appropriations for  conducting mine plan reviews and does not make use of its authority to  collect fees. Specifically, under the Independent Offices Appropriation  Act, 1952 (IOAA), the Forest Service has the authority to establish a fee  structure for mine plan processing activities associated with EISs or EAs,  but the agency does not have the authority to retain these fees like BLM  does. Further, the IOAA’s implementing guidance—Office of Management  and Budget Circular A-25—notes that legislative proposals to permit fees  to be retained by the agency may be appropriate. However, as of  December 2015, Forest Service officials said they had not established a  fee structure or made a request to retain these fees because the agency  was unaware of these authorities. Without establishing fees for reviewing  mine plans and the authority to retain these fees, the Forest Service may  be missing opportunities to leverage additional revenue to bolster its  resources to review hardrock mine plans.
section_title: BLM and the Forest Service Took Some Steps to Address Five Key Challenges Affecting the Review Process, but the Remaining Challenges Are Not Necessarily Within the Agencies’ Control
paragraphs: BLM and Forest Service officials we interviewed said they took various  steps to address 5 of the other 11 key challenges we identified that have  affected the length of time to review the hardrock mine plans approved  from fiscal years 2010 through 2014. The remaining 6 challenges are not  necessarily within the agencies’ control to affect.
Agency officials told us they took some steps to help address the  following five key challenges:
Changing mine plans: Officials in 14 BLM and 2 Forest Service  locations said operators changing mine plans that are already under  review has been a key challenge, adding a few weeks to 6 years to  the review process. For example, according to BLM officials,  operators have substantially increased the size or scope of the  proposed mine or relocated the mine boundaries, roads, and other  facilities after the mine plans had been submitted, and the agency had  started the review process. In one instance, the operator decided to  expand the mine from 5 to 18 acres after surveys conducted to inform  NEPA analyses for the mine plan had been completed. As a result,  these surveys had to be redone to incorporate the characteristics of  the additional acreage, which added approximately 6 months to the  review in this instance, according to BLM officials. Similarly, Forest  Service officials noted that changing mine plans can add up to 2  months to mine plan reviews, depending on whether the changes  require officials to revise completed analyses and reports, the  availability of Forest Service officials, and the number of other mine  plans that were awaiting review at the time of the change. To help  address this key challenge, for example, some BLM officials we spoke  to said they have worked with operators to identify a larger area of  land to include in their mine plan submission in the event they later  decide to expand their mining operations.
Quality of contractor’s work: Officials in 11 BLM and 2 Forest  Service locations said the quality of work performed by some mine  operators’ contractors has been a key challenge and has added 1  month to 1 year to the review process. For example, some Forest  Service officials said the quality of work performed by contractors that  mine operators paid to help conduct work needed for NEPA analyses  of mine plans has been poor and resulted in all of the analysis  needing to be rewritten. In addition, some BLM officials said that  contractors hired by the operator to prepare information for a mine  plan of operation have submitted out-of-date information. For  example, one operator’s contractor submitted information that was 20  years old and did not account for changes that had occurred to the  landscape, such as those caused by wildfires. To help address this  key challenge, some BLM officials told us that they have provided a  list of contractors with good reputations and an apparent  understanding of the mine permitting process for mine operations,  which helped improve the mine plan quality and expedite the review  process. Specifically, one BLM official said they do not have to ask  these contractors multiple times for additional information, which  reduces the amount of time they need to spend working with the  contractors to finalize their NEPA or cultural resource analyses.
Quantity and quality of coordination and collaboration: Officials in  9 BLM and 2 Forest Service locations said coordination and  collaboration have been limited in both quantity and quality and has  resulted in adding from 2 months to 3 years to the review process.  BLM and Forest Service need to coordinate and collaborate with other  federal agencies, state agencies, and Native American tribes on  issues such as assessing impacts to water quality, wildlife, and  cultural resources. However, BLM and Forest Service officials said it  can be difficult to do. For example, Forest Service officials said a  federal agency delayed the review process for one mine plan because  the federal agency did not provide the necessary data in a timely  fashion. As a result, Forest Service officials had to redo some  analyses needed for the mine plan’s EIS, which added time to the  review process. To help address this key challenge, some officials  said they have developed memorandums of agreement with state  agencies, are holding regular meetings with these state agencies, as  well as operators, and communicating and consulting with tribes. For  example, BLM developed an agreement in November 2003 with the  Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality to, among other  things, foster federal state coordination and prevent unnecessary  administrative delay while managing public lands during mining and  exploration. According to BLM officials, this agreement has helped  reduce duplication of agency efforts and prioritize agency work related  to mine plan reviews.
Balancing competing legal priorities: Officials in 4 BLM locations  and 1 Forest Service location said balancing competing legal priorities  has been a key challenge during the mine plan review process and  has added 1 to 2 months to the review process. For example, while  the General Mining Act of 1872 grants free and open access to  federal lands for hardrock mining, other laws direct BLM and the  Forest Service to protect the environment on the lands they manage.  Specifically, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires  BLM to prevent the “unnecessary or undue degradation” of public  lands and federal regulations require the Forest Service to regulate  activities to “minimize adverse environmental impacts on National  Forest surface resources.” As a result, these agencies have had to  balance the competing interests of providing access to lands for  mining with the need to protect the environment. For example, BLM  resource officials disagreed with BLM mining and minerals officials  about the environmental effects of a proposed mine on the water  quality in a salmon spawning area, and it took approximately 1 month  to resolve, according to a BLM official. In addition, a Forest Service  official said employees developing land and resource management  plans sometimes do not consult with employees who work in the  minerals program. As a result, this official stated that the land and  resource management plans do not always take into consideration the  requirements of the mining act, and the management plans need to  later be revised and amended to reflect both activities. Forest Service  officials told us that, to help address this key challenge, they began to  provide annual training in 2000 for district, forest, and regional  supervisory officials. According to these officials, this training covers  issues such as the mine plan review process and statutory obligations  to facilitate mining, and has helped educate employees on the  importance of balancing competing priorities for the land.
Federal Register notice publication process: Officials in 4 BLM  locations and 1 Forest Service location said the agencies’ processes  for posting Federal Register notices related to NEPA has been a key  challenge during the mine plan review process and has added 1  month to 1 year to the review process. For example, some BLM field  office staff said that BLM’s process for posting Federal Register  notices calls for draft notices to be reviewed at many different levels of  the agency, but said the process is unclear about who specifically  needs to review the draft notices and how long the review will take.  To address this key challenge, BLM officials started using Interior’s  new electronic document tracking system, developed by the U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service, in the summer of 2013. A BLM instruction  memorandum published in September 2014 directed that this system  be used for Federal Register notices. These officials said Interior’s  new system expedites the submission and review process because it  automatically inputs dates and allows staff to electronically track their  edits and forward reports, and is available to all Interior officials for  use. Moreover, they said the system offers some capability to track  the status of notice submissions.
The remaining six key challenges are not necessarily within the agencies’  control to affect. These key challenges include the following:
Mine site complexity: Officials in 13 BLM and 2 Forest Service  locations said the complexity of some mine sites has been a key  challenge during the mine plan review process and has added 1 week  to 10 years to the review process. For example, BLM officials said  mine plans that involve land where various cultural resources can be  found, such as dinosaur fossils or Native American artifacts, can be  challenging to review because of the need to ensure the resources  are preserved before the land is disturbed. Some Forest Service  officials said environmental complexities, such as the proximity of  threatened or endangered species, have made it challenging to  review mine plans because of the importance of ensuring these  species will not likely be affected by the operations. In one instance,  BLM officials said it took approximately 2 weeks to assess whether  raptor habitat would be affected by the mine site location and then to  develop a mitigation plan to address the potential effects. In contrast,  it took approximately 10 years for Forest Service to resolve an issue  related to a mine site located in a wilderness area that is habitat for  threatened and endangered species, such as the grizzly bear and bull  trout. As a result, an extensive analysis for the EIS had to be  completed, which added time to the process.
Legal issues: Officials in 8 BLM and 3 Forest Service locations said  legal issues have been challenging and have added 1 month to 3  years to the review process. Both BLM and Forest Service officials  said that concerns regarding possible litigation or the implications of  case law have prompted them to conduct additional or more extensive  NEPA analyses during the mine plan review process. For example,  some Forest Service officials said that to help avoid potential legal  issues, they conducted additional analyses because of the presence  of threatened or endangered species.
Complexity of public comments: Officials in 6 BLM and 2 Forest  Service locations said that the complexity of public comments has  been a key challenge that has added a few weeks to 6 months to the  mine plan review process. For example, some BLM officials said  addressing comments during the NEPA process regarding issues  such as the mine’s potential impact on Native American resources or  on air quality can add from 2 weeks to 3 months.
Amount of public comments: Officials in 4 BLM and 3 Forest  Service locations said that the number of public comments has been a  key challenge that has added 1 month to 1 year to the review process.  For example, some Forest Service officials said some mine plans  have received as many as 40,000 public comments during the NEPA  process on issues such as the mine’s potential impact on wildlife,  public health, and traffic.
Reclamation bond acquisition: Officials in 6 BLM locations said  acquiring reclamation bonds has been a key challenge and has added  2 weeks to 6 months to the review process. For example, BLM  officials said some operators have limited resources to dedicate to  reclamation. As a result, some operators have experienced difficulty in  getting bonds for reclamation, which has delayed mine plan reviews.
Operator delay requests: Officials in 4 BLM locations and 1 Forest  Service location said it has been a key challenge when operators  request delays in processing mine plans that are already under review  and has added 1 month to 1.5 years to the review process. BLM  officials said that mine operators have requested delays because  demand—and, subsequently prices—for the minerals associated with  the proposed mine decreased to a point that operators considered it  too expensive to operate the mine.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Since hardrock minerals play an important role in the U.S. economy, BLM  and the Forest Service have to balance the need to protect the  environment with the need to make federal lands accessible for mining.  These agencies rely on the mine plan review process to balance these  competing priorities. BLM and Forest Service officials we interviewed  reported experiencing numerous challenges affecting the length of time to  complete the mine plan review process and have taken some actions to  address certain challenges. However, BLM and Forest Service could take  additional actions to address the two most frequently cited challenges— the low quality of mine plans of operations and the limited allocation of  resources. Specifically, without taking further actions to improve the  quality of mine plan submissions by, for example, developing specific  guidance to encourage offices to hold pre-mine plan submittal meetings,  BLM and Forest Service offices may be missing opportunities to expedite  the review process. In addition, by not fully using their authority to charge  fees and, in the case of the Forest Service, by not requesting authority to  retain those fees, the agencies may be missing opportunities to  potentially bolster their resources to expedite the amount of time it takes  to review hardrock mine plans. Finally, because BLM does not have  codes that allow it to track newly proposed mines and mine expansions,  BLM does not have adequate information to manage and track the length  of time to complete the mine plan review process. Without modifying the  system to provide such information, BLM is limited in its ability to  effectively oversee the extraction of minerals from federal land and  manage the mine plan review process.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure effective oversight, strengthen internal controls, and address  challenges associated with the hardrock mine plan review process, we  are making two recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture and  three to the Secretary of the Interior. Specifically, we recommend that the  Secretary of the Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to  take actions to improve the quality of mine plan submissions by, for  example, developing guidance for mine operators and agency field  officials that instructs them to hold pre-plan submittal meetings  whenever possible; and  issue a rule that establishes a fee structure for hardrock mine plan  processing activities and request the authority from the Congress to  retain any fees it collects.
In addition, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the  Director of BLM to  take actions to improve the quality of mine plan submissions by, for  example, developing guidance for mine operators and agency field  officials that instructs them to hold pre-plan submittal meetings  whenever possible;  issue a rule that assesses fees associated with reviewing hardrock  mine plans that involve conducting environmental assessments; and  create new codes in its LR2000 database distinguishing between  different types of mine plans to help track the length of time to  complete the mine plan review process.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Agriculture and  the Interior for review and comment. The Forest Service (responding on  behalf of Agriculture) generally agreed with the findings in the report and  indicated that our recommendations are consistent with efforts they have  underway or plan to incorporate. (See app. II for the comment letter from  the Department of Agriculture). Interior generally agreed with the findings  and concurred with two of the recommendations on taking actions to  improve the quality of mine plan submissions and creating new codes in  LR2000. Interior partially concurred with the third recommendation on  issuing a rule. (See app. III for the comment letter from Interior.)  Specifically, we recommended that BLM issue a rule to assess fees  associated with reviewing hardrock mine plans that involve conducting  environmental assessments. In its response, BLM stated that they agree  that additional funds for field staff would generally be helpful and that they  will undertake a review of the options to address their resource  challenges, including rulemaking and potential legislation. We applaud  BLM’s commitment to review a range of options to address resource  challenges that may have led to increased permitting times. We continue  to believe, however, that assessing fees for the review of mine plans that  involve conducting environmental assessments is one step that BLM  should take to address such challenges. As we noted in the report, BLM  had this option under consideration since 2005, when it established fees  for reviewing mine plans that involve conducting an environmental impact  statement, and that the agency has an obligation to establish fees for all  services for which it has cost recovery authority. Interior also provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior,  and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found   on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This report examines (1) the number of mine plans the Bureau of Land  Management (BLM) and the Forest Service approved from fiscal years  2010 through 2014, the time it took these agencies to complete the mine  plan review process, and the extent to which these agencies track this  process; and (2) the challenges, if any, that have affected the length of  time for BLM and the Forest Service to complete the review process, and  the actions, if any, these agencies have taken to address these  challenges.
To determine the number of mine plans that were approved from fiscal  years 2010 through 2014, we examined data from BLM’s Legacy Rehost  2000 (LR2000) system and the Forest Service’s Locatable Minerals  database—automated information systems the agencies use to track key  dates and milestones in the mine plan review process. We conducted  interviews with BLM and Forest Service officials familiar with these data  systems to learn how these data are generated and maintained. Based  on our analysis of these data, and comparisons to other publicly available  information from federal agencies, we determined that these data from  these databases were not sufficiently reliable to measure the time it took  these agencies to complete the mine plan review process. Consequently,  we worked with agency officials to collect data from BLM field offices and  Forest Service ranger districts to develop a list of mine plans approved  from fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
To ensure that we reviewed data on comparable projects, we requested  data on mine plans that were 5 acres in size or larger and were plans for  new mines or mine expansions. We obtained detailed information on  dates and milestones associated with these mine plans from BLM and  Forest Service district and field officials. We asked BLM and Forest  Service officials from the agencies’ Washington, D.C., offices to verify the  accuracy and completeness of these data. We also compared these data  to other publicly available sources, such as published National  Environmental Policy Act documents. Based on this review, we  determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes of  determining the time frames for completing the mine plan review process.  Using these data, we summarized descriptive information about the mine  plans, such as mine location, number of acres of land disturbed, and the  commodity the operator intended to mine. We also calculated and  summarized the elapsed days between key milestones in the mine plan  review process and the number of approved mine plans that had not  begun operations. We also analyzed the extent to which the data systems  used by BLM and the Forest Service reflected practices consistent with  federal standards for internal control for tracking and recording events  and transactions.
To examine any challenges that have affected the length of time for BLM  and the Forest Service to review the mine plans, and any actions officials  have taken to address these challenges, we identified a list of challenges  based on interviews with agency officials, industry representatives,  nongovernmental organizations, an academic institution, and a review of  nine studies and reports issued from 1997 through 2014 on the mine plan  review process and its associated challenges. We identified these studies  and reports with assistance from mining associations, industry  consultants, and federal agencies. We then categorized and refined this  list into 13 key challenges. From our list of mine plans approved from  fiscal years 2010 through 2014, we selected 19 BLM and 4 Forest  Service locations for additional interviews to ascertain the extent to which  these challenges affected the time it took to review mine plans of  operations. The Forest Service locations included the only 2 that were  part of our list of mine plans approved from fiscal years 2010 through  2014 and 2 additional locations where officials had conducted mine plan  reviews that were particularly difficult or complex, according to a senior  Forest Service official. We selected locations in each of the 12 western  states where hardrock mining occurs. At least one mine plan was  reviewed in each of these states in this time frame. We also selected  locations to ensure that the mine plans reviewed by the agency officials  varied in the length of time it took for the officials to complete their review.  Based on these criteria, we selected 23 BLM and Forest Service locations  for additional interviews, as shown in figure 5.
Because we selected a nonprobability sample of BLM and Forest Service  locations, our findings on challenges that have affected the length of time  to review mine plans are not generalizable to all BLM offices and Forest  Service ranger districts. The officials we spoke with during these reviews  had worked on approximately 74 percent of the mine plans that were  approved from fiscal years 2010 through 2014. In each of these  interviews, we used a standard set of questions that we developed to  discuss this list of challenges with officials who review mine plans. We  asked these officials to indicate whether they had experienced each of  the challenges and, if so, whether the challenge affected the length of  time necessary to complete the mine plan review process and the  approximate length of time each challenge added to the process. In  addition, we asked whether they experienced other challenges not  already identified, as well as the actions they had taken to address these  challenges. We then compiled and analyzed the information from these  interviews and compared this information to applicable laws and  regulations, federal standards for internal control, and agency handbooks  and guidance to determine what ways, if any, these challenges could be  further addressed.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 to January 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual above, Elizabeth Erdmann (Assistant  Director), Casey L. Brown, Antoinette Capaccio, Keesha Egebrecht,  Cindy Gilbert, Armetha Liles, Marcus D. Lee, Alison D. O’Neill, and  Heather Salinas made significant contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Hazardous Waste: Agencies Should Take Steps to Improve Information  on USDA’s and Interior’s Potentially Contaminated Sites. GAO-15-35.  Washington, D.C.: January 16, 2015.
Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly  Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information.  GAO-14-140. Washington, D.C.: December 18, 2013.
Mineral Resources: Mineral Volume, Value, and Revenue. GAO-13-45R.  Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2012.
Uranium Mining: Opportunities Exist to Improve Oversight of Financial  Assurances. GAO-12-544. Washington, D.C. May 17, 2012.
Phosphate Mining: Oversight Has Strengthened, but Financial  Assurances and Coordination Still Need Improvement. GAO-12-505.  Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2012.
Hardrock Mining: BLM Needs to Revise Its Systems for Assessing the  Adequacy of Financial Assurances. GAO-12-189R. Washington, D.C.:  December 12, 2011.
Abandoned Mines: Information on the Number of Hardrock Mines, Cost of  Cleanup, and Value of Financial Assurances. GAO-11-834T. Washington,  D.C. July 14, 2011.
Hardrock Mining: Information on State Royalties and the Number of  Abandoned Mine Sites and Hazards. GAO-09-854T. Washington, D.C.:  July 14, 2009.