3809 Surface Management:
Draft EIS

Appendixes

BLM Home Page

Last Updated:
February 9, 1999

APPENDIXES


CONTENTS

Appendix A‹Existing 3809 RegulationsA-2
Appendix B‹Proposed 3809 RegulationsA-19
Appendix C‹Other Applicable RequirementsA-70
Appendix D‹Summary of State Mining Regulations/ProgramsA-80
Appendix E‹Changes in Mineral ActivitiesA-102
Appendix F‹Plant and Animal ListsA-160
Appendix G‹EconomicsA-186
Appendix H‹Recipients of the Draft EISA-213
APPENDIX A
EXISTING 3809 REGULATIONS

PART 3800--MINING CLAIMS UNDER THE GENERAL MINING LAWS

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 351; 16 U.S.C. 460y-4; 30 U.S.C. 22; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 154; 43 U.S.C. 299; 43 U.S.C. 1201; 43 U.S.C. 1740; 30 U.S.C. 28k.

* * * * *

Subpart 3809 -- Surface Management


Source: 45 FR 78909, Nov. 26, 1980, unless otherwise noted.

Note: The information collection requirements contained in this subpart have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3507 and assigned clearance number 1004 - 0104. This information is needed to permit the authorized officer to determine if a plan of operation is needed to protect the public lands and their resources and to determine if the plan of operations, if one is required, is adequate. The obligation to respond is required to obtain a benefit.

(See 48 FR 8816, Mar. 2, 1983.)

General

§ 3809.0 - 1 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to establish procedures to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of Federal lands which may result from operations authorized by the mining laws.

§ 3809.0 - 2 Objectives.

The objectives of this regulation are to:

(a) Provide for mineral entry, exploration, location, operations, and purchase pursuant to the mining laws in a manner that will not unduly hinder such activities but will assure that these activities are conducted in a manner that will prevent unnecessary or undue degradation and provide protection of nonmineral resources of the Federal lands;

(b) Provide for reclamation of disturbed areas; and

(c) Coordinate, to the greatest extent possible, with appropriate State agencies, procedures for prevention of unnecessary or undue degradation with respect to mineral operations.

§ 3809.0 - 3 Authority.

(a) Section 2319 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.) provides that exploration, location and purchase of valuable mineral deposits, under the mining laws, on Federal lands shall be ``under regulations prescribed by law,'' and section 2478 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1201), provides that those regulations shall be issued by the Secretary.

(b) Sections 302, 303, 601, and 603 of the Federal and Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) require the Secretary to take any action, by regulation or otherwise, to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the Federal lands, provide for enforcement of those regulations, and direct the Secretary to manage the California Desert Conservation Area under reasonable regulations which will protect the scenic, scientific, and environmental values against undue impairment, and to assure against pollution of streams and waters.

(c) The Act of July 23, 1955 (30 U.S.C. 612), provides that rights under mining claims located after July 23, 1955, shall prior to issuance of patent therefor, be subject to the right of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative surface resources and to manage other surface resources. The Act also provides that ``Any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall not be used, prior to issuance to patent therefor, for any purposes other than prospecting, mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto.''

(d) Section 9 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1280) provides that regulations issued shall, among other things, provide safeguards against pollution of the rivers involved and unnecessary impairment of the scenery within the area designated for potential addition to, or an actual component of the national wild and scenic rivers system.

(e) The Act of October 21, 1970 (16 U.S.C. 460y et seq.), as amended by Section 602 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 460y - 8), established the King Range Conservation Area in California. The Secretary is required under these Acts to manage activities in this conservation area under the General Mining Law of 1872 in such a manner as to protect the scenic, scientific, and environmental values against undue impairment, and ensure against pollution of streams and waters.

[45 FR 78909, Nov, 26, 1980, as amended at 59 FR 44856, Aug. 30, 1994]

§ 3809.0 - 5 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, the term:

(a) Authorized officer means any employee of the Bureau of Land Management to whom authority has been delegated to perform the duties described in this subpart.

(b) Casual Use means activities ordinarily resulting in only negligible disturbance of the Federal lands and resources. For example, activities are generally considered casual use if they do not involve the use of mechanized earth moving equipment or explosives or do not involve the use of motorized vehicles in areas designated as closed to off-road vehicles as defined in subpart 8340 of this title.

(c) Federal lands means lands subject to the mining laws including, but not limited to, the certain public lands defined in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Federal lands does not include lands in the National Park System, National Forest System, and the National Wildlife Refuge System, nor does it include acquired lands, Stockraising Homestead lands or lands where only the mineral interest is reserved to the United States or lands under Wilderness Review and administered by the Bureau of Land Management (these lands are subject to the 43 CFR part 3802 regulations).

(d) Mining claim means any unpatented mining claim, millsite, or tunnel site located under the mining laws and those patented mining claims and millsites located in the California Desert Conservation Area which have been patented subsequent to the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976.

(e) Mining laws means the Lode Law of July 26, 1866, as amended (14 Stat. 251); the Placer Law of July 9, 1870, as amended (16 Stat. 217); and the Mining Law of May 10, 1872, as amended (17 Stat. 91); and all laws supplementing and amending those laws, including among others the Building Stone Act of August 4, 1892, as amended (27 Stat. 348); and the Saline Placer Act of January 31, 1901 (31 Stat. 745).

(f) Operations means all functions, work, facilities, and activities in connection with prospecting, discovery and assessment work, development, extraction, and processing of mineral deposits locatable under the mining laws and all other uses reasonably incident thereto, whether on a mining claim or not, including but not limited to the construction of roads, transmission lines, pipelines, and other means of access for support facilities across Federal lands subject to these regulations.

(g) Operator means a person conducting or proposing to conduct operations.

(h) Person means any citizen of the United States or person who has declared the intention to become such and includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity.

(i) Project area means a single tract of land upon which an operator is, or will be, conducting operations. It may include one mining claim or a group of mining claims under one ownership on which operations are or will be conducted, as well as Federal lands on which an operator is exploring or prospecting prior to locating a mining claim.

(j) Reclamation means taking such reasonable measures as will prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the Federal lands, including reshaping land disturbed by operations to an appropriate contour and, where necessary, revegetating disturbed areas so as to provide a diverse vegetative cover. Reclamation may not be required where the retention of a stable highwall or other mine workings is needed to preserve evidence of mineralization.

(k) Unnecessary or undue degradation means surface disturbance greater than what would normally result when an activity is being accomplished by a prudent operator in usual, customary, and proficient operations of similar character and taking into consideration the effects of operations on other resources and land uses, including those resources and uses outside the area of operations. Failure to initiate and complete reasonable mitigation measures, including reclamation of disturbed areas or creation of a nuisance may constitute unnecessary or undue degradation. Failure to comply with applicable environmental protection statutes and regulations thereunder will constitute unnecessary or undue degradation. Where specific statutory authority requires the attainment of a stated level of protection or reclamation, such as in the California Desert Conservation Area, Wild and Scenic Rivers, areas designated as part of the National Wilderness System administered by the Bureau of Land Management and other such areas, that level of protection shall be met.

(l) King Range Conservation Area means the area designated pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1970 (16 U.S.C. 460y et seq.), as amended by Section 602 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 460y - 8).

[45 FR 78909, Nov. 26, 1980; 45 FR 82934, Dec. 17, 1980, as amended at 48 FR 8816, Mar. 2, 1983; 59 FR 44856, Aug. 30, 1994]

§ 3809.0 - 6 Policy.

Consistent with section 2 of the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 and section 102(a) (7), (8), and (12) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, it is the policy of the Department of the Interior to encourage the development of Federal mineral resources and reclamation of disturbed lands. Under the mining laws a person has a statutory right, consistent with Departmental regulations, to go upon the open (unappropriated and unreserved) Federal lands for the purpose of mineral prospecting, exploration, development, extraction and other uses reasonably incident thereto. This statutory right carries with it the responsibility to assure that operations include adequate and responsible measures to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the Federal lands and to provide for reasonable reclamation.

§ 3809.1 Operations.

§ 3809.1 - 1 Reclamation.

All operations, whether casual, under a notice, or by a plan of operations, shall be reclaimed as required in this title.

§ 3809.1 - 2 Casual use: Negligible disturbance.

No notification to or approval by the authorized officer is required for casual use operations. However, casual use operations are subject to monitoring by the authorized officer to ensure that unnecessary or undue degradation of Federal lands will not occur.

§ 3809.1 - 3 Notice: Disturbance of 5 acres or less.

(a) All operators on project areas whose operations, including access across Federal lands to the project area, cause a cumulative surface disturbance of 5 acres or less during any calendar year shall notify the authorized officer in the District office of the Bureau of Land Management having jurisdiction over the land in which the claim(s) or project area is located. Prior to conducting additional operations under a subsequent notice covering substantially the same ground, the operator shall have completed reclamation of operations which were conducted under any previous notice. Notification of such activities, by the operator, shall be made at least 15 calendar days before commencing operations under this subpart by a written notice or letter.

(b) Approval of a notice, by the authorized officer, is not required. Consultation with the authorized officer may be required under paragraph (c)(3) of this section when the construction of access routes are involved. Notices properly filed under this section constitute authorization under part 8340 of this title (Off-Road Vehicles).

(c) The notice or letter shall include:

(1) Name and mailing address of the mining claimant and operator, if other than the claimant. Any change of operator or in the mailing address of the mining claimant or operator shall be reported promptly to the authorized officer;

(2) When applicable, the name of the mining claim(s), and serial number(s) assigned to the mining claim(s) recorded pursuant to subpart 3833 of this title on which disturbance will likely take place as a result of the operations;

(3) A statement describing the activities proposed and their location in sufficient detail to locate the activities on the ground, and giving the approximate date when operations will start. The statement shall include a description and location of access routes to be constructed and the type of equipment to be used in their construction. Access routes shall be planned for only the minimum width needed for operations and shall follow natural contours, where practicable, to minimize cut and fill. When the construction of access routes involves slopes which require cuts on the inside edge in excess of 3 feet, the operator may be required to consult with the authorized officer concerning the most appropriate location of the access route prior to commencing operations;

(4) A statement that reclamation of all areas disturbed will be completed to the standard described in § 3809.1 - 3(d) of this title and that reasonable measures will be taken to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the Federal lands during operations.

(d) The following standards govern activities conducted under a notice:

(1) Access routes shall be planned for only the minimum width needed for operations and shall follow natural contours, where practicable to minimize cut and fill.

(2) All tailings, dumps, deleterious materials or substances, and other waste produced by the operations shall be disposed of so as to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation and in accordance with applicable Federal and State Laws.

(3) At the earliest feasible time, the operator shall reclaim the area disturbed, except to the extent necessary to preserve evidence of mineralization, by taking reasonable measures to prevent or control on-site and off-site damage of the Federal lands.

(4) Reclamation shall include, but shall not be limited to:

(i) Saving of topsoil for final application after reshaping of disturbed areas have been completed;

(ii) Measures to control erosion, landslides, and water runoff;

(iii) Measures to isolate, remove, or control toxic materials;

(iv) Reshaping the area disturbed, application of the topsoil, and revegetation of disturbed areas, where reasonably practicable; and

(v) Rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife habitat.

(5) When reclamation of the disturbed area has been completed, except to the extent necessary to preserve evidence of mineralization, the authorized officer shall be notified so that an inspection of the area can be made.

(e) Operations conducted pursuant to this subpart are subject to monitoring by the authorized officer to ensure that operators are conducting operations in a manner which will not cause unnecessary or undue degradation.

(f) Failure of the operator to prevent undue or unnecessary degradation or to complete reclamation to the standards described in this subpart may cause the operator to be subject to a notice of noncompliance as described in § 3809.3 - 2 of this title.

[45 FR 78909, Nov. 26, 1980; 45 FR 82934, Dec. 17, 1980, as amended at 48 FR 8816, Mar. 2, 1983]

§ 3809.1 - 4 Plan of operations: When required.

An approved plan of operations is required prior to commencing:

(a) Operations which exceed the disturbance level (5 acres) described in § 3809.1 - 3 of this title.

(b) Any operation, except casual use, in the following designated areas:

(1) Lands in the California Desert Conservation Area designated as controlled or limited use areas by the California Desert Conservation Area plan;

(2) Areas designated for potential addition to, or an actual component of the national wild and scenic rivers system,

(3) Designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern;

(4) Areas designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System and administered by the Bureau of Land Management;

(5) Areas designated as closed to off-road vehicle use as defined in subpart 8340 of this title.

(6) The area designated as the King Range Conservation Area pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 460y et seq., as amended by section 602 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

(c) Plans properly filed and approved under this section constitute authorization under part 8340 of this title (Off-Road Vehicles).

[45 FR 78909, Nov. 26, 1980; 45 FR 82934, Dec. 17, 1980, as amended at 48 FR 8816, Mar. 2, 1983; 59 FR 44856, Aug. 30, 1994]

§ 3809.1 - 5 Filing and contents of plan of operations.

(a) A plan of operations must be filed in the District Office of the Bureau of Land Management having jurisdiction over the Federal lands in which the claim(s) or project area is located.

(b) No special form is required for filing a plan.

(c) The plan shall include:

(1) The name and mailing address of the operator (and claimant if not the operator). Any change of operator or change in the mailing address shall be promptly reported to the authorized officer;

(2) A map, preferably a topographic map, or sketch showing existing and/or proposed routes of access, aircraft landing areas, or other means of access, and size of each area where surface disturbance will occur;

(3) When applicable, the name of the mining claim(s) and mining claim serial numbers assigned to the mining claim(s) recorded pursuant to subpart 3833 of this title.

(4) Information sufficient to describe or identify the type of operations proposed, how they will be conducted and the period during which the proposed activity will take place;

(5) Measures to be taken to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation and measures to reclaim disturbed areas resulting from the proposed operations, including the standards listed in § 3809.1 - 3(d) of this title. Where an operator advises the authorized officer that he/she does not have the necessary technical resources to develop such measures the authorized officer will assist the operator in developing such measures. If an operator submits reclamation measures, the authorized officer will ensure that the operator's plan is sufficient to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. All reclamation measures developed by the operator, or by the authorized officer in conjunction with the operator, shall become a part of the plan of operations.

(6) Measures to be taken during extended periods of nonoperation to maintain the area in a safe and clean manner and to reclaim the land to avoid erosion and other adverse impacts. If not filed at the time of plan submittal, this information shall be filed with the authorized officer whenever the operator anticipates a period of nonoperation.

[45 FR 78909, Nov. 26, 1980; 45 FR 82934, Dec. 17, 1980]

§ 3809.1 - 6 Plan approval.

(a) A proposed plan of operations shall be submitted to the authorized officer, who shall promptly acknowledge receipt thereof to the operator. The authorized officer shall, within 30 days of such receipt, analyze the proposal in the context of the requirement to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation and provide for reasonable reclamation, and shall notify the operator:

(1) That the plan is approved; or

(2) Of any changes in or additions to the plan necessary to meet the requirements of these regulations; or

(3) That the plan is being reviewed, but that a specified amount of time, not to exceed an additional 60 days, is necessary to complete the review, setting forth the circumstances which justify additional time for review. However, days during which the area of operations is inaccessible for inspection shall not be counted when computing the 60 day period; or

(4) That the plan cannot be approved until 30 days after a final environmental statement has been prepared and filed with the Environmental Protection Agency; or

(5) That the plan cannot be approved until the authorized officer has complied with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act or section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

(b) The authorized officer shall consult with the appropriate official of the bureau or agency having surface management responsibilities where such responsibility is not exercised by the Bureau of Land Management. Prior to plan approval the authorized officer shall obtain the concurrence of such appropriate official to the terms and conditions that may be needed to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation.

(c) The authorized officer shall undertake an appropriate level of cultural resource inventory of the area to be disturbed. The inventory shall be completed within the time allowed by these regulations for approval of the plan (30 days). The operator is not required to do the inventory but may hire an archaeologist approved by the Bureau of Land Management in order to complete the inventory more expeditiously. The responsibility for and cost of salvage of cultural resources discovered during the inventory shall be the Federal Government's. The responsibility of avoiding adverse impacts on those cultural resources discovered during the inventory shall be the operator's.

(d) Pending final approval of the plan, the authorized officer shall approve any operations that may be necessary for timely compliance with requirements of Federal and State laws, subject to any terms and conditions that may be needed to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation.

(e) In the event of a change of operators involving an approved plan of operations, the new operator shall satisfy the requirements of § 3809.1 - 9 of this title as it relates to bonding.

[45 FR 78909, Nov. 26, 1980; 45 FR 82934, Dec. 17, 1980]

§ 3809.1 - 7 Modification of plan.

(a) At any time during operations under an approved plan, the operator on his/her own initiative may modify the plan or the authorized officer may request the operator to do so.

(b) A significant modification of an approved plan must be reviewed and approved by the authorized officer in the same manner as the initial plan.

(c)(1) If, when requested to do so by the authorized officer, the operator does not furnish a proposed modification within a reasonable time, usually 30 days, the authorized officer may recommend to the State Director that the operator be required to submit a proposed modification of the plan. The recommendation of the authorized officer shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth the facts and the reasons for the recommendations.

(2) In acting upon such recommendations the State Director shall determine, within 30 days, whether:

(i) All reasonable measures were taken by the authorized officer at the time the plan was approved to ensure that the proposed operations would not cause unnecessary or undue degradation of the Federal land;

(ii) The disturbance from the operations of the plan as approved or from unforeseen circumstances is or may become of such significance that modification of the plan is essential in order to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation; and

(iii) The disturbance can be minimized using reasonable means.

(3) Once the matter has been sent to the State Director, an operator is not required to submit a proposed modification of an approved plan until a determination is made by the State Director. Where the State Director determines that a plan shall be modified, the operator shall timely submit a modified plan to the authorized officer for review and approval.

(4) Operations may continue in accordance with the approved plan until a modified plan is approved, unless the State Director determines that the operations are causing unnecessary or undue degradation to the land. The State Director shall advise the operator of those reasonable measures needed to avoid such degradation and the operator shall immediately take all necessary steps to implement those measures within a reasonable period established by the State Director.

§ 3809.1 - 8 Existing operations.

[following section was reinstated by court's May 1998 ruling]

(a) Persons conducting operations on the effective date of these regulations, who would be required to submit a notice under § 3809.1 - 3 or a plan of operations under § 3809.1 - 4 of this title may continue operations but shall, within:

(1) 30 days submit a notice with required information outlined in § 3809.1 - 3 of this title for operations where 5 acres or less will be disturbed during a calendar year; or

(2) 120 days submit a plan in those areas identified in § 3809.1 - 4 of this title. Upon a showing of good cause, the authorized officer may grant an extension of time, not to exceed an additional 180 days, to submit a plan.

(b) Operations may continue according to the submitted plan during its review. If the authorized officer determines that operations are causing unnecessary or undue degradation of the Federal lands involved, the authorized officer shall advise the operator of those reasonable measures needed to avoid such degradation, and the operator shall take all necessary steps to implement those measures within a reasonable time recommended by the authorized officer. During the period of an appeal, if any, operations may continue without change, subject to other applicable Federal and State laws.

(c) Upon approval of a plan by the authorized officer, operations shall be conducted in accordance with the approval plan.

[45 FR 78909, Nov. 26, 1980; 45 FR 82934, Dec. 17, 1980]

§ 3809.1 - 9 Bonding requirements.
[following section was reinstated by court's May 1998 ruling]

(a) No bond shall be required for operations that constitute casual use (§ 3809.1 - 2) or that are conducted under a notice (§ 3809.1 - 3 of this title).

(b) Any operator who conducts operations under an approved plan of operations as described in § 3809.1 - 5 of this title may, at the discretion of the authorized officer, be required to furnish a bond in an amount specified by the authorized officer. The authorized officer may determine not to require a bond in circumstances where operations would cause only minimal disturbance to the land. In determining the amount of the bond, the authorized officer shall consider the estimated cost of reasonable stabilization and reclamation of areas disturbed. In lieu of the submission of a separate bond, the authorized officer may accept evidence of an existing bond pursuant to State law or regulations for the same area covered by the plan of operations, upon a determination that the coverage would be equivalent to that provided in this section.

(c) In lieu of a bond, the operator may deposit and maintain in a Federal depository account of the United States Treasury, as directed by the authorized officer, cash in an amount equal to the required dollar amount of the bond or negotiable securities of the United States having a market value at the time of deposit of not less than the required dollar amount of the bond.

(d) In place of the individual bond on each separate operation, a blanket bond covering statewide or nationwide operations may be furnished at the option of the operator, if the terms and conditions, as determined by the authorized officer, are sufficient to comply with these regulations.

(e) In the event that an approved plan is modified in accordance with § 3809.1 - 7 of this title, the authorized officer shall review the initial bond for adequacy and, if necessary, adjust the amount of the bond to conform to the plan as modified.

(f) When all or any portion of the reclamation has been completed in accordance with the approved plan, the operator may notify the authorized officer that such reclamation has occurred and that she/he seeks a reduction in bond or Bureau approval of the adequacy of the reclamation, or both. Upon any such notification, the authorized officer shall promptly inspect the reclaimed area with the operator. The authorized officer shall then notify the operator, in writing, whether the reclamation is acceptable. When the authorized officer has accepted as completed any portion of the reclamation, the authorized officer shall authorize that the bond be reduced proportionally to cover the remaining reclamation to be accomplished.

(g) When a mining claim is patented, the authorized officer shall release the operator from that portion of the performance bond which applies to operations within the boundaries of the patented land. The authorized officer shall release the operator from the remainder of the performance bond, including the portion covering approved means of access outside the boundaries of the mining claim, when the operator has completed acceptable reclamation. However, existing access to patented mining claims, if across Federal lands shall continue to be regulated under the approved plan. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to patents. issued on mining claims within the boundaries of the California Desert Conservation Area (see § 3809.6 of this title).

[45 FR 78909, Nov. 26, 1980; 45 FR 82934, Dec. 17, 1980]

§ 3809.2 Prevention of unnecessary or undue degradation.

§ 3809.2 - 1 Environmental assessment.

(a) When an operator files a plan of operations or a significant modification which encompasses land not previously covered by an approved plan, the authorized officer shall make an environmental assessment or a supplement thereto to identify the impacts of the proposed operations on the lands and to determine whether an environmental impact statement is required.

(b) In conjunction with the operator, the authorized officer shall use the environmental assessment to determine the adequacy of mitigating measures and reclamation procedures included in the plan to insure the prevention of unnecessary or undue degradation of the land. If an operator advises the authorized officer that he/she is unable to prepare mitigating measures, the authorized officer, in conjunction with the operator, shall use the environmental assessment as a basis for assisting the operator in developing such measures.

(c) If, as a result of the environmental assessment, the authorized officer determines that there is substantial public interest in the plan, the authorized officer shall notify the operator, in writing, that an additional period of time, not to exceed the additional 60 days provided for approval of a plan in § 3809.1 - 6 of this title, is required to consider public comments on the environmental assessment.

[45 FR 78909, Nov. 26, 1980; 45 FR 82934, Dec. 17, 1980, as amended at 48 FR 8816, Mar. 2, 1983]

§ 3809.2 - 2 Other requirements for environmental protection.

All operations, including casual use and operations under either a notice (§ 3809.1 - 3) or a plan of operations (§ 3809.1 - 4 of this title), shall be conducted to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the Federal lands and shall comply with all pertinent Federal and State laws, including but not limited to the following:

(a) Air quality. All operators shall comply with applicable Federal and State air quality standards, including the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.).

(b) Water quality. All operators shall comply with applicable Federal and State water quality standards, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).

(c) Solid wastes. All operators shall comply with applicable Federal and State standards for the disposal and treatment of solid wastes, including regulations issued pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). All garbage, refuse or waste shall either be removed from the affected lands or disposed of or treated to minimize, so far as is practicable, its impact on the lands.

(d) Fisheries, wildlife and plant habitat. The operator shall take such action as may be needed to prevent adverse impacts to threatened or endangered species, and their habitat which may be affected by operations.

(e) Cultural and paleontological resources. (1) Operators shall not knowingly disturb, alter, injure, or destroy any scientifically important paleontological remains or any historical or archaeological site, structure, building or object on Federal lands.

(2) Operators shall immediately bring to the attention of the authorized officer any cultural and/or paleontological resources that might be altered or destroyed on Federal lands by his/her operations, and shall leave such discovery intact until told to proceed by the authorized officer. The authorized officer shall evaluate the discoveries brought to his/her attention, take action to protect or remove the resource, and allow operations to proceed within 10 working days after notification to the authorized officer of such discovery.

(3) The Federal Government shall have the responsibility and bear the cost of investigations and salvage of cultural and paleontology values discovered after a plan of operations has been approved, or where a plan is not involved.

(f) Protection of survey monuments. To the extent practicable, all operators shall protect all survey monuments, witness corners, reference monuments, bearing trees and line trees against unnecessary or undue destruction, obliteration or damage. If, in the course of operations, any monuments, corners, or accessories are destroyed, obliterated or damaged by such operations, the operator shall immediately report the matter to the authorized officer. The authorized officer shall prescribe, in writing, the requirements for the restoration or reestablishment of monuments, corners, bearing and line trees.

[45 FR 78909, Nov. 26, 1980; 45 FR 82934, Dec. 17, 1980, as amended at 48 FR 8816, Mar. 2, 1983]

§ 3809.3 General provisions.

§ 3809.3 - 1 Applicability of State law.

(a) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to effect a preemption of State laws and regulations relating to the conduct of operations or reclamation on Federal lands under the mining laws.
[[following section was reinstated by court's May 1998 ruling]
(b) After the publication date of these regulations the Director, Bureau of Land Management, shall conduct a review of State laws and regulations in effect or due to come into effect, relating to unnecessary or undue degradation of lands disturbed by exploration for, or mining of, minerals locatable under the mining laws.
.
(c) The Director may consult with appropriate representatives of each State to formulate and enter into agreements to provide for a joint Federal-State program for administration and enforcement. The purpose of such agreements is to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the Federal lands from operations which are conducted under the mining laws, to prevent unnecessary administrative delay and to avoid duplication of administration and enforcement of laws. Such agreements may, whenever possible, provide for State administration and enforcement of such programs.

[45 FR 78909, Nov. 26, 1980; 45 FR 82934, Dec. 17, 1980]

§ 3809.3 - 2 Noncompliance.

(a) Failure of an operator to file a notice under § 3809.1 - 3 of this title or a plan of operations under § 3809.1 - 4 of this title will subject the operator, at the discretion of the authorized officer, to being served a notice of non-compliance or enjoined from the continuation of such operations by a court order until such time as a notice or plan is filed with the authorized officer. The operator shall also be responsible to reclaim operations conducted without an approved plan of operations or prior to the filing of a required notice.

(b) Failure to reclaim areas disturbed by operations under § 3809.1 - 3 of this title is a violation of these regulations.

(1) Where an operator is conducting operations covered by 3809.1 - 3 (notice) of this title and fails to comply with the provisions of that section or properly conduct reclamation according to standards set forth in 3809.1 - 3(d) of this title, a notice of noncompliance shall be served by delivery in person to the operator or his/her authorized agent, or by certified mail addressed to his/her address of record.

(2) Operators conducting operations under an approved plan of operations who fails to follow the approved plan of operations may be subject to a notice of noncompliance. A notice of noncompliance shall be served in the same manner as described in § 3809.3 - 2(b)(1) of this section.

(c) All operators who conduct operations under a notice pursuant to § 3809.1 - 3 and a plan pursuant to § 3809.1 - 4 of this title on Federal lands without taking the actions specified in a notice of noncompliance within the time specified therein may be enjoined by an appropriate court order from continuing such operations and be liable for damages for such unlawful acts.

(d) A notice of noncompliance shall specify in what respects the operator is failing or has failed to comply with the requirements of applicable regulations, and shall specify the actions which are in violation of the regulations and the actions which shall be taken to correct the noncompliance and the time, not to exceed 30 days, within which corrective action shall be started.

[following section was reinstated by court's May 1998 ruling]
(e) Failure of an operator to take necessary actions on a notice of noncompliance, may constitute justification for requiring the submission of a plan of operations under § 3809.1 - 5 of this title, and mandatory bonding for subsequent operations which would otherwise be conducted pursuant to a notice under § 3809.1 - 3 of this title.

[45 FR 78909, Nov. 26, 1980; 45 FR 82934, Dec. 17, 1980]

§ 3809.3 - 3 Access.

(a) An operator is entitled to access to his operations consistent with provisions of the mining laws.

(b) Where a notice or a plan of operations is required, it shall specify the location of access routes for operations and other conditions necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. The authorized officer may require the operator to use existing roads to minimize the number of access routes, and, if practicable, to construct access roads within a designated transportation or utility corridor. When commercial hauling is involved and the use of an existing road is required, the authorized officer may require the operator to make appropriate arrangements for use and maintenance.

§ 3809.3 - 4 Fire prevention and control.

The operator shall comply with all applicable Federal and State fire laws and regulations, and shall take all reasonable measures to prevent and suppress fires in the area of operations.

§ 3809.3 - 5 Maintenance and public safety.

During all operations, the operator shall maintain his structures, equipment, and other facilities in a safe and orderly manner. Hazardous sites or conditions resulting from operations shall be marked by signs, fenced, or otherwise identified to alert the public in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations.

§ 3809.3 - 6 Inspection.

The authorized officer may periodically inspect operations to determine if the operator is complying with these regulations. The operator shall permit the authorized officer access for this purpose.

§ 3809.3 - 7 Periods of non-operation.

All operators shall maintain the site, structures and other facilities of the operations in a safe and clean condition during any non-operating periods. All operators may be required, after an extended period of non-operation for other than seasonal operations, to remove all structures, equipment and other facilities and reclaim the site of operations, unless he/she receives permission, in writing, from the authorized officer to do otherwise.

§ 3809.4 Appeals.

(a) Any operator adversely affected by a decision of the authorized officer made pursuant to the provisions of this subpart shall have a right of appeal to the State Director, and thereafter to the Board of Land Appeals, Office of Hearings and Appeals, pursuant to part 4 of this title, if the State Director's decision is adverse to the appellant.

(b) No appeal shall be considered unless it is filed, in writing, in the office of the authorized officer who made the decision from which an appeal is being taken, within 30 days after the date of receipt of the decision. A decision of the authorized officer from which an appeal is taken to the State Director shall be effective during the pendency of an appeal. A request for a stay may accompany the appeal.

(c) The appeal to the State Director shall contain:

(1) The name and mailing address of the appellant.

(2) When applicable, the name of the mining claim(s) and serial number(s) assigned to the mining claims recorded pursuant to subpart 3833 of this title which are subject to the appeal.

(3) A statement of the reasons for the appeal and any arguments the appellant wishes to present which would justify reversal or modification of the decision.

(d) The State Director shall promptly render a decision on the appeal. The decision shall be in writing and shall set forth the reasons for the decision. The decision shall be sent to the appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested.

(e) The decision of the State Director, when adverse to the appellant, may be appealed to the Board of Land Appeals, Office of Hearings and Appeals, pursuant to part 4 of this title.

(f) Any party, other than the operator, aggrieved by a decision of the authorized officer shall utilize the appeals procedures in part 4 of this title. The filing of such an appeal shall not stop the authorized officer's decision from being effective.

(g) Neither the decision of the authorized officer nor the State Director shall be construed as final agency action for the purpose of judicial review of that decision.

[45 FR 78909, Nov. 26, 1980, as amended at 48 FR 8816, Mar. 2, 1983]

§ 3809.5 Public availability of information.

(a) Information and data submitted and specifically identified by the operator as containing trade secrets or confidential or privileged commercial or financial information shall not be available for public examination. Other information and data submitted by the operator shall be available for examination by the public at the office of the authorized officer in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

(b) The determination concerning specific information which may be withheld from public examination shall be made in accordance with the rules in 43 CFR part 2.

§ 3809.6 Special provisions relating to mining claims patented within the boundaries of the California Desert Conservation Area.

In accordance with section 601(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976, all patents issued on mining claims located within the boundaries of the California Desert Conservation Area after the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act shall be subject to the regulations in this part, including the continuation of a plan of operations and of bonding with respect to the land covered by the patent.

APPENDIX B
PROPOSED 3809 REGULATIONS

PART 3800--MINING CLAIMS UNDER THE GENERAL MINING LAWS

1. BLM is amending part 3800 by revising subpart 3809 to read as follows:

Subpart 3809--Surface Management

Sec.
GENERAL INFORMATION
3809.1 What are the purposes of this subpart?
3809.2 What is the scope of this subpart?
3809.3 What rules must I follow if State law conflicts with this subpart?

3809.5 How does BLM define certain terms used in this subpart?
3809.10 How does BLM classify operations?
3809.11 When does BLM require that I submit a notice or a plan of operations?

3809.11When does BLM require that I submit a notice of intention to operate or a plan of operations? (Forest Service Alternative)
3809.100What special provisions apply to operations on segregated or withdrawn lands?
3809.101What special provisions apply to minerals that may be common variety minerals, such as sand, gravel, and building stone?
3809.111Public availability of information.

3809.115 Information collection.
3809.116As a mining claimant or operator, what are my responsibilities under this subpart for my project area?

FEDERAL/STATE AGREEMENTS
3809.201What kinds of agreements may BLM and a State make under this subpart?
3809.202Under what conditions will BLM defer to State regulation of operations?
3809.203What are the limitations on BLM deferral to State regulation of operations?

3809.204 Does this subpart cancel an existing agreement between BLM and a State?

OPERATIONS CONDUCTED UNDER NOTICES
3809.300Does this subpart apply to my existing notice-level operations?
3809.301Where do I file my notice and what information must I include in it?
3809.311What action does BLM take when it receives my notice?
3809.312 When may I begin operations after filing a complete notice?

3809.313Under what circumstances may I not begin operations 15 business days after filing my notice?
3809.320Which performance standards apply to my notice-level operations?
3809.330May I modify my notice?
3809.331Under what conditions must I modify my notice?
3809.332How long does my notice remain in effect?
3809.333May I extend my notice, and, if so, how?
3809.334What if I temporarily stop conducting operations under a notice?
3809.335What happens when my notice expires?
3809.336What if I abandon my notice-level operations?

OPERATIONS CONDUCTED UNDER PLANS OF OPERATIONS
3809.400Does this subpart apply to my existing or pending plan of operations?
3809.401Where do I file my plan of operations and what information must I include with it?
3809.411What action will BLM take when it receives my plan of operations?
3809.412When may I operate under a plan of operations?
3809.415How do I prevent unnecessary or undue degradation while conducting operations on public lands?
3809.420What performance standards apply to my notice or plan of operations?

3809.423How long does my plan of operations remain in effect?
3809.424What are my obligations if I stop conducting operations?


MODIFICATIONS OF PLANS OF OPERATIONS
3809.430May I modify my plan of operations?

3809.431When must I modify my plan of operations?
3809.432What process will BLM follow in reviewing a modification of my plan of operations?
3809.433 Does this subpart apply to a new modification of my plan of operations?

3809.434 Does this subpart apply to my pending modification for a new facility?
3809.435 Does this subpart apply to my pending modification for an existing facility?

FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS--GENERAL
3809.500In general, what are BLM's financial guarantee requirements?
3809.503 When must I provide a financial guarantee for my notice-level operations?

3809.505How do the financial guarantee requirements of this subpart apply to my existing plan of operations?
3809.551What are my choices for providing BLM with a financial guarantee?

INDIVIDUAL FINANCIAL GUARANTEE
3809.552What must my individual financial guarantee cover?
3809.553 May I post a financial guarantee for a part of my operations?
3809.554How do I estimate the cost to reclaim my operations?
3809.555What forms of individual financial guarantee are acceptable to BLM?
3809.556What special requirements apply to financial guarantees described in §3809.555(e)?

BLANKET FINANCIAL GUARANTEE
3809.560Under what circumstances may I provide a blanket financial guarantee?

STATE-APPROVED FINANCIAL GUARANTEE
3809.570Under what circumstances may I provide a State-approved financial guarantee?
3809.571 What forms of State-approved financial guarantee are acceptable to BLM?
3809.572What happens if BLM rejects a financial instrument in my State approved financial guarantee?
3809.573What happens if the State makes a demand against my financial guarantee?

MODIFICATION OR REPLACEMENT OF A FINANCIAL GUARANTEE
3809.580What happens if I modify my notice or approved plan of operations?
3809.581Will BLM accept a replacement financial instrument?
3809.582How long must I maintain my financial guarantee?

RELEASE OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE
3809.590When will BLM release or reduce the financial guarantee for my notice or plan of operations?
3809.591What are the limitations on the amount by which BLM may reduce my financial guarantee?
3809.592Does release of my financial guarantee relieve me of all responsibility for my project area?
3809.593 What happens to my financial guarantee if I transfer my operations?

3809.594 What happens to my financial guarantee when my mining claim is patented?

FORFEITURE OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE
3809.595 When will BLM initiate forfeiture of my financial guarantee?
3809.596 How does BLM initiate forfeiture of my financial guarantee?
3809.597 What if I do not comply with BLM's forfeiture notice?
3809.598 What if the amount forfeited will not cover the cost of reclamation?
3809.599 What if the amount forfeited exceeds the cost of reclamation?


INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

3809.600 With what frequency will BLM inspect my operations?
3809.601What type of enforcement action may BLM take if I do not meet the requirements of this subpart?
3809.602Can BLM revoke my plan of operations or nullify my notice?
3809.603How does BLM serve me with an enforcement action?

3809.604What happens if I do not comply with a BLM order?

PENALTIES
3809.700What criminal penalties apply to violations of this subpart?
3809.701What happens if I make false statements to BLM?
3809.702What civil penalties apply to violations of this subpart?
3809.703Can BLM settle a proposed civil penalty?

APPEALS
3809.800What appeal rights do I have?

Subpart 3809--Surface Management

AUTHORITY: 16 U.S.C. 1280; 30 U.S.C. 22; 30 U.S.C. 612; 43 U.S.C. 1201; and 43 U.S.C. 1732, 1733, 1740, 1781, and 1782.

GENERAL INFORMATION

§3809.1 What are the purposes of this subpart?

The purposes of this subpart are to:

(a) Prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands by operations authorized by the mining laws. Anyone intending to develop mineral resources on the public lands must prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the land and reclaim disturbed areas. This subpart establishes procedures and standards to ensure that operators and mining claimants meet this responsibility; and

(b) Provide for maximum possible coordination with appropriate State agencies to avoid duplication and to ensure that operators prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.

§3809.2 What is the scope of this subpart?

(a) This subpart applies to all operations authorized by the mining laws on public lands, including Stock Raising Homestead lands, as provided in §3809.11(i), where the mineral interest is reserved to the United States.

(b) This subpart does not apply to lands in the National Park System, National Forest System, and the National Wildlife Refuge System; acquired lands; lands leased or patented under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act; lands patented under the Small Tract Act; or lands administered by BLM that are under wilderness review, which are subject to subpart 3802 of this part.

(c) This subpart applies to all patents issued after October 21, 1976 for mining claims in the California Desert Conservation Area, except for any patent for which a right to the patent vested before that date.

(d) This subpart applies to operations that involve metallic minerals; some industrial minerals, such as gypsum; and a number of other non-metallic minerals that have a unique property which gives the deposit a distinct and special value. This subpart does not apply to leasable and salable minerals. Leasable minerals, such as coal, phosphate, sodium, and potassium; and salable minerals, such as common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, and pumice, are not subject to location under the mining laws. Parts 3400, 3500 and 3600 of this title govern mining operations for leasable and salable minerals.

§3809.3What rules must I follow if State law conflicts with this subpart?

If State laws or regulations conflict with this subpart regarding operations on public lands, you must follow the requirements of this subpart. However, there is no conflict if the State law or regulation requires a higher standard of protection for public lands than this subpart.

§3809.5 How does BLM define certain terms used in this subpart?

As used in this subpart, the term:

Casual use means activities ordinarily resulting in no or negligible disturbance of the public lands or resources. For example--

(1) Casual use generally includes the collection of mineral specimens using hand tools, hand panning, and non-motorized sluicing.

(2) Casual use does not include use of mechanized earth-moving equipment, truck-mounted drilling equipment, portable suction dredges, motorized vehicles in areas designated as closed to "off-road vehicles" as defined in §8340.0-5 of this title, chemicals, or explosives; "occupancy" as defined in §3715.0-5 of this title; or hobby or recreational mining in areas where the cumulative effects of the activities result in more than negligible disturbance.

Mining claim means any unpatented mining claim, millsite, or tunnel site located under the mining laws. The term also applies to those mining claims and millsites located in the California Desert Conservation Area that were patented after the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976. Mining "claimant" is defined in §3833.0-5 of this title.

Mining laws means the Lode Law of July 26, 1866, as amended (14 Stat. 251); the Placer Law of July 9, 1870, as amended (16 Stat. 217); and the Mining Law of May 10, 1872, as amended (17 Stat. 91); as well as all laws supplementing and amending those laws, including the Building Stone Act of August 4, 1892, as amended (27 Stat. 348); the Saline Placer Act of January 31, 1901 (31 Stat. 745); the Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C. 611-614); and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

Minimize means to reduce the adverse impact of an operation to the lowest practical level. During review of operations, BLM may determine that "minimize"means to avoid or eliminate particular impacts.

Mitigation, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.20, may include one or more of the following:

(1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;

(2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;

(3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;

(4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and

(5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, or providing substitute, resources or environments.

Most appropriate technology and practices (MATP) means equipment, devices, or methods that have demonstrable feasibility, success, and practicality in meeting the standards of this subpart. MATP includes the use of equipment and procedures that are either proven or reasonably expected to be effective in a particular region or location. MATP does not necessarily require use of the most expensive technology or practice. BLM determines whether the requirement to use MATP is met on a case-by-case basis during its review of a notice or plan of operations.

Operations means all functions, work, facilities, and activities on public lands in connection with prospecting, discovery and assessment work, development, extraction, and processing of mineral deposits locatable under the mining laws; reclamation of disturbed areas; and all other reasonably incident uses, whether on a mining claim or not, including the construction of roads, transmission lines, pipelines, and other means of access across public lands for support facilities.

Operator means any person who manages, directs, or conducts operations at a project area under this subpart, including a parent entity or an affiliate who materially participates in such management, direction, or conduct. An operator on a particular mining claim may also be the mining claimant.

Person means any individual, firm, corporation, association, partnership, trust, consortium, joint venture, or any other entity conducting operations on public lands.

Project area means the area of land upon which the operator conducts operations, including the area required for construction or maintenance of roads, transmission lines, pipelines, or other means of access by the operator.

Public lands, as defined in 43 U.S.C. 1702, means any land and interest in land owned by the United States within the several States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM, without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except--

(1) Lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf; and

(2) Lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.

Reclamation means taking measures required by this subpart following disturbance of public lands caused by operations to meet applicable performance standards and achieve conditions required by BLM at the conclusion of operations. Components of reclamation include, where applicable:

(1) Isolation, control, or removal of acid-forming, toxic, or deleterious substances;

(2) Regrading and reshaping to conform with adjacent landforms, facilitate revegetation, control drainage, and minimize erosion;

(3) Rehabilitation of fisheries or wildlife habitat;

(4) Placement of growth medium and establishment of self-sustaining revegetation;

(5) Removal or stabilization of buildings, structures, or other support facilities;

(6) Plugging of drill holes and closure of underground workings; and

(7) Providing for post-mining monitoring, maintenance, or treatment.

For a definition of "reclamation" applicable to operations conducted under the mining laws on Stock Raising Homestead Act lands, see part 3810, subpart 3814 of this title.

Riparian area is a form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Typical riparian areas include lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Excluded are areas such as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil.

Tribe means, and Tribal refers to, a Federally recognized Indian tribe.

Unnecessary or undue degradation means conditions, activities, or practices that:

(1) Fail to comply with one or more of the following: §3809.420 of this subpart, the terms and conditions of an approved plan of operations, operations described in a complete notice, and other Federal and State laws related to environmental protection and protection of cultural resources;

(2) Are not "reasonably incident" to prospecting, mining, or processing operations as defined in §3715.0-5 of this title; or

(3) Fail to attain a stated level of protection or reclamation required by specific laws in areas such as the California Desert Conservation Area, Wild and Scenic Rivers, BLM-administered portions of the National Wilderness System, and BLM-administered National Monuments and National Conservation Areas.

§3809.10 How does BLM classify operations?

BLM classifies operations as--

(a) Casual use, for which an operator generally need not notify BLM;

(b) Notice-level operations, for which an operator must submit a notice (except for certain suction-dredging operations covered by §3809.11(h)); and

(c) Plan-level operations, for which an operator must submit a plan of operations and obtain BLM's approval.

§3809.11 When does BLM require that I submit a notice or a plan of operations?

To see when you must submit a notice or a plan of operations, follow this table:

<< Conversion error >>
If your operations . . . Then . . .
(a) Consist of casual use, You do not need to notify BLM or seek permission to conduct operations. You must reclaim casual-use disturbance. BLM may monitor your operations to ensure that unnecessary or undue degradation does not occur.
If your operations . . . Then . . .
(b) Consist of unreclaimed surface disturbance of 5 acres or less of public lands, You must give BLM a complete notice of your planned activities 15 business days before you plan to start operations. You have the option to file a plan of operations. You must not segment a project area by filing a series of notices solely to avoid filing a plan of operations. See §§3809.300 to 3809.336.
(c) Consist of unreclaimed surface disturbance of more than 5 acres of public lands, You must submit a plan of operations and obtain BLM's approval before beginning operations. See §§3809.400 to 3809.435.
(d) Cause any surface disturbance greater than casual use in the special status areas described in paragraph (j) of this section, You must submit a plan of operations and obtain BLM's approval. See §§3809.400 to 3809.435.
(e) Involve any recreational mining activities by a group, such as a mining club, The group's representative must contact BLM at least 15 business days before initiating activities to find out if BLM will require the group to file a notice or a plan of operations. This contact is not required if the group submits a notice or plan of operations.
(f) Involve any leaching or storage, addition, or use of chemicals in milling, processing, beneficiation, or concentrating activities (This does not include chemicals used solely for fuel or as lubricants for equipment.), You must submit a plan of operations and obtain BLM's approval. See §§3809.400 to 3809.435.
(g) Require you to occupy or use a site for activities "reasonably incident" to mining, as defined in § 3715.0-5 of this title, Whether you are operating under a notice or a plan, you must also comply with part 3710, subpart 3715, of this title.
(h) Involve the use of a portable suction dredge with an intake diameter of 4 inches or less, the State requires an authorization for its use, and BLM and the State have an agreement under §3809.201 addressing suction dredging, You need not submit a notice or plan of operations unless otherwise required by this section. For all other use of a suction dredge, you must submit to BLM either a notice or a plan of operations, whichever is applicable under this section.
(i) Are located on lands patented under the Stock Raising Homestead Act and you do not have the written consent of the surface owner, You must submit a plan of operations and obtain BLM's approval. Where you have surface-owner consent, you do not need a notice or a plan of operations under this subpart. See part 3810, subpart 3814, of this title.

(j) The special status areas where BLM requires a plan of operations for all operations greater than casual use include:

(1) Lands in the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) designated by the CDCA plan as "controlled" or "limited" use areas;

(2) Areas in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and areas designated for potential addition to the system;

(3) Designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern;

(4) Areas designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System and administered by BLM;

(5) Areas designated as "closed" to off-road vehicle use, as defined in §8340.0-5 of this title;

(6) Any areas specifically identified in BLM land-use or activity plans where BLM has determined that a plan of operations is required to provide detailed review of project effects on unique, irreplaceable, or outstanding historical, cultural, recreational, or natural resource values, such as threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat;

(7) National Monuments and National Conservation Areas administered by BLM; and

(8) All areas segregated in anticipation of a mineral withdrawal and all withdrawn areas, except for areas segregated or withdrawn under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and the Alaska Statehood Act.

(k) If your operations do not qualify as casual use, you must submit a notice or plan of operations, whichever is applicable.

___________________________________________________________________
"Forest Service" Alternative

§3809.11 When does BLM require that I submit a notice of intention to operate or a plan of operations?

To see when you must submit a notice of intention to operate or a plan of operations, follow this table:

<< Conversion error >>
If . . . Then . . .
(a) Your proposed operations--

(1) Are limited to the use of vehicles on existing public roads or roads used and maintained for BLM purposes;

(2) Involve individuals desiring to search for and occasionally remove small mineral samples or specimens;

(3) Consist of prospecting and sampling that will not cause significant surface resource disturbance and will not involve removal of more than a reasonable amount of mineral deposit for analysis and study;

(4) Are limited to marking and monumenting a mining claim;

(5) Involve subsurface operations that will not cause significant surface resource disturbance; or

(6) Do not involve the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment, such as a bulldozer or a backhoe, and will not involve the cutting of trees;

You do not need to notify BLM or seek permission to conduct your operations. You must reclaim your operations, and BLM may monitor them to ensure that unnecessary or undue degradation does not occur.
(b) You propose to conduct operations that--

(1) Are not described in paragraph (a) of this section; and

(2) Might cause disturbance of surface resources,

You must file with BLM a complete notice of intention to operate 15 business days before you plan to start operations. See §§3809.300 to 3809.336.
(c) After reviewing your notice of intention to operate, BLM determines that your operations are likely to cause significant disturbance of surface resources, You must submit a plan of operations and obtain BLM's approval. See §§3809.400 to 3809.435.

(d) You always have the option to submit a plan of operations in lieu of the notice of intention to operate required under paragraph (b) of this section.

[End of alternative]
___________________________________________________________________

§3809.100What special provisions apply to operations on segregated or withdrawn lands?

(a) Mineral examination report. After the date on which the lands are withdrawn from appropriation under the mining laws, BLM will not approve a plan of operations until BLM has prepared a mineral examination report to determine whether the mining claim was valid before the withdrawal, and whether it remains valid. BLM may require preparation of a mineral examination report before approving operations on segregated lands. If the report concludes that the mining claim is invalid, BLM will not approve operations on the mining claim. BLM will also promptly initiate contest proceedings.

(b) Allowable operations. If BLM has not completed the mineral examination report under paragraph (a) of this section, if the mineral examination report for proposed operations concludes that a mining claim is invalid, or if there is a pending contest proceeding for the mining claim, BLM may--

(1) Approve a plan of operations for the disputed mining claim proposing operations that are limited to taking samples to confirm or corroborate mineral exposures that are physically disclosed and existing on the mining claim before the segregation or withdrawal date, whichever is earlier; and

(2) Approve a plan of operations for the operator to perform the minimum necessary annual assessment work under §3851.1 of this title.

(c) Time limits. While BLM prepares a mineral examination report under paragraph (a) of this section, it may suspend the time limit for responding to a notice for operations in Alaska or acting on a plan of operations. See §§3809.311 and 3809.411, respectively.

(d) Final decision. If a final departmental decision declares a mining claim to be null and void, the operator must cease all operations, except required reclamation.

§3809.101What special provisions apply to minerals that may be common variety minerals, such as sand, gravel, and building stone?

(a) Mineral examination report. On mining claims located on or after July 23, 1955, you must not initiate operations for minerals that may be "common variety" minerals, as defined in §3711.1(b) of this title, until BLM has prepared a mineral examination report, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Interim authorization. Until the mineral examination report described in paragraph (a) of this section is prepared, BLM will allow notice-level operations or approve a plan of operations for the disputed mining claim for--

(1) Operations limited to taking samples to confirm or corroborate mineral exposures that are physically disclosed and existing on the mining claim;

(2) Performance of the minimum necessary annual assessment work under §3851.1 of this title; or

(3) Operations to remove possible common variety minerals if you establish an escrow account in a form acceptable to BLM. You must make regular payments to the escrow account for the appraised value of possible common variety minerals removed under a payment schedule approved by BLM. The funds in the escrow account must not be disbursed to the operator or to the U.S. Treasury until a final determination of whether the mineral is a common variety and therefore salable under part 3600 of this title.

(c) Determination of common variety. If the mineral examination report under paragraph (a) of this section concludes that the minerals are common variety minerals, you may either relinquish your mining claim(s) or BLM will initiate contest proceedings. Upon relinquishment or final departmental determination that the mining claim(s) is null and void, you must promptly close and reclaim your operations unless you are authorized to proceed under parts 3600 and 3610 of this title.

(d) Disposal. BLM may dispose of common variety minerals from an unpatented mining claim with a written waiver from the mining claimant.

§3809.111 Public availability of information.

Part 2 of this title applies to all information and data you submit under this subpart. If you submit information or data under this subpart that you believe is exempt from disclosure, you must mark each page clearly "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION." You must also separate it from other materials you submit to BLM. BLM will keep confidential information or data marked in this manner to the extent required by part 2 of this title. If you do not mark the information as confidential, BLM, without notifying you, may disclose the information to the public to the full extent allowed under part 2 of this title.

§3809.115Information collection.

(a) The Office of Management and Budget has approved the collections of information contained in subpart 3809 under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned clearance number 1004-____. BLM will use this information to regulate and monitor mining and exploration operations on public lands. Response to requests for information is mandatory in accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. The information collection approval expires _____________.

(b) BLM estimates that the public reporting burden for this information averages 8 hours per response for notices and 80 hours per response for plans of operations. This includes reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Information Collection Clearance Officer (783), Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 20240, and the Office of Management and Budget, Attention Desk Officer for the Interior Department, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, referring to information collection clearance number 1004-____.

§3809.116 As a mining claimant or operator, what are my responsibilities under this subpart for my project area?

(a) Mining claimants and operators (if other than the mining claimant) are jointly and severally liable for obligations under this subpart that accrued while they held their interests. Joint and several liability, in this context, means that the mining claimants and operators are responsible together and individually for obligations, such as reclaiming the project area. In the event obligations are not met, BLM may take any action authorized under this subpart against either the mining claimants or the operators, or both.

(b) Relinquishment, forfeiture, or abandonment of a mining claim does not relieve a mining claimant's or operator's responsibility under this subpart for obligations or conditions created while the mining claimant or operator was responsible for operations conducted on that mining claim or in the project area.

(c) Transfer of a mining claim or operation does not relieve a mining claimant's or operator's responsibility under this subpart for obligations or conditions created while the mining claimant or operator was responsible for operations conducted on that mining claim or in the project area until--

(1) BLM receives documentation that a transferee accepts responsibility, and

(2) BLM accepts an adequate replacement financial guarantee.

FEDERAL/STATE AGREEMENTS

§3809.201 What kinds of agreements may BLM and a State make under this subpart?

To prevent unnecessary administrative delay and to avoid duplication of administration and enforcement, BLM and a State may make the following kinds of agreements:

(a) An agreement to provide for a joint Federal/State program; and

(b) An agreement under §3809.202 which provides that, in place of BLM administration, BLM defers to State administration of some or all of the requirements of this subpart subject to the limitations in §3809.203.

§3809.202Under what conditions will BLM defer to State regulation of operations?

(a) State request. A State may request BLM enter into an agreement for State regulation of operations on public lands in place of BLM administration of some or all of the requirements of this subpart. The State must send the request to the BLM State Director with jurisdiction over public lands in the State.

(b) BLM review. (1) When the State Director receives the State's request, he/she will notify the public and provide an opportunity for comment. The State Director will then review the request and determine whether the State's requirements are consistent with the requirements of this subpart, and whether the State has necessary legal authorities, resources, and funding for an agreement. The State requirements may be contained in laws, regulations, guidelines, policy manuals, and demonstrated permitting practices.

(2) For the purposes of this subpart, BLM will determine consistency with the requirements of this subpart by comparing this subpart and State standards on a provision-by-provision basis to determine--

(i) Whether non-numerical State standards are functionally equivalent to BLM counterparts; and

(ii) Whether numerical State standards, such as the 5-acre threshold for plans of operations, are the same as corresponding BLM standards, except that State review and approval time frames do not have to be the same as the corresponding Federal time frames.

(3) A State environmental protection standard that exceeds a corresponding Federal standard is consistent with the requirements of this subpart.

(c) State Director decision. The BLM State Director will notify the State in writing of his/her decision regarding the State's request. The State Director will address whether the State requirements are consistent with the requirements of this subpart, and whether the State has necessary legal authorities, resources, and funding to implement any agreement. If BLM determines that the State's requirements are consistent with the requirements of this subpart and the State has the necessary legal authorities, resources, and funding, BLM must enter into an agreement with the State so that the State will regulate some or all of the operations on public lands, as described in the State request.

(d) Appeal of State Director decision. The BLM State Director's decision will be a final decision of BLM and may be appealed to the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, but not to the Department of the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals. See §3809.800(c) for the items you should include in the appeal.

§3809.203What are the limitations on BLM deferral to State regulation of operations?

Any agreement between BLM and a State in which BLM defers to State regulation of some or all operations on public lands is subject to the following limitations:

(a) Plans of Operations. BLM must concur with each State decision approving a plan of operations to assure compliance with this subpart, and BLM retains responsibility for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The State and BLM may decide who will be the lead agency in the plan review process, including preparation of NEPA documents.

(b) Federal land-use planning and other Federal laws. BLM will continue to be responsible for all land-use planning on public lands and for implementing other Federal laws relating to the public lands for which BLM is responsible.

(c) Federal enforcement. BLM may take any authorized action to enforce the requirements of this subpart or any term, condition, or limitation of a notice or an approved plan of operations. BLM may take this action regardless of the nature of its agreement with a State, or actions taken by a State.

(d) Financial guarantee. The amount of the financial guarantee must be calculated based on the completion of both Federal and State reclamation requirements, but may be held as one instrument. If the financial guarantee is held as one instrument, it must be redeemable by both the Secretary and the State. BLM must concur in the approval and release of a financial guarantee for public lands.

(e) State performance. If BLM determines that a State is not in compliance with all or part of its Federal/State agreement, BLM will notify the State and provide a reasonable time for the State to comply.

(f) Termination. (1) If a State does not comply after being notified under paragraph (e) of this section, BLM will take appropriate action, which may include termination of all or part of the agreement.

(2) A State may terminate its agreement by notifying BLM 60 days in advance.

§3809.204 Does this subpart cancel an existing agreement between BLM and a State?

No. A Federal/State agreement or memorandum of understanding in effect on (Insert effective date of the final rule.) will continue while BLM and the State perform a review to determine whether revisions are required under this subpart. BLM and the State must complete the review and make necessary revisions no later than one year from (Insert effective date of the final rule.)

OPERATIONS CONDUCTED UNDER NOTICES

§3809.300Does this subpart apply to my existing notice-level operations?

To see how this subpart applies to your operations conducted under a notice and existing on (Insert effective date of the final rule.), follow this table:

<< Conversion error >>
If you are conducting operations under a notice filed before (Insert effective date of the final rule.) and . . . Then . . .
(a) You are the operator identified in the notice on file with BLM on (Insert effective date of the final rule.), You may conduct operations under the terms of your existing notice for 2 years after (Insert effective date of the final rule.), or longer if your notice is extended under §3809.333. See §3809.503 for financial guarantee requirements applicable to notices.
(b) You are a new operator, that is, you were not the operator identified in the notice on file with BLM on (Insert effective date of the final rule.), You must conduct operations under the provisions of this subpart, including §3809.320 for 2 years after (Insert effective date of the final rule.), unless extended under §3809.333.
(c) Your notice has expired, You may not conduct operations under an expired notice. You must reclaim your project area immediately or promptly submit a new notice under §3809.301.

§3809.301Where do I file my notice and what information must I include in it?

(a) If you qualify under §3809.11, you must file your notice with the local BLM office with jurisdiction over the lands involved. BLM does not require that the notice be on a particular form.

(b) To be complete, your notice must include the following information:

(1) Operator Information. The name, mailing address, phone number, social security number or corporate identification number of the operator(s), and the BLM serial number(s) of any unpatented mining claim(s) where the disturbance would occur. If the operator is a corporation, you must identify one individual as the point of contact;

(2) Activity Description, Map, and Schedule of Activities. A description of the proposed activity with a level of detail appropriate to the type, size, and location of the activity. The description must include the following:

(i) The measures that you will take to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation during operations;

(ii) A map showing the location of your project area in sufficient detail for BLM to be able to find it and the location of access routes you intend to use, improve, or construct;

(iii) A description of the type of equipment you intend to use; and

(iv) A schedule of activities, including the date when you will begin operations and the date by which you will complete reclamation;

(3) Reclamation Plan. A description of how you will complete reclamation to the standards described in §3809.420; and

(4) Reclamation cost estimate. An estimate of the cost to fully reclaim your operations as required by §3809.552; and

(c) BLM may require you to provide additional information, if necessary to ensure that your operations will comply with this subpart.

(d) You must notify BLM in writing within 30 days of any change of operator or corporate point of contact, or of the mailing address of the operator or corporate point of contact.

§3809.311What action does BLM take when it receives my notice?

(a) Upon receipt of your notice, BLM will review it within 15 business days to see if it is complete under §3809.301.

(b) If your notice is incomplete, BLM will inform you in writing of the additional information you must submit. BLM may also take the actions described in §3809.313.

(c) BLM will review your additional information within 15 business days to ensure it is complete. BLM will repeat this process until your notice is complete.

§3809.312 When may I begin operations after filing a complete notice?

(a) If BLM does not take any of the actions described in §3908.313, you may begin operations no sooner than 15 business days after the appropriate BLM office receives your complete notice. BLM may send you an acknowledgement that indicates the date we received your notice. If you don't receive an acknowledgement or have any doubt about the date we received your notice, contact the office to which you sent the notice. This subpart does not require BLM to approve your notice or inform you that your notice is complete.

(b) If we complete our review sooner than 15 days after receiving your complete notice, we may notify you that you may begin operations.

(c) You must provide a financial guarantee that meets the requirements of this subpart before beginning operations.

(d) Your operations may be subject to BLM approval under part 3710, subpart 3715, of this title relating to use or occupancy of unpatented mining claims.

§3809.313Under what circumstances may I not begin operations 15 business days after filing my notice?

To see when you may not begin operations 15 business days after filing your notice, follow this table:

<< Conversion error >>
If BLM reviews your notice and, within 15 business days, . . . Then . . .
(a) Notifies you that BLM needs additional time, not to exceed 15 business days, to complete its review, You must not begin operations until the additional review time period ends.
(b) Notifies you that if you do not modify your notice, your operations will likely cause unnecessary or undue degradation, You must not begin operations until you modify your notice to ensure that your operations prevent unnecessary or undue degradation.
(c) Requires you to consult with BLM about the location of existing or proposed access routes, You must not begin operations until you consult with BLM and satisfy BLM's concerns about access.
(d) Determines that an on-site visit is necessary, You must not begin operations until BLM visits the site, and you satisfy any concerns arising from the visit.
(e) BLM determines you don't qualify under §3809.11 as a notice-level operation, You must file a plan of operations before beginning operations. See §§3809.400 through 3809.420.

§3809.320Which performance standards apply to my notice-level operations?

Your notice-level operations must meet all applicable performance standards of §3809.420.

§3809.330May I modify my notice?

(a) Yes, you may submit a notice modification at any time during operations under a notice.

(b) BLM will review your notice modification the same way it reviewed your initial notice under §§3809.311 and 3809.313.

§3809.331Under what conditions must I modify my notice?

(a) You must modify your notice--

(1) If BLM requires you to do so to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation; or

(2) If you plan to make material changes to your operations. Material changes include the addition of planned surface disturbance up to the threshold described in §3809.11, undertaking new drilling or trenching activities, or changing reclamation.

(b) You must submit your notice modification 15 business days before making any material changes. If BLM determines your notice modification is complete before the 15-day period has elapsed, BLM may notify you to proceed. When BLM requires you to modify your notice, it may also notify you to proceed before the 15-day period has elapsed to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation.

§3809.332How long does my notice remain in effect?

If you filed your notice on or after (Insert effective date of the final rule.), it remains in effect for 2 years, unless extended under §3809.333, or unless you notify BLM beforehand that operations have ceased and reclamation is complete. BLM will conduct an inspection to verify whether you have met your obligations, will notify you promptly in writing, and terminate your notice, if appropriate.

§3809.333May I extend my notice, and, if so, how?

Yes. If you wish to conduct operations for 2 additional years after the expiration date of your notice, you must notify BLM in writing on or before the expiration date. You may extend your notice more than once.

§3809.334What if I temporarily stop conducting operations under a notice?

(a) If you stop conducting operations for any period of time, you must--

(1) Maintain public lands within the project area, including structures, in a safe and clean condition;

(2) Take all steps necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation; and

(3) Maintain an adequate financial guarantee.

(b) If the period of non-operation is likely to cause unnecessary or undue degradation, BLM will--

(1) Require you to take all steps necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation; and

(2) Require you, after an extended period of non-operation for other than seasonal operations, to remove all structures, equipment, and other facilities and reclaim the project area.

§3809.335What happens when my notice expires?

(a) When your notice expires, you must--

(1) Cease operations, except reclamation; and

(2) Complete reclamation promptly according to your notice.

(b) Your reclamation obligations continue beyond the expiration or any termination of your notice until you satisfy them.

§3809.336 What if I abandon my notice-level operations?

(a) BLM may consider your operations to be abandoned if, for example, you leave inoperable or non-mining related equipment in the project area, remove equipment and facilities from the project area other than for purposes of completing reclamation according to your reclamation plan, do not maintain the project area, discharge local workers, or there is no sign of activity in the project area over time.

(b) If BLM determines that you abandoned your operations without completing reclamation, BLM may initiate forfeiture under §3809.595. If the amount of the financial guarantee is inadequate to cover the cost of reclamation, BLM may complete the reclamation, and the operator and all other responsible persons are liable for the cost of reclamation.


OPERATIONS CONDUCTED UNDER PLANS OF OPERATIONS

§3809.400Does this subpart apply to my existing or pending plan of operations?

To see how this subpart applies to your existing or pending plan of operations, follow this table:

<< Conversion error >>
If you submitted your plan of operations to BLM before (Insert effective date of final rule.), and . . . Then . . .
(a) BLM approved your plan of operations before that date, The performance standards of this subpart (§3809.420) do not apply to your existing plan of operations. The performance standards in effect at the time BLM approved your plan of operations continue to apply. All other provisions of this subpart apply to your plan of operations. See §3809.505 for applicability of financial guarantee requirements.
(b) BLM made an environmental assessment or a draft environmental impact statement available to the public before that date, The plan content requirements (43 CFR 3809.1-5) and performance standards (43 CFR 3809.1-3(d) and 3809.2-2) that were in effect immediately before (Insert effective date of final rule.) apply to your plan of operations. All provisions of this subpart, except §§3809.401 and 3809.420, apply to your plan of operations.
(c) BLM has not yet made an environmental assessment or a draft environmental impact statement available to the public, All provisions of this subpart apply to your plan of operations.

(d) If you want this subpart to apply to any existing plan of operations, where not otherwise required, you may choose to have this subpart apply.

§3809.401Where do I file my plan of operations and what information must I include with it?

(a) If you are required to file a plan of operations under §3809.11, you must file it with the local BLM field office with jurisdiction over the lands involved. BLM does not require that the plan be on a particular form.

(b) Operators or mining claimants must demonstrate that the proposed operations would not result in unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands. Your plan of operations must describe fully the proposed activity and contain the following information with a level of detail appropriate to the type, size, and location of the planned activity:

(1) Operator Information. The name, mailing address, phone number, social security number or corporate identification number of the operator(s), and the BLM serial number(s) of any unpatented mining claim(s) where disturbance would occur. If the operator is a corporation, you must identify one individual as the point of contact. You must notify BLM in writing within 30 days of any change of operator or corporate point of contact or in the mailing address of the operator or corporate point of contact;

(2) Description of Operations. A detailed description of the equipment, devices, or practices you propose to use during operations including, where applicable--

(i) maps of the project area at an appropriate scale showing the location of exploration activities, drill sites, mining activities, processing facilities, waste rock and tailing disposal areas, support facilities, structures, buildings, and access routes;

(ii) preliminary designs, cross sections, and operating plans for mining areas, processing facilities, and waste rock and tailing disposal facilities;

(iii) water management plans;

(iv) rock characterization and handling plans;

(v) quality assurance plans;

(vi) spill contingency plans;

(vii) a general schedule of operations from start through closure; and

(viii) plans for all access roads, water supply pipelines, and power or utility services;

(3) Reclamation Plan. A plan for reclamation to meet the standards in §3809.420, with a detailed description of the equipment, devices, or practices you propose to use including, where applicable, plans for--

(i) drill-hole plugging;

(ii) regrading and reshaping;

(iii) mine reclamation;

(iv) riparian mitigation;

(v) wildlife habitat rehabilitation;

(vi) topsoil handling;

(vii) revegetation;

(viii) isolation and control of acid, toxic or deleterious materials;

(ix) facilities removal; and

(x) post-closure management;

(4) Monitoring Plan. A plan for monitoring the effect of your operations. You must design monitoring plans to meet the following objectives: to demonstrate compliance with the approved plan of operations and other Federal or State environmental laws and regulations, to provide early detection of potential problems, and to supply information that will assist in directing corrective actions should they become necessary. Where applicable, you must include in monitoring plans details on type and location of monitoring devices, sampling parameters and frequency, analytical methods, reporting procedures, and procedures to respond to adverse monitoring results. Examples of monitoring programs which may be necessary include surface- and ground-water quality and quantity, air quality, revegetation, stability, noise levels, and wildlife mortality;

(c) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, BLM may require you to supply--

(1) Operational and baseline environmental information for BLM to analyze potential environmental impacts as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. BLM will also use this information to determine if your plan of operations will prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. This could include information on public and non-public lands needed to characterize the geology, hydrology, soils, vegetation, wildlife, air quality, cultural resources, and socioeconomic conditions in and around the project area. This may also include requiring static and kinetic testing to characterize the potential for your operations to produce acid drainage or other leachate. BLM can advise you on the exact type of information and level of detail needed to meet these requirements; and

(2) Other information, if necessary to ensure that your operations will comply with this subpart.

(d) Reclamation cost estimate. At a time specified by BLM, you must submit an estimate of the cost to fully reclaim your operations as required by §3809.552.

§3809.411What action will BLM take when it receives my plan of operations?

(a) BLM will review your plan of operations within 30 business days and will notify you that -

(1) BLM approves your plan of operations as submitted (See part 3810, subpart 3814, of this title for specific plan-related requirements applicable to operations on Stock Raising Homestead Act lands.);

(2) Your plan does not contain a complete description of the proposed operations under §3809.401(b). BLM will identify deficiencies that you must address before BLM can continue processing your plan of operations. If necessary, BLM may repeat this process until your plan of operations is complete;

(3) BLM approves your plan subject to changes or conditions that are necessary to meet the performance standards of §3809.420;

(4) The description of the proposed operations is complete, but BLM cannot approve the plan until certain additional steps are completed, including one or more of the following:

(i) You complete collection of adequate baseline data;

(ii) BLM completes the environmental review, required under the National Environmental Policy Act;

(iii) BLM completes the consultation required under the National Historic Preservation Act or Endangered Species Act;

(iv) BLM or the Department of the Interior completes other Federal responsibilities, such as Native American consultation;

(v) BLM conducts an on-site visit;

(vi) BLM completes review of public comments on the amount of the financial guarantee;

(vii) For public lands where BLM does not have responsibility for managing the surface, BLM consults with the surface-managing agency; and

(viii) In cases where the surface is owned by a non-Federal entity, BLM consults with the surface owner; or

(5) BLM disapproves your plan of operations under paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Pending final approval of your plan of operations, BLM may approve any operations that may be necessary for timely compliance with requirements of Federal and State laws, subject to any terms and conditions that may be needed to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation.

(c) BLM must disapprove, or withhold approval of, a plan of operations if it--

(1) Does not meet the content requirements of §3809.401;

(2) Proposes operations that are in an area segregated or withdrawn from the operation of the mining laws, unless the requirements of §3809.100 are met; or

(3) Proposes operations that would result in unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.

(d) Before BLM approves your plan of operations, it will publish in a local newspaper of general circulation or in a NEPA document and accept comments for 30 days on the amount of financial guarantee required and an explanation of the basis for the amount. Detailed calculations will remain part of the record, subject to public inspection.

§3809.412 When may I operate under a plan of operations?

You must not begin operations until BLM approves your plan of operations and you provide the financial guarantee required under §§3809.411(d) and 3809.552.

§3809.415 How do I prevent unnecessary or undue degradation while conducting operations on public lands?

You prevent unnecessary or undue degradation while conducting operations on public lands by--

(a) Complying with §3809.420, as applicable; the terms and conditions of your approved plan of operations; the operations described in your notice; and other Federal and State laws related to environmental protection and protection of cultural resources;

(b) Assuring that your operations are "reasonably incident," as defined in §3715.0-5 of this title; and

(c) Attaining the stated level of protection or reclamation required by specific laws in areas such as the California Desert Conservation Area, Wild and Scenic Rivers, BLM-administered portions of the National Wilderness System, and BLM-administered National Monuments and National Conservation Areas.

§3809.420What performance standards apply to my notice or plan of operations?

The following performance standards apply to your notice or plan of operations:

(a) General performance standards.

(1) Technology and practices. You must use MATP to meet the standards of this subpart.

(2) Sequence of operations. You must avoid unnecessary impacts by following a reasonable and customary mineral exploration, development, mining and reclamation sequence.

(3) Land-use plans. Consistent with the mining laws, your operations and post-mining land use must comply with the applicable BLM land-use plans and activity plans, and with coastal zone management plans under 16 U.S.C. 1451, as appropriate.

(4) Mitigation. You must take mitigation measures specified by BLM to protect public lands.

(5) Concurrent reclamation. You must initiate and complete reclamation at the earliest feasible time on those portions of the disturbed area that you will not disturb further.

(b) Environmental performance standards.

(1) Air quality. Your operations must comply with applicable Federal, Tribal, and State laws and requirements.

(2) Water. You must conduct operations to minimize water pollution (source control) in preference to water treatment. You must conduct operations to minimize changes in water quantity in preference to water supply replacement. Your operations must comply with State water law with respect to water use and water quality.

(i) Surface water. (A) Releases to surface waters must comply with applicable Federal, Tribal, and State laws and requirements.

(B) You must handle earth materials and water in a manner that minimizes the formation of acidic, toxic, or other deleterious pollutants of surface water systems.

(C) You must manage excavations and other disturbances to prevent or control the discharge of pollutants into surface waters.

(ii) Ground water. (A) Ground water affected by your operations must comply with State standards and other applicable requirements.

(B) You must handle earth materials and water in a manner that minimizes the formation of acidic, toxic, or other deleterious infiltration to ground water systems and manage excavations and other disturbances to minimize the discharge of pollutants into ground water.

(C) You must conduct operations affecting ground water, such as dewatering, pumping, and injecting, to minimize impacts on surface and other natural resources, such as wetlands, riparian areas, aquatic habitat, and other features that are dependent on ground water.

(3) Wetlands and riparian areas. (i) You must avoid locating operations in wetlands and riparian areas where possible, minimize impacts on wetlands and riparian areas that your operations cannot avoid, and mitigate damage to wetlands and riparian areas that your operations impact.

(ii) Where feasible, you must return disturbed wetlands and riparian areas to a properly functioning condition. Wetlands and riparian areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, land form, or large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; improve floodwater retention and ground-water recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses, and support greater biodiversity.

(iii) You must take appropriate mitigation measures, such as restoration or replacement, if your operations cause the loss of nonjurisdictional wetland or riparian areas or the diminishment of their proper functioning condition.

(iv) You must mitigate impacts to wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and other waters of the United States in accord with COE requirements.

(4) Soil and growth material. (i) You must remove, segregate, and preserve topsoil, or where more feasible other suitable growth material, to minimize erosion and sustain revegetation when reclamation begins.

(ii) To preserve soil viability and promote concurrent reclamation, you must directly transport topsoil from its original location to the point of reclamation without intermediate stockpiling, where feasible.

(5) Revegetation. You must--

(i) Revegetate disturbed lands by establishing a stable and long-lasting vegetative cover that is self-sustaining and, considering successional stages, will result in cover that is--

(A) Comparable in both diversity and density to pre-existing natural vegetation of the surrounding area; or

(B) Compatible with the approved BLM land-use plan or activity plan;

(ii) Take all reasonable steps to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds and to limit or reduce any existing infestations;

(iii) Use native species to the extent feasible;

(iv) Achieve success over the time frame approved by BLM; and

(v) Where you demonstrate revegetation is not achievable under this paragraph, you must use other techniques to prevent erosion and stabilize the project area, subject to BLM approval.

(6) Fish and wildlife. (i) You must minimize disturbances and adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, and related environmental values.

(ii) You must take necessary measures to protect threatened or endangered species and their habitat as required by the Endangered Species Act.

(iii) You must take any necessary action to minimize the adverse effects of your operations, including access, on BLM-defined special status species.

(iv) You must rehabilitate fisheries and wildlife habitat affected by your operations.

(7) Cultural, paleontologic, and cave resources. (i) You must not knowingly disturb, alter, injure, or destroy any scientifically important paleontologic remains or any historic, archaeologic, or cave-related site, structure, building, resource, or object unless --

(A) You identify the resource in your notice or plan of operations;

(B) You propose action to protect, remove or preserve the resource; and

(C) BLM specifically authorizes such action in your plan of operations, or does not prohibit such action under your notice.

(ii) You must immediately bring to BLM's attention any previously unidentified historic, archaeologic, cave-related, or scientifically important paleontologic resources that might be altered or destroyed by your operations. You must leave the discovery intact until BLM authorizes you to proceed. BLM will evaluate the discovery and take action to protect, remove, or preserve the resource within 20 business days after you notify BLM of the discovery, unless otherwise agreed to by the operator and BLM, or unless otherwise provided by law.

(iii) BLM has the responsibility for determining who bears the cost of the investigation, recovery, and preservation of discovered historic, archaeologic, cave-related, and paleontologic resources, or of any human remains and associated funerary objects. If BLM incurs costs associated with investigation and recovery, BLM will recover the costs from the operator on a case-by-case basis, after an evaluation of the factors set forth in section 304(b) of FLPMA.

(c) Operational performance standards.

(1) Roads and structures. (i) You must design, construct, and maintain roads and structures to control or prevent erosion, siltation, and air pollution and minimize impacts to resources.

(ii) You must minimize surface disturbance, using existing access where feasible, while maintaining safe design, following natural contour where feasible, and minimizing cut and fill.

(iii) When commercial hauling on an existing BLM road is involved, BLM may require you to make appropriate arrangements for use, maintenance, and safety.

(iv) You must remove and reclaim roads and structures according to BLM land-use plans and activity plans, unless retention is approved by BLM.

(2) Drill holes. (i) You must not allow drilling fluids and cuttings to flow off the drill site.

(ii) You must plug all exploration drill holes to prevent mixing of waters from aquifers, impacts to beneficial uses, downward water loss, or upward water loss from artesian conditions.

(iii) You must conduct surface plugging to prevent direct inflow of surface water into the drill hole and to eliminate the open hole as a hazard.

(3) Acid-forming, toxic, or other deleterious materials. You must incorporate identification, handling, and placement of potentially acid-forming, toxic or other deleterious materials into your operations, facility design, reclamation, and environmental monitoring programs to minimize the formation and impacts of acidic, alkaline, metal-bearing, or other deleterious leachate, including the following:

(i) You must handle, place, or treat potentially acid-forming, toxic, or other deleterious materials in a manner that minimizes the likelihood of acid formation and toxic and other deleterious leachate generation (source control);

(ii) If you cannot prevent the formation of acid, toxic, or other deleterious drainage, you must minimize uncontrolled migration of leachate; and

(iii) You must capture and treat acid drainage, or other undesirable effluent, to the applicable standard if source controls and migration controls do not prove effective. You are responsible for any costs associated with water treatment or facility maintenance after project closure. Long-term, or post-mining, effluent capture and treatment are not acceptable substitutes for source control, and you may rely on them only after all reasonable source control methods have been employed.

(4) Leaching Operations and Impoundments. (i) You must design, construct, and operate all leach pads, tailings impoundments, ponds, and solution-holding facilities according to standard engineering practices to achieve and maintain stability and facilitate reclamation.

(ii) You must construct a low-permeability liner or containment system that will minimize the release of leaching solutions to the environment. You must monitor to detect potential releases of contaminants from heaps, process ponds, tailings impoundments, and other structures and remediate environmental impacts if leakage occurs.

(iii) You must design, construct, and operate cyanide or other leaching facilities and impoundments to contain precipitation from the local 100-year, 24-hour storm event in addition to the maximum process solution inventory. You must also include allowances for snowmelt events and draindown from heaps during power outages in the design.

(iv) You must construct a secondary containment system around vats, tanks, or recovery circuits adequate to prevent the release of toxic solutions to the environment in the event of primary containment failure.

(v) You must exclude access by the public, wildlife, or livestock to solution containment and transfer structures that contain lethal levels of cyanide or other solutions.

(vi) During closure and at final reclamation, you must detoxify leaching solutions and heaps and manage tailings or other process waste to minimize impacts to the environment from contact with toxic materials or leachate. Acceptable practices include natural degradation, rinsing, chemical treatment, or equally successful alternative methods to detoxify solutions and materials. Upon completion of reclamation, all materials and discharges must meet applicable standards.

(vii) In cases of temporary or seasonal closure, you must provide adequate maintenance, monitoring, security, and financial guarantee, and BLM may require you to detoxify process solutions.

(5) Waste rock, tailings, and leach pads. You must locate, design, construct, operate, and reclaim waste rock, tailings, and leach pads to minimize infiltration and contamination of surface water and ground water; achieve stability; and, to the extent feasible, blend with pre-mining, natural topography.

(6) Stability, grading and erosion control. (i) You must grade or otherwise engineer all disturbed areas to a stable condition to minimize erosion and facilitate revegetation.

(ii) You must recontour all areas to blend with pre-mining, natural topography to the extent feasible. You may temporarily retain a highwall or other mine workings in a stable condition to preserve evidence of mineralization.

(iii) You must minimize erosion during all phases of operations.

(7) Pit reclamation. (i) You must partially or fully backfill pits unless you demonstrate to BLM's satisfaction it is not feasible for economic, environmental, or safety reasons.

(ii) You must take mitigation measures if you do not completely backfill a pit or other disturbance.

(iii) Water quality in pits and other water impoundments must comply with applicable Federal, State, and Tribal standards. Where no standards exist, you must take measures to protect wildlife, domestic livestock, and public water supplies and users.

(8) Solid waste. (i) You must comply with applicable Federal and State standards for the disposal and treatment of solid waste, including regulations issued under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).

(ii) To the extent feasible, you must remove from the project area, dispose of, or treat all non mine garbage, refuse, or waste to minimize their impact.

(9) Fire prevention and control. You must comply with all applicable Federal and State fire laws and regulations, and take all reasonable measures to prevent and suppress fires in the project area.

(10) Maintenance and public safety. During all operations and after mining--

(i) You must maintain structures, equipment, and other facilities in a safe and orderly manner;

(ii) You must mark by signs or fences, or otherwise identify hazardous sites or conditions resulting from your operations to alert the public in accord with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations; and

(iii) You must restrict unaccompanied public access to portions of your operations that present a hazard to the public, consistent with §§3809.600 and 3712.1 of this title.

(11) Protection of survey monuments. (i) To the extent feasible, you must protect all survey monuments, witness corners, reference monuments, bearing trees, and line trees against damage or destruction.

(ii) If you damage or destroy a monument, corner, or accessory, you must immediately report the matter to BLM. BLM will tell you in writing how to restore or re-establish a damaged or destroyed monument, corner, or accessory.

§3809.423How long does my plan of operations remain in effect?

Your plan of operations remains in effect as long as you are conducting operations, unless BLM suspends or revokes your plan of operations for failure to comply with this subpart.

§3809.424What are my obligations if I stop conducting operations?

(a) To see what you must do if you stop conducting operations, follow this table:

<< Conversion error >>
If . . . Then . . .
(1) You stop conducting operations for any period of time, You must--
(i) Maintain the project area, including structures, in a safe and clean condition;
(ii) Take all necessary actions to assure that unnecessary or undue degradation does not occur, including those specified at §3809.420(c)(4)(vii); and
(iii) Maintain an adequate financial guarantee.
If . . . Then . . .
(2) The period of non-operation is likely to cause unnecessary or undue degradation, BLM will require you to take all necessary actions to assure that unnecessary or undue degradation does not occur, including requiring you, after an extended period of non operation for other than seasonal operations, to remove all structures, equipment, and other facilities and reclaim the project area.
(3) Your operations are inactive for 5 consecutive years, BLM will review your operations and determine whether BLM should terminate your plan of operations and direct final reclamation and closure.
(4) BLM determines that you abandoned your operations, BLM may initiate forfeiture under §3809.595. If the amount of the financial guarantee is inadequate to cover the costs of reclamation, BLM may complete the reclamation, and the operator and all other responsible persons are liable for the costs of such reclamation. See §3809.336(a) for indicators of abandonment.

(b) Your reclamation and closure obligations continue until satisfied.

MODIFICATIONS OF PLANS OF OPERATIONS

§3809.430May I modify my plan of operations?

Yes. You may request a modification of the plan at any time during operations under an approved plan of operations.

§3809.431When must I modify my plan of operations?

(a) You must modify your plan of operations to reflect proposed operations not described in the approved plan; and

(b) You must modify your plan of operations when required by BLM to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation.

§3809.432What process will BLM follow in reviewing a modification of my plan of operations?

(a) BLM will review and approve a modification of your plan of operations in the same manner as it reviewed and approved your initial plan under §§3809.401 through 3809.420, except that BLM may not obtain public comment on the financial guarantee amount if the modification does not change the financial guarantee amount or only changes it minimally; or

(b) BLM will accept the modification without formal approval if it does not constitute a substantive change and does not require additional analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.

§3809.433 Does this subpart apply to a new modification of my plan of operations?

To see how this subpart applies to a new modification of your plan of operations, see the following table. A "new" modification is one that you submit to BLM after this subpart becomes effective:

<< Conversion error >>
If you have an approved plan of operations on (Insert effective date of the final rule.) and . . . Then . . .
(a) New facility. You subsequently propose to modify your plan of operations by constructing a new facility, such as waste rock repository, leach pad, impoundment, drill site, or road, The plan contents requirements (§3809.401) and performance standards (§3809.420) of this subpart apply to the new facility. Those facilities and areas not included in the modification may continue to operate under the terms of your existing plan of operations.
(b) Existing facility. You subsequently propose to modify your plan of operations by modifying an existing facility, such as expansion of a waste rock repository, leach pad, or impoundment; layback of a mine pit; or widening of a road, The plan contents requirements (§3809.401) and performance standards (§3809.420) of this subpart apply to the modified facility, unless you demonstrate to BLM's satisfaction it is not feasible to apply them for environmental, safety, or technical reasons. If you make the demonstration, the plan content requirements (43 CFR 3809.1-5) and performance standards (43 CFR 3809.1-3(d) and 3809.2-2) that were in effect immediately before (Insert effective date of final rule.) apply to your modified facility. Those facilities and areas not included in the modification may continue to operate under the terms of your existing plan of operations.

§3809.434 Does this subpart apply to a pending modification for a new facility?

To see how this subpart applies to a pending modification for a new facility, see the following table. A "pending" modification is one that you submitted to BLM before this subpart became effective, and BLM has not yet approved it.

<< Conversion error >>
If you have an approved plan of operations on (Insert effective date of the final rule.) and before that date, you submitted to BLM a proposed modification to construct a new facility, such as waste rock repository, leach pad, impoundment, drill site, or road and . . . Then . . .
(a) BLM made an environmental assessment or a draft environmental impact statement available to the public before that date, The plan content requirements (43 CFR 3809.1-5) and performance standards (43 CFR 3809.1-3(d) and 3809.2-2) that were in effect immediately before (Insert effective date of final rule.) apply to the new facility. Those facilities and areas not included in the modification may continue to operate under the terms of your existing plan of operations.
(b) BLM has not yet made an environmental assessment or a draft environmental impact statement available to the public, All provisions of this subpart apply to the modified facility. Those facilities and areas not included in the modification may continue to operate under the terms of your existing plan of operations.

§3809.435 Does this subpart apply to my pending modification for an existing facility?

To see how this subpart applies to your pending modification for an existing facility, follow this table:

<< Conversion error >>
If you have an approved plan of operations on (Insert effective date of the final rule.) and before that date, you submitted to BLM a proposed modification of an existing facility, such as expansion of a waste rock repository, leach pad, or impoundment; layback of a mine pit; or widening of a road, and . . . Then . . .
(a) BLM made an environmental assessment or a draft environmental impact statement available to the public before that date, The plan content requirements (43 CFR 3809.1-5) and performance standards (43 CFR 3809.1-3(d) and 3809.2-2) that were in effect immediately before (Insert effective date of final rule.) apply to the new facility. Those facilities and areas not included in the modification may continue to operate under the terms of your existing plan of operations.
(b) BLM has not yet made an environmental assessment or a draft environmental impact statement available to the public, The plan contents requirements (§3809.401) and performance standards (§3809.420) of this subpart apply to the modified facility, unless you demonstrate to BLM's satisfaction it is not feasible to apply them for environmental, safety, or technical reasons. If you make the demonstration, the plan content requirements (43 CFR 3809.1-5) and performance standards (43 CFR 3809.1-3(d) and 3809.2-2) that were in effect immediately before (Insert effective date of final rule.) apply to your plan of operations. Those facilities and areas not included in the modification may continue to operate under the terms of your existing plan of operations.

FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS--GENERAL

§3809.500In general, what are BLM's financial guarantee requirements?

To see generally what BLM's financial guarantee requirements are, follow this table:

<< Conversion error >>
If . . . Then . . .
(a) Your operations constitute casual use, You do not have to provide any financial guarantee.
If . . . Then . . .
(b) You conduct operations under a notice or a plan of operations, You must provide BLM or the State a financial guarantee that meets the requirements of this subpart before starting operations. For more information, see §§3809.551 to 3809.573.

§3809.503 When must I provide a financial guarantee for my notice-level operations?

To see how this subpart applies to your notice, follow this table :


If . . . Then . . .
(a) Your notice was on file with BLM on (Insert effective date of final rule.), You do not need to provide a financial guarantee unless you modify the notice or extend the notice under §3809.333.
(b) Your notice was on file with BLM before (Insert effective date of final rule.) and you choose to modify your notice as required by this subpart on or after that date, You must provide a financial guarantee before you can begin operations under the modified notice.
(c) You file a new notice on or after (Insert effective date of final rule.), You must provide a financial guarantee before you can begin operations under the notice.

§3809.505 How do the financial guarantee requirements of this subpart apply to my existing plan of operations?

For each plan of operations approved before (Insert effective date of final rule.), you must post a financial guarantee according to the requirements of this subpart no later than (Insert date 180 days after effective date of final rule.) at the local BLM office with jurisdiction over the lands involved.

§3809.551 What are my choices for providing BLM with a financial guarantee?

You must provide BLM with a financial guarantee using any of the 3 options in the following table:

<< Conversion error >>
If . . . Then . . .
(a) You have only one notice or plan of operations, or wish to provide a financial guarantee for a single notice or plan of operations, You may provide an individual financial guarantee that covers only the cost of reclaiming areas disturbed under the single notice or plan of operations. See §§3809.552 to 3809.556 for more information.
If . . . Then . . .
(b) You are currently operating under more than one notice or plan of operations, You may provide a blanket financial guarantee covering statewide or nationwide operations. See §3809.560 for more information.
(c) You do not choose one of the options in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, You may provide evidence of an existing financial guarantee under State law or regulations. See §§3809.570 to 3809.573 for more information.

INDIVIDUAL FINANCIAL GUARANTEE

§3809.552What must my individual financial guarantee cover?

(a) If you conduct operations under a notice or a plan of operations and you provide an individual financial guarantee, it must cover the estimated cost as if BLM were to contract with a third party to reclaim your operations according to the reclamation plan, including construction and maintenance costs for any treatment facilities necessary to meet Federal and State environmental standards.

(b) BLM will periodically review the estimated cost of reclamation and the adequacy of any funding mechanism established under paragraph (c) of this section and require increased coverage, if necessary.

(c) When BLM identifies a need for it, you must establish a trust fund or other funding mechanism available to BLM to ensure the continuation of long-term treatment to achieve water quality standards and for other long term, post-mining maintenance requirements. The funding must be adequate to provide for construction, long-term operation, maintenance, or replacement of any treatment facilities and infrastructure, for as long as the treatment and facilities are needed after mine closure. BLM may identify the need for a trust fund or other funding mechanism during plan review or later.

§3809.553 May I post a financial guarantee for a part of my operations?

(a) Yes, BLM may authorize you to provide a financial guarantee covering a part of your operations if--

(1) Your operations do not go beyond what is specifically covered by the partial financial guarantee; and

(2) The partial financial guarantee covers all reclamation costs within the incremental area of operations.

(b) BLM will review the amount and terms of the financial guarantee for each increment of your operations at least annually.

§3809.554How do I estimate the cost to reclaim my operations?

(a) You must estimate the cost to reclaim your operations as if BLM were hiring a third-party contractor to perform reclamation of your operations after you have vacated the project area. Your estimate must include BLM's cost to administer the reclamation contract. Contact BLM to obtain this administrative cost information.

(b) Your estimate of the cost to reclaim your operations must be acceptable to BLM.

§3809.555What forms of individual financial guarantee are acceptable to BLM?

You may use any of the following instruments for an individual financial guarantee, provided that the BLM State Director has determined that it is an acceptable financial instrument within the State where the operations are proposed:

(a) Non-cancelable surety bonds, including surety bonds arranged or paid for by third parties;

(b) Cash in an amount equal to the required dollar amount of the financial guarantee, to be deposited and maintained in a Federal depository account of the United States Treasury by BLM;

(c) Irrevocable letters of credit from a bank or financial institution organized or authorized to transact business in the United States;

(d) Certificates of deposit or savings accounts not in excess of the maximum insurable amount as set by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and

(e) Either of the following instruments having a market value of not less than the required dollar amount of the financial guarantee and maintained in a Securities Investors Protection Corporation insured trust account by a licensed securities brokerage firm for the benefit of the Secretary of the Interior, acting by and through BLM:

(1) Negotiable United States Government, State and Municipal securities or bonds; or

(2) Investment-grade rated securities having a Standard and Poor's rating of AAA or AA or an equivalent rating from a nationally recognized securities rating service.

§3809.556 What special requirements apply to financial guarantees described in §3809.555(e)?

(a) If you choose to use the instruments permitted under §3809.555(e) in satisfaction of financial guarantee requirements, you must provide BLM, before you begin operations and by the end of each calendar year thereafter, a certified statement describing the nature and market value of the instruments maintained in that account, and including any current statements or reports furnished by the brokerage firm to the operator or mining claimant concerning the asset value of the account.

(b) You must review the market value of the account instruments by December 31 of each year to ensure that their market value continues to be not less than the required dollar amount of the financial guarantee. When the market value of the account instruments has declined by more than 10 percent of the required dollar amount of the financial guarantee, you must, within 10 days after its annual review or at any time upon the written request of BLM, provide additional instruments, as defined in §3809.555(e), to the trust account so that the total market value of all account instruments is not less than the required dollar amount of the financial guarantee. You must send a certified statement to BLM within 45 days thereafter describing your actions to raise the market value of its account instruments to the required dollar amount of the financial guarantee. You must include copies of any statements or reports furnished by the brokerage firm to you documenting such an increase.

(c) If your review under paragraph (b) of this section demonstrates that the total market value of trust account instruments exceeds 110 percent of the required dollar amount of the financial guarantee, you may ask BLM to authorize a written release of that portion of the account that exceeds 110 percent of the required financial guarantee. BLM will approve your request only if you are in compliance with the terms and conditions of your notice or approved plan of operations.

BLANKET FINANCIAL GUARANTEE

§3809.560Under what circumstances may I provide a blanket financial guarantee?

(a) If you have more than one notice- or plan-level operation underway, you may provide a blanket financial guarantee covering statewide or nationwide operations instead of individual financial guarantees for each operation.

(b) BLM will accept a blanket financial guarantee if we determine that its terms and conditions are sufficient to comply with the regulations of this subpart.

STATE-APPROVED FINANCIAL GUARANTEE

§3809.570Under what circumstances may I provide a State-approved financial guarantee?

When you provide evidence of an existing financial guarantee under State law or regulations that covers your operations, you are not required to provide a separate financial guarantee under this subpart if--

(a) The existing financial guarantee is redeemable by the Secretary, acting by and through BLM;

(b) It is held or approved by a State agency for the same operations covered by your notice(s) or plan(s) of operations; and

(c) It provides at least the same amount of financial guarantee as required by this subpart.

§3809.571 What forms of State-approved financial guarantee are acceptable to BLM?

You may provide a State-approved financial guarantee in any of the following forms, subject to the conditions in §3809.570:

(a) The kinds of individual financial guarantees specified under §3809.555;

(b) Participation in a State bond pool, if--

(1) The State agrees that, upon BLM's request, the State will use part of the pool to meet reclamation obligations on public lands; and

(2) The BLM State Director determines that the State bond pool provides the equivalent level of protection as that required by this subpart; and

(c) A corporate guarantee if--

(1) The corporate guarantee is acceptable to the State;

(2) The corporate guarantee is redeemable by or guaranteed to the Secretary; and

(3) The BLM State Director determines that the corporate guarantee provides a level of protection equal to the estimated cost of reclamation under §§3809.552 and 3809.554, considering the operator's net income, net working capital and intangible net worth, and total liabilities and assets.

§3809.572What happens if BLM rejects a financial instrument in my State approved financial guarantee?

If BLM rejects a submitted financial instrument in an existing State-approved financial guarantee, BLM will notify you in writing, with a complete explanation of the reasons for the rejection within 30 days of BLM's receipt of the evidence of State-approved financial guarantee. You must provide BLM with a financial guarantee acceptable under this subpart at least equal to the amount of the rejected financial instrument.

§3809.573What happens if the State makes a demand against my financial guarantee?

When the State makes a demand against your financial guarantee, thereby reducing the available balance, you must replace or augment the financial guarantee if the available balance is insufficient to cover the remaining reclamation cost.

MODIFICATION OR REPLACEMENT OF A FINANCIAL GUARANTEE

§3809.580What happens if I modify my notice or approved plan of operations?

In the event you modify a notice or an approved plan under §3809.331 or §3809.431 respectively and your estimated reclamation cost increases, your revised financial guarantee must comply with §3809.552. You must adjust the amount of the financial guarantee to cover the estimated additional cost of reclamation and long-term treatment, as modified.

§3809.581Will BLM accept a replacement financial instrument?

Yes. If you or a new operator have an approved financial guarantee, you may request BLM to accept a replacement financial instrument at any time after the approval of an initial instrument. BLM will review the offered instrument for adequacy and may reject any offered instrument, but will do so by a decision in writing, with a complete explanation of the reasons for the rejection, within 30 days of the offering.

§3809.582How long must I maintain my financial guarantee?

You must maintain your financial guarantee until you or a new operator replace it, with BLM's written concurrence, by another adequate financial guarantee, or until BLM releases the requirement to maintain your financial guarantee after you have completed reclamation of your operation according to the requirements of §3809.320 (for notices), including any measures identified as the result of consultation with BLM under §3809.313, or §3809.420 (for plans of operations).

RELEASE OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE

§3809.590When will BLM release or reduce the financial guarantee for my notice or plan of operations?

(a) When you (the mining claimant or operator) have completed all or any portion of the reclamation of your operations in accordance with your notice or approved plan of operations, you may notify BLM that the reclamation has occurred and request a reduction in the financial guarantee or BLM approval of the adequacy of the reclamation, or both.

(b) BLM will then promptly inspect the reclaimed area. We encourage you to accompany the BLM inspector.

(c) BLM will publish notice of final financial guarantee release in a local newspaper of general circulation and accept comments for 30 days. Subsequently, BLM will notify you, in writing, whether you may reduce the financial guarantee under §3809.591, or the reclamation is acceptable, or both.

§3809.591What are the limitations on the amount by which BLM may reduce my financial guarantee?

(a) This section applies to your financial guarantee, but not to any funding mechanism established under §3809.552(c) to pay for long-term treatment of effluent or site maintenance. Calculation of bond percentages in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section does not include any funds held in that kind of funding mechanism.

(b) BLM may release up to 60 percent of your financial guarantee for a portion of your project area when BLM determines that you have successfully completed backfilling; regrading; establishment of drainage control; and stabilization and detoxification of leaching solutions, heaps, tailings, and similar facilities on that portion of the project area.

(c) BLM may release the remainder of your financial guarantee for the same portion of the project area when BLM determines that you have successfully completed reclamation, including revegetating the area disturbed by operations, and when--

(1) Any effluent discharged from the area has met applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards for one year without needing additional treatment; or

(2) If you have established a funding mechanism under §3809.552(c) to pay for long-term treatment, any effluent discharged from the area meets applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards water for one year with or without treatment.

§3809.592Does release of my financial guarantee relieve me of all responsibility for my project area?

(a) Release of your financial guarantee under this subpart does not release you (the mining claimant or operator) from responsibility for reclamation of your operations should reclamation fail to meet the standards of this subpart.

(b) Any release of your financial guarantee under this subpart does not release or waive any claim BLM or other persons may have against any person under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., or under any other applicable statutes or regulations.

§3809.593What happens to my financial guarantee if I transfer my operations?

You remain responsible for obligations or conditions created while you conducted operations unless a transferee accepts responsibility under §3809.16, and BLM accepts an adequate replacement financial guarantee. Therefore, your financial guarantee remains in effect until BLM determines that you are no longer responsible for all or part of the operation. BLM can release your financial guarantee on an incremental basis. The new operator must provide a financial guarantee before BLM will allow the new operator to conduct operations.

§3809.594What happens to my financial guarantee when my mining claim is patented?

(a) When your mining claim is patented, BLM will release the portion of the financial guarantee that applies to operations within the boundaries of the patented land. This paragraph does not apply to patents issued on mining claims within the boundaries of the California Desert Conservation Area.

(b) BLM will release the remainder of the financial guarantee, including the portion covering approved means of access outside the boundaries of the mining claim, when you have completed reclamation to the standards of this subpart.

(c) BLM will continue to regulate under this subpart existing access for mining purposes across public lands to patented mining claims, including the requirement to have an adequate financial guarantee.

FORFEITURE OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE

§3809.595When will BLM initiate forfeiture of my financial guarantee?

BLM will initiate forfeiture of all or part of your financial guarantee for any project area or portion of a project area if--

(a) You (the operator or mining claimant) refuse or are unable to conduct reclamation as provided in the reclamation measures incorporated into your notice or approved plan of operations or the regulations in this subpart;

(b) You fail to meet the terms of your notice or the decision approving your plan of operations; or

(c) You default on any of the conditions under which you obtained the financial guarantee.

§3809.596How does BLM initiate forfeiture of my financial guarantee?

When BLM decides to require the forfeiture of all or part of your financial guarantee, BLM will notify you (the operator or mining claimant) by certified mail, return receipt requested; the surety on the financial guarantee, if any; and the State agency holding the financial guarantee, if any, informing you and them of the following:

(a) BLM's decision to require the forfeiture of all or part of the financial guarantee;

(b) The reasons for the forfeiture;

(c) The amount that you will forfeit based on the estimated total cost of achieving the reclamation plan requirements for the project area or portion of the project area affected, including BLM's administrative costs; and

(d) How you may avoid forfeiture, including--

(1) Providing a written agreement under which you or another person will perform reclamation operations in accordance with a compliance schedule which meets the conditions of your notice or the decision approving your plan of operations and the reclamation plan, and a demonstration that such other person has the ability to satisfy the conditions; and

(2) Obtaining written permission from BLM for a surety to complete the reclamation, or the portion of the reclamation applicable to the bonded phase or increment, if the surety can demonstrate an ability to complete the reclamation in accordance with the reclamation measures incorporated in your notice or approved plan of operations.

§3809.597What if I do not comply with BLM's forfeiture notice?

If you fail to meet the requirements of BLM's forfeiture notice provided under §3809.596, if you fail to appeal the forfeiture notice under §3809.800, or if the decision appealed is affirmed, BLM will--

(a) Immediately collect the forfeited amount as provided by applicable laws for the collection of defaulted financial guarantees, other debts, or State bond pools; and

(b) Use funds collected from financial guarantee forfeiture to implement the reclamation plan, or portion thereof, on the area or portion of the area to which financial guarantee coverage applies.

§3809.598What if the amount forfeited will not cover the cost of reclamation?

If the amount forfeited is insufficient to pay for the full cost of reclamation, the operators and mining claimants are jointly and severally liable for the remaining costs. BLM may complete or authorize completion of reclamation of the area covered by the financial guarantee and may recover from you all costs of reclamation in excess of the amount forfeited.

§3809.599What if the amount forfeited exceeds the cost of reclamation?

If the amount of financial guarantee forfeited is more than the amount necessary to complete reclamation, BLM will return the unused funds within a reasonable amount of time to the party from whom they were collected.

INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

§3809.600With what frequency will BLM inspect my operations?

(a) At any time, BLM may inspect your operations, including all structures, equipment, workings, and uses located on the public lands. The inspection may include verification that your operations comply with this subpart. See §3715.7 of this title for special provisions governing inspection of the inside of structures used solely for residential purposes.

(b) BLM may authorize a member(s) of the public to accompany a BLM inspector. However, BLM will not authorize a member of the public to accompany an inspector if the presence of the public would materially interfere with the mining operations or with BLM's administration of this subpart, or create safety problems. When BLM authorizes a member of the public to accompany the inspector, the operator must provide access to operations.

(c) At least 4 times each year, BLM will inspect your operations if you use cyanide or other leachate or where there is significant potential for acid drainage.

§3809.601What types of enforcement action may BLM take if I do not meet the requirements of this subpart?

BLM may issue various types of enforcement orders, including the following:

(a) Noncompliance order. If your operations do not comply with any provision of your notice, plan of operations, or requirement of this subpart, BLM may issue you a noncompliance order; and

(b) Suspension orders. (1) BLM may order a suspension of all or any part of your operations after--

(i) You fail to timely comply with a noncompliance order for a significant violation issued under paragraph (a) of this section. A significant violation is one that causes or may result in environmental or other harm or danger or that substantially deviates from the complete notice or approved plan of operations;

(ii) BLM notifies you of its intent to issue a suspension order; and

(iii) BLM provides you an opportunity for an informal hearing before the BLM State Director to object to a suspension.

(2) BLM may order an immediate, temporary suspension of all or any part of your operations without issuing a noncompliance order, notifying you in advance, or providing you an opportunity for an informal hearing if--

(i) You do not comply with any provision of your notice, plan of operations, or this subpart; and

(ii) An immediate, temporary suspension is necessary to protect health, safety, or the environment from imminent danger or harm. BLM may presume that an immediate suspension is necessary if you conduct plan-level operations without an approved plan of operations or conduct operations other than casual use without submitting a complete notice.

(3) BLM will terminate a suspension order under paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section no later than the date by which you correct the violation.

(c) Contents of enforcement orders. Enforcement orders will specify--

(1) How you are failing or have failed to comply with the requirements of this subpart;

(2) The portions of your operations, if any, that you must cease or suspend;

(3) The actions you must take to correct the noncompliance and the time, not exceed 30 days, within which you must start corrective action; and

(4) The time within which you must complete corrective action.

§3809.602Can BLM revoke my plan of operations or nullify my notice?

(a) BLM may revoke your plan of operations or nullify your notice upon finding that--

(1) A violation exists of any provision of your notice, plan of operation, or this subpart, and you have failed to correct the violation within the time specified in the enforcement order issued under §3809.601; or

(2) a pattern of violations exists at your operations.

(b) The finding is not effective until BLM notifies you of its intent to revoke your plan or nullify your notice, and BLM provides you an opportunity for an informal hearing before the BLM State Director.

(c) If BLM nullifies your notice or revokes your plan of operations, you must not conduct operations on the public lands in the project area, except for reclamation and other measures specified by BLM.

§3809.603How does BLM serve me with an enforcement action?

(a) BLM will serve a noncompliance order, a notification of intent to issue a suspension order, a suspension order, or other enforcement order on the person to whom it is directed or his or her designated agent, either by--

(1) Offering a copy at the project area to the designated agent or to the individual who, based upon reasonable inquiry, appears to be in charge. If no such individual can be located at the project area, BLM may offer a copy to any individual at the project area who appears to be an employee or agent of the person to whom the notification or order is issued. Service is complete when the notice or order is offered and is not incomplete because of refusal to accept; or

(2) Sending a copy of the notification or order by certified mail or by hand to the operator or his or her designated agent, or by any means consistent with the rules governing service of a summons and complaint under rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Service is complete upon offer of the notification or order or of the certified mail and is not incomplete because of refusal to accept.

(b) BLM may serve a mining claimant in the same manner an operator is served under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(c) The mining claimant or operator may designate an agent for service of notifications and orders. You must provide the designation in writing to the local BLM field office having jurisdiction over the lands involved.

§3809.604What happens if I do not comply with a BLM order?

(a) If you do not comply with a BLM order issued under §§3809.601 or 3809.602, the Department of the Interior may request the United States Attorney to institute a civil action in United States District Court for an injunction or order to enforce its order, prevent you from conducting operations on the public lands in violation of this subpart, and collect damages resulting from unlawful acts. This relief may be in addition to the enforcement actions described in §§3809.601 and 3809.602 and the penalties described in §§3809.700 and 3809.702.

(b) If you fail to timely comply with a noncompliance order issued under §3809.601(a), and remain in noncompliance, BLM may order you to submit plans of operations under §3809.401 for current and future notice-level operations.


PENALTIES

§3809.700What criminal penalties apply to violations of this subpart?

The criminal penalties established by statute for individuals and organizations are as follows:

(a) Individuals. If you knowingly and willfully violate the requirements of this subpart, you may be subject to arrest and trial under section 303(a) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)). If you are convicted, you will be subject to a fine of not more than $100,000 or the alternative fine provided for in the applicable provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3571, or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months, or both, for each offense; and

(b) Organizations. If an organization or corporation knowingly or willfully violates the requirements of this subpart, it is subject to trial and, if convicted, will be subject to a fine of not more than $200,000, or the alternative fine provided for in the applicable provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3571.

§3809.701What happens if I make false statements to BLM?

Under statute (18 U.S.C. 1001), you are subject to arrest and trial before a United States District Court if, in any matter under this subpart, you knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or make any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use any false writings or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry. If you are convicted, you will be fined not more than $250,000 or the alternative fine provided for in the applicable provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3571, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

§3809.702What civil penalties apply to violations of this subpart?

(a)(1) Following issuance of an order under §3809.601, BLM may assess a proposed civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation against you if you --

(i) Violate any term or condition of a plan of operations or fail to conform with operations described in your notice;

(ii) Violate any provision of this subpart; or

(iii) Fail to comply with an order issued under §3809.601.

(2) BLM may consider each day of continuing violation a separate violation for purposes of penalty assessments.

(3) In determining the amount of the penalty, BLM must consider your history of previous violations at the particular mining operation; the seriousness of the violation, including any irreparable harm to the environment and any hazard to the health or safety of the public; whether you were negligent; and your demonstrated good faith in attempting to achieve rapid compliance after notification of the violation.

(4) If you are a small entity, BLM will, under appropriate circumstances including those described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, consider reducing or waiving a civil penalty and may consider ability to pay in determining a penalty assessment.

(b) A final administrative assessment of a civil penalty occurs only after BLM has notified you of the assessment and given you opportunity to request within 30 days a hearing by the Office of Hearings and Appeals. BLM may extend the time to request a hearing during settlement discussions. The Office of Hearings and Appeals will issue a penalty assessment that is final.

(c) If BLM issues you a proposed civil penalty and you fail to request a hearing as provided in paragraph (b), the proposed assessment becomes a final order of the Department, and the penalty assessed becomes due upon expiration of the time allowed to request a hearing.

§3809.703Can BLM settle a proposed civil penalty?

Yes. BLM may negotiate a settlement of civil penalties, in which case BLM will prepare a settlement agreement. The BLM State Director or his or her designee must sign the agreement.

APPEALS

§3809.800What appeal rights do I have?

(a) Any person adversely affected by a decision made under this subpart may appeal the decision under parts 4 and 1840 of this title. Review of a decision by the BLM State Director will take place if consistent with part 1840 of this title.

(b) In order for the Department of the Interior to consider your appeal of a decision, you must file a notice of appeal in writing with the BLM office where the decision was made within 30 days after the date you received the decision. All decisions under this subpart go into effect immediately and remain in effect while appeals are pending unless a stay is granted under §4.21(b) of this title.

(c) Your written appeal must contain:

(1) Your name and address; and

(2) The BLM serial number of the notice or plan of operations that is the subject of the appeal.

(d) You must submit a statement of your reasons for the appeal and any arguments you wish to present that would justify reversal or modification of the decision within the time frame specified in part 4 of this chapter (usually within 30 days after filing your appeal).

APPENDIX C
OTHER APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS


The following is a list and brief description of major laws, regulations, executive orders, permits, licenses, and reviews that could apply to mineral projects on public lands. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, and other requirements may apply at the local, county, or state level. Some of the procedural requirements depend upon whether there is an underlying federal action or decision and may not apply under some alternatives, such as Alternative 2, where there is not a BLM decision on specific exploration or mining projects.




CONTENTS

General RequirementsA-71
Air QualityA-71
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management A-73
Water ResourcesA-74
Cultural ResourcesA-76
American Indian Resources, Consultation, and CoordinationA-77
Cave ResourcesA-78
Wildlife ResourcesA-78
Special Status AreasA-79 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The following acts and executive order establish general review requirements or management objectives that apply to mineral projects on public lands.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), P.L. 94-579. Section 302(b) states that "In managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands."

Executive Order 12088 - Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, October 13, 1978. Executive Order 12088 directs executive agencies to take all necessary actions to prevent, control, and abate environmental pollution from activities and facilities under their control. This order further directs those agencies to comply, to the same extent as any other person is required to do so, with both the procedural and substantive requirements of pollution control standards, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; and state and local laws and rules.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), P.L. 91-190. The National Environmental Policy Act directs federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of their decisions. NEPA requires BLM to prepare environmental assessments or environmental impact statements for the approval of Plans of Operations. Some states, such as Montana and California, have state laws similar to NEPA.

The 1970 Mining and Mineral Policy Act and The 1980 Natural Materials and Minerals Policy, Research, and Development Act. Both of these acts direct that the public lands be managed in a manner that recognizes the Nation's need for a domestic source of mineral production.

AIR QUALITY

The federal statutes pertaining to air quality protection are contained in the following acts.

Clean Air Act (CAA), P.L. 84-159 (Air Pollution Control Act; July 14, 1955), 42 USC 7401 et seq., as amended numerous times.

The objectives of the Clean Air Act are (1) to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health, welfare, and productive capacity of its people, (2) to initiate and accelerate a national research and development program to prevent and control air pollution, (3) to provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments for developing and executing air pollution prevention and control programs, and (4) to encourage and assist the development and operation of regional air pollution prevention and control programs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for developing standards, rules, guidance, and program oversight. The states have the primary responsibility for enforcing air quality regulations and standards as defined in an EPA-approved "state implementation plan," and may establish more stringent regulations and standards. These responsibilities may be further delegated to local authorities. Tribal governments are responsible for enforcing standards on their lands, based on EPA-approved "tribal implementation plans." BLM is responsible for assuring that all of its activities (either directly or through use authorizations) comply with all local, state, and federal air quality laws, regulations, and standards.

Specifically, under Section 118 of the Clean Air Act, BLM "(1) having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or (2) engaged in any activity ... which may result in the discharge of air pollutants," and each employee "shall be subject to, and comply with, all Federal, State, interstate, and local [air quality] requirements." These regulations apply to any action (whether substantive or procedural), to requirements to pay fees, to the exercise of any administrative authority, and to any process or sanction. In addition, these requirements apply "not withstanding any immunity of such agencies, officers, agents, or employees under any rule of law."

In addition, under Section 176, BLM "shall not engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve, any activity which does not conform to an implementation plan..." Further, "The assurance of conformity to such an implementation plan shall be the affirmative responsibility of the head of such department, agency, or instrumentality." In essence, BLM must demonstrate that every decision or action it takes will comply with air quality requirements.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), P.L. 94-579 (October 21, 1976), 43 USC 1701 et seq., as amended.

An Act; "to establish public land policy; to establish guidelines for its administration; to provide for the management, protection, development, and enhancement of the public land; and for other purposes."

Through the Secretary of the Interior, BLM is responsible for implementing FLPMA. As an "organic" act, FLPMA defines BLM's organization and provides the basic policy guidance for management of the Public Lands. Therefore, FLPMA is the primary law guiding all BLM activities; BLM should implement other legislation in a manner that conforms to FLPMA and its overall intent.

As stated in Section 102: "The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that ... the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use ..."

Land use plans (Section 202), which describe how the BLM will manage the public lands, must "... provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans ..."

A provision for revoking or suspending land use, occupancy, or development authorizations upon "a finding of a violation of ... applicable State of Federal air or water quality standard or implementation plan ..." is required under Section 302.

Finally, under Section 505, "each right-of-way [provision] shall ... require compliance with applicable air and water quality standards established by ... Federal or State law ..."

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), P.L. 94-580, as amended by the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980, P.L. 96-482, USC 6901 et seq. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the federal law governing management of solid and hazardous waste. RCRA divides wastes on two regulatory tracks: Subtitle D (solid waste) and Subtitle C (hazardous waste). In October 1980 Congress amended RCRA by adding Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(iii) (known as the Bevill exclusion or amendment) for solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals. The Bevill amendment excluded such mining waste from regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA, pending completion of a study and report to Congress. All extraction and beneficiation wastes and 20 special mineral processing wastes are excluded from RCRA Subtitle C regulation by virtue of the Bevill amendment (see 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)).

RCRA emphasizes the primary role of the states in managing both conventional solid wastes and hazardous wastes. The legislation provided a federal support role with minimal enforcement and regulatory process for conventional solid wastes. Actual regulation and enforcement of solid nonhazardous wastes was left to the states, which were to follow broad guidelines established at the federal level.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 42 USC 9601 et seq.; as amended by Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), P. L. 99-499, October 17, 1986. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the amendment of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) authorized response to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health, welfare, or the environment. The law outlines the procedures for reporting any environmental releases of a hazardous substance that exceeds a reportable quantity and also incudes provisions for permanent cleanups, known as remedial actions, and other cleanups referred to as removals. SARA created the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), a statute designed to improve community access to information about chemical hazards and to facilitate the development of chemical emergency response plans by state and local governments.

Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation and Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), P.L. 95-604, Nov. 8, 1978; 92 stat. 3021; as amended by P.L. 95-106 , Nov. 9, 1979, 93 stat. 799; and P.L. 97-415, January 4, 1983, 96 stat. 2078. The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) regulates mill tailings at active and inactive uranium mills that present a hazard to public health. The act provides that efforts must be made to stabilize, control, and dispose of uranium mill tailings in an environmentally sound and safe manner. UMTRCA provides (1) a program of assessment and remedial action at abandoned mill sites and (2) a program regulating mill tailings during processing at active processing mills.

WATER RESOURCES

Clean Water Act (CWA), P.L. 92-500, as amended by P.L. 95-217, P.L. 95-576, P.L. 96-483, and P.L. 97-117; 33 USC 125. et seg. The objectives of the Clean Water Act are to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. The act protects surface "navigable" water through federally enforceable regulations, with emphasis on discharge of pollutants to surface waters.

Regulations for protecting ground water are not specifically included in the Clean Water Act. Authority to protect ground water is vested in the states. But the Clean Water Act clearly delineates the federal role in protecting ground water quality. Section 313 requires federal compliance with valid state and local government requirements to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. Sections 208 and 106 provide the federal financial assistance and guidance to state and local governments for planning and managing ground water resources. Section 208b.2 requires that individual states develop processes to identify and control the following:

Surface mining and underground mining-associated pollution of surface water and ground water.

Intrusion of salt water into fresh ground water aquifers.

The disposition of residual wastes that could degrade the quality of surface or ground water.

The disposal of pollutants on land or in excavations wherein adjacent surface water or ground water quality degradation could ultimately result.

The Clean Water Act also regulates dredge and fill placement in waters of the United States. A permit under Section 404 of the act is required for mining that would disturb wetlands or other waters of the United States. This permitting program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), P.L. 93-523, as amended by P.L. 95-190, 42 USC 300 et seg. In 1974 Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act, part C of which directed the Environmental Protection Agency to establish minimum requirements for effective state programs to prevent underground injection that endangers ground water resources of public supply systems. This program became known as the Underground Injection Control Program (UIC).

Under the Underground Injection Control Program injection wells are divided into five well classes for the purpose of regulations. Class III wells are used to inject fluids for the recovery of minerals such as solution mining of salts and sulfur and in-situ leaching of uranium, copper, or (experimentally so far) gold. Class V wells and for a while some class I wells have mining application for the disposal of hazardous or nonhazardous waste, including the use of mine wastes to backfill underground mines.

The purpose of the Safe Drinking Water Act is to protect the public health and welfare by assuring that the quality of drinking water provided by public water systems is adequate for human use. To meet this goal, the act provides for the following:

Establishing primary national drinking water regulations setting forth mandatory maximum contaminant levels in drinking water supplied by public water systems.

Establishing secondary national drinking water regulations for public water systems. These regulations are not mandatory, but they are recommended standards to protect public health.

Protecting the quality of aquifers that serve as the main source of drinking water for an area and that, if contaminated, would create a significant public health hazard.

Protecting underground sources of drinking water from injection of pollutants.

The Safe Drinking Water Act provides for and encourages delegation of its authorities to the states, which assume primary responsibility for enforcing its provisions. Only if a state fails to assume the responsibility would EPA assume enforcement responsibility.

Under the provisions of Section 1447(a) of the act, BLM is required to comply with both the substantive and procedural requirements of the act. Specifically, Section 1447 directs that

(a) Each federal agency (1) having jurisdiction over any federally owned or maintained public water system or (2) engaged in any activity that results in or may result in underground injection that endangers drinking water (within the meaning of Section 1421(d)(2)) is subject to and must comply with all federal, state, and local requirements; administrative authorities; and processes and sanctions respecting the provision of safe drinking water and respecting any underground injection program in the same manner, and to the same extent, as any nongovernmental entity.

Under the provisions of the act, BLM therefore is not responsible for primary enforcement of the act's requirements but rather is regulated by those provisions. BLM's role is to help the states in their efforts to protect the quality of ground water that has present or potential use as an underground source of drinking water.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, P.L. 90-548, Oct. 2, 1968, 82 stat. 906 and as amended. Portions of this act provide for control of activities that are on land next to rivers and could cause or contribute to pollution of waters, or could degrade water quality through erosion and siltation of riverbank lands, and contamination of ground water sources feeding the river.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977, 44 FR 1955. Executive Order 11990 directs all agencies to provide leadership and take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands according to the National Environmental Policy Act. The order covers aspects of federal activities affecting wetlands, including land management, facilities development, and licensing regulations. Agencies are asked to minimize the impacts of federal actions on wetlands and their related beneficial effects, such as ground water recharge. In carrying out any activities affecting wetlands, federal agencies must consider such factors as public health, safety, and, welfare, including such things as water supply and quality, recharge, and discharge areas for ground water, pollution, etc.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Antiquities Act of 1906, P.L. 59-209. The Antiquities Act provides for protecting archaeological resources on federal lands through criminal sanctions against excavation, injury, or destruction of archaeological sites without permission. This legislation has been declared unconstitutionally vague in the Ninth Circuit and is no longer enforced.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, P.L. 89-665, as amended by P.L. 94 422, P.L. 94-458, and P.L. 96-515. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is the basic federal mandate for managing and protecting historic properties. Section 106 requires federal agencies to account for the effects of their actions on historic properties on public and private lands and allows the public, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to comment on federal undertakings before authorization. Section 110 requires agencies to systematically inventory all lands for historic properties and protect them through active management. Section 106 compliance has dominated the program. Amendments enacted in 1992 direct agencies to account for the effects of proposed activities on traditional cultural properties of American Indians, ranching communities, and other traditional lifeways. This law is implemented at 36 CFR 800, which is being revised in response to the 1992 amendment. The National Register aspects of the National Historic Preservation Act are implemented at 36 CFR 60, 63, and 68. BLM Manuals 8111 - Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation (Upland), 8141 - Physical and Administrative Protection Measures, and 8143 - Procedures for the Avoidance or Mitigation of Effects on Cultural Resources further implement the National Historic Preservation Act.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (P.L. 96-96). The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) requires a permit for any excavation or removal of archaeological resources from public lands and provides civil and criminal penalties for violating permit requirements. Given these penalties, ARPA is the basis for most prosecutions and suits involving archaeological resources and provides the mandate for the Cultural Resources Use Permit System, as well as archaeological resource interpretive and education programs. ARPA requires the systematic inventory of all federal lands to locate and protect archaeological resources. ARPA is implemented at 36 CFR 296: 43 CFR 3 and 7 and in BLM Manual 8151 - Cultural Resource Use Permits.

Executive Order 11593. This order supplements the National Historic Preservation Act and Archaeological Resources Protection Act by directing federal agencies to locate and inventory all cultural resources under their jurisdiction and to ensure that actions do not affect significant cultural resources. It also directs agencies to consider the effects of their actions on nonfederal lands.

AMERICAN INDIAN RESOURCES, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION

Executive Order 13084. This order, signed May 14, 1998, requires "regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal governments in the development of regulatory practices on Federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities; to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian tribal governments; and to streamline the application process for and increase the availability of waivers to Indian tribal governments."

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, P.L. 95-341, and Executive Order 13007. Both of these require federal agencies to evaluate their policies and procedures to protect the religious freedom of American Indians. In American Indian religious practice any area can contain places that are significant for sacred practices or purposes. Those sacred places embodying spiritual values may have specific land forms, indigenous rock art, medicine wheels, rock cairns and effigy figures, spirit trails and spirit gates, caves, springs and lakes, Indian graves, and contemporary use areas. Although the act has no implementing regulations, it is of great political and cultural significance to American Indians. The act requires consultation with American Indians and consideration of an action's potential affects on religious practices and access to areas of religious importance.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (P.L. 101-106). The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act pertains specifically to American Indian human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony removed from public lands. This law has two elements. The first vests ownership of Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act items with American Indians and requires agencies to consult with American Indians to repatriate them. The second requires ongoing consultation and coordination with American Indians about discoveries of Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act items during activities on public lands. BLM is consulting with American Indians on a project specific basis and is working with tribal governments to draft memoranda of understanding dealing programmatically with discoveries. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act regulations are now being written. BLM Manual 8161 and its consultation handbook give guidance for BLM consultation.

Executive Order 94-3175. This order directs federal agencies to deal with American Indian tribal governments on a government-to-government basis and to pay special attention to federal Indian trust responsibilities. Since this is a new order, no specific implementing policies are in place, and this order's implications for land management are being worked out in the field.

CAVE RESOURCES

The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (FCRPA). The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act provides for the designation of significance based upon six criteria: biota, cultural, geologic/mineralogic/paleontologic, hydrologic, recreational, and educational or scientific values. Upon discovery, a cave is evaluated to determine its significance. If a cave is determined to be significant, its entire extent, including passages not mapped or discovered at the time of determination, is deemed significant.

WILDLIFE RESOURCES

Although a variety of laws, regulations, policies, and programs relate to wildlife, the following have a major affect on the protection of wildlife resources in relation to mining.

The Endangered Species Act, P.L. 93-205 (1973), P.L. 94-359 (1974), P.L. 95 212 (1977), P.L. 95-632 (1978), P.L. 96-159 (1979), P.L. 97-304 (1982), P.L. 100-653 (1988). The purpose of this act is to identify and conserve species that are threatened or endangered with extinction. The act prohibits the taking of species listed as threatened or endangered, either directly or indirectly through habitat loss or modification. This prohibition applies to all activities regardless of land ownership.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, P.L. 86-732 (1960). This act is an international treaty that prohibits the taking of any migratory bird without permit or authorization. This prohibition applies to situations where, for example, migratory waterfowl land on a tailings pond or process solution pond that contains toxic levels of contaminants. Any resulting wildlife deaths would be (and have been) violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This prohibition applies to all activities regardless of land ownership.

Executive Order 11987, Exotic Organisms, June 8, 1977. Executive Order 11987 directs all agencies to restrict the introducing of exotic species into natural ecosystems on land and waters that they own, lease, or hold for purposes of administration. This order also encourages states, local governments, and private citizens to prevent the introduction of exotic species into natural ecosystems of the United States.

Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, P.L. 92-195, as amended by P.L. 94-579 (1976) and P.L. 95-514 (1978). This act protects wild free-roaming horses and burros, directing BLM and the Forest Service to manage such animals on public lands under their jurisdiction.

Bald Eagle Act of 1940, as amended by P.L. 92-535 (1972). This act protects the bald eagle and golden eagle by prohibiting except under certain specified conditions the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds.

SPECIAL STATUS AREAS

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) § 1133. Use of wilderness areas 43 CFR Ch. II Subpart 8560-(b) ... wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use. The objective of these regulations is to manage the public lands designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System to preserve and protect their wilderness character, provide for their use and enjoyment by the American people in a manner that will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and allow for recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use. Subpart 8560.4-6 describes mining law administration in wilderness areas. These regulations require that mineral operations be conducted to maintain the wilderness character unimpaired consistent with the use of the land for mineral activities and that all facilities must be removed within 1 year after operations cease. This section also requires that validity examinations be conducted before allowing mining operations in wilderness areas to determine if valid existing rights were present as of the date of withdrawal.

Research Natural Areas, 43 CFR Subpart 8223. No person shall use, occupy, construct, or maintain facilities in a research natural area except as permitted by law, other federal regulations, or authorized under provisions of this subpart 8223.
(b) No person shall use, occupy, construct, or maintain facilities in a manner inconsistent with the purpose of the research natural area.
(c) Scientists and educators shall use the area in a manner that is nondestructive and consistent with the purpose of the research natural area.

APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF STATE MINING REGULATIONS/PROGRAMS


CONTENTS

AlaskaA-81
ArizonaA-82
CaliforniaA-84
ColoradoA-86
IdahoA-88
MontanaA-89
NevadaA-91
New MexicoA-93
OregonA-95
UtahA-97
WashingtonA-98
WyomingA-99


ALASKA

Locatable mineral activities on BLM lands in Alaska are regulated by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) according to Section AS 27.19.010 of the Alaska State Code. This regulation is accomplished through a variety of state regulatory programs and permits that apply to reclamation and clean water requirements for mineral activities on state, private, and federal lands.

Plan Threshold and Submission Requirements

Alaska has no "casual use" exemption, nor does it require a permit for disturbances of less than 5 acres. Notification for these operations is similar to BLM requirements. The use of suction dredges with intake diameters of 6 inches or less is exempt from regulation. Information for Notice- and Plan-level operations is submitted to DNR and BLM using the Annual Placer Mining Application (APMA). DNR in turn notifies all other involved agencies‹Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. This notification simplifies the permitting process because the involved agencies are informed by the state, and miners do not have to do the work on their own. In accepting this form, BLM has reserved the right to request more information from the claimant or operator for the NEPA evaluation.

The Alaska definition of "project area" does not include roads and camp areas.

Performance Standards

Alaska has site-specific standards for surface water resources as well as operational and reclamation standards. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) sets ground water requirements on a site-specific basis. These requirements usually consist of standards set by EPA. DEC conducts monitoring. Variances can be granted on a site-specific basis. The state has topsoil and backfilling standards. Revegetation requirements are general, including stabilization of the site that allows for reestablishing the renewable resources on the site within a reasonable period of time by natural processes. The technology-based operational standards used are "best management practices" (BMP).

Alaska requirements governing cyanide operations or acid rock drainage are handled by DEC. The state has the authority to regulate all chemical applications used in mining.

Resource Protection Standards

Alaska does not have a specific statutory provision to protect threatened and endangered species, although Title 16 applies to fish and wildlife. Alaska has no specific regulation of caves and cave resources but offers statutory protection to both historical (National Historic Preservation Act) and archaeological and paleontological resources.


Alaska has no state National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) law or process. Alaska uses a "large mine project process" for obtaining public input in reviewing significant mines. No special provisions apply to consultation with American Indian governments.

Enforcement, Shut Down, and Bonding

The staff of the Alaska DNR Division of Mining consists of five people, including two inspectors. Operations are inspected when convenient or needed. There is no fixed schedule. The state handles bonding for BLM. Regulations for shut-down operations are similar to those proposed by BLM. Administrative actions are first used against an operator or claimant to remedy a noncompliance. When administrative actions fail, money for reclamation is acquired from the statewide bond pool. The state then pursues the operator or claimant in civil court to recover money spent on reclamation and administrative costs. Alaska statues define no specific criminal or civil penalties for mining.

Significant Differences

Substantive regulatory differences between the Alaska State Program and the existing 3809 regulations are in two areas: (1) Operations using 6-inch or smaller intake diameters are exempted from filing a Notice-type documents for suction dredging, and (2) no regulations provide for the specific control of acid rock drainage and cyanide operations.

ARIZONA

Currently Arizona State Mined Land Reclamation Rules apply only to private land. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality issues an Aquifer Protection Permit. The Arizona Department of Water Resources issues permits for drilling if certain conditions are met. And state and local governments issue other permits. While other federal, state, and local permits are required for exploration and mining, BLM takes the lead for the lands it manages. No broad state permit applies. In addition, a "mining summit" has been established in Arizona with most federal, state, and local regulators and industry representatives participating. Its purpose is to develop a process for industry and regulators to communicate, coordinate, and facilitate a more efficient permitting process. This process is now in the development stage.

Plan Threshold and Submission Requirements

While there is no "casual use" exemption as such, Arizona does not require a permit for disturbances under 5 acres. Notification for these operations is similar to BLM requirements. No state criteria exist for suction dredge thresholds.

Arizona's information requirements for Plans and Notices are functionally equivalent to BLM's. The Arizona term for a project area is "mining facility." The definition of mining facility appears consistent with the definition of "project area" in both the existing and proposed regulations. But the State Mined Land Reclamation Rules apply only to private land.
Performance Standards

The State Department of Environmental Quality has a monitoring program as part of its Aquifer Protection Permit. The monitoring program applies to both surface and ground water.

The standards require the use of the "best available demonstrated control technology" (BADCT). resources as well as operational and reclamation standards. The state has standards for ground water and water quality monitoring under its Aquifer Protection Permit. There are no standards for backfilling. The Aquifer Protection Permit has revegetation requirements, but Arizona BLM's opinion is that BLM should establish revegetation standards for postmining use. The Mining Summit may resolve perceived conflicts. The State Mined Land Reclamation Rules have topsoil and revegetation requirements, but the state rules do not apply to BLM-managed land. The State Mined Land Reclamation Rules allow for variances from an approved reclamation plan if the variance will not endanger public safety and will not be inconsistent with the law. The state rules apply only to private land.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality regulates acid-forming rock and leaching facilities under its Aquifer Protection Permit. Arizona BLM is unaware of any state-established inspection frequencies for operations using cyanide or other leachates. Currently Arizona BLM accepts the Department of Environmental Quality standards in the absence of a showing that state standards will result in unnecessary or undue degradation.

Resource Protection Standards

The Arizona Department of Agriculture protects listed plant species, and the Arizona Department of Game and Fish protects listed animal species.

Arizona has authority to protect cave resources. There are provisions for environmental review and public participation of submissions to the Arizona State Mine Inspector, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

Arizona protects state lands in conformance with both the National Historic Preservation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and burial sites for all lands within the state.

Enforcement, Shut Down, and Bonding

The state handles bonding for reclamation and mine closure. Bond criteria range from accepting a statement of financial capability to posting the required bond. Arizona does not require consultation with American Indian governments.

The state rules provide for a fine not to exceed $1,000 per day and not to exceed $15,000. The penalty for unreclaimed, shut-down operations is forfeiture of the reclamation bond. As previously stated, the state rules apply only to private land.


Significant Differences

Arizona and BLM have similar review and public involvement processes and rules for controlling cyanide or other leachate and acid rock drainage. But state rules apply only to private land, and the federal, state, and local regulators have yet to establish firm policies for joint review of permit applications. These policies and agreements are under development.

CALIFORNIA

Mining activities, including locatable mineral activities (3809) on BLM-administered lands are regulated by several California state laws. A short summary of the important California regulations for mining are outlined in the following paragraphs.

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) is based on the Public Resource Code, Division 2, Chapter 9, Section 2710 et seq. This act establishes procedures and standards that affect reclamation and the conduct of surface mining on private, federal, and state lands. The enforcement of SMARA is delegated to a lead agency, usually the county. (It could also be a city.) Additionally, the county can write its own ordinances that exceed the reclamation standards in SMARA.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the California counterpart to the National Environmental Policy Act. CEQA requires California state and local agencies to determine the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is based on the Water Code 13000 et seq. and regulates the discharge of waste that could affect state waters subject to waste discharge requirements (WDR). One of six Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) reviews a mining proposal, holds public meetings, and requires a separate reclamation bond.

Fish and Game, Code Section 5650 makes it illegal to permit the passage of any substance deleterious to fish, plants, or bird life to the waters of the state, unless authorized by regional board waste discharge requirements or a federal permit for which Clean Water Act, Section 401 state certification is issued.

California Endangered Species Act, Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq., makes it illegal to "take" state-listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species, except as authorized by California Department of Fish and Game.

Plan Threshold and Submission Requirements

Mining operations that disturb less than 1 acre or remove less than 1,000 cubic yards of material are exempt from the SMARA regulations. California has no state equivalent to the 3809 definitions of casual use or Notice-level mining activity. Plans are required for all cyanide operations regardless of size. California's information requirements for permitting are generally more stringent than BLM's. California's suction dredging regulations do not conflict with BLM's. The California definition of project area does not include areas outside the mining facility.

Performance Standards

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) contains detailed performance standards for mining within the state. The SMARA regulations (revised 1/97) are listed at code 3700, article 9, on page 22. The code includes the following:

3701. Definitions
3702.Financial Assurances
3703. Performance Standards for Wildlife Habitat.
3704.Performance Standards for Backfilling, Regrading, Slope Stability, and Recontouring.
3705.Performance Standards for Revegetation
3706.Performance Standards for Drainage, Diversion Structures, Waterways, and Erosion Control.
3707.Performance Standards for Prime Agricultural Land Reclamation.
3708.Performance Standards for Other Agricultural Land.
3709.Performance Standards for Building, Structures, and Equipment Removal.
3710.Performance Standards for Stream Protection, Including Surface and Groundwater.
3711.Performance Standards for Topsoil Salvage, Maintenance, and Redistribution.
3712.Performance Standards for Tailings and Mine Waste Management.
3713.Performance Standards for Closure of Surface Openings.

Resource Protection Standards

California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq) makes it illegal to "take" a state-listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species except as authorized by the California Department of Fish and Game. The taking can lead to a misdemeanor prosecution, fines, and incarceration.

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) agency regulates historical, cultural, and archaeological sites.

Enforcement, Shut Down, and Bonding

Under the SMARA regulations, enforcement, inspection, and bonding are decentralized to the 58 counties in California. Some of the more populated counties have full-time inspectors, but rural counties usually assign this task to the county planning or engineering department. Because of a lack of funding and trained technical people, some counties have ignored mining on federal lands and concentrated their efforts on private property.

Significant Differences

Substantive regulatory differences between the California state program and the existing 3809 regulations include the following:

1.The allowance for disturbance under 1,000 cubic yards per acre requires no Plan (casual use).

2.California has more stringent data requirements for mining plans.

3.California has no Notice-level operations; an operation requires a mining plan or is "casual use" per 3809.

4.Mandatory Regional Water Control Board reclamation bond can't be jointly held with any other agency, including BLM.

5.Counties charge mining proponents financial fees to review mine plans (actual expenses) and conduct mine inspections.

6.Some of the counties (e.g. Mono) have instituted mining ordinances that are careful to avoid zoning laws but onerous on environmental studies. The result is to discourage mining on both private and federal lands.

COLORADO

Locatable mineral activities on BLM lands in Colorado are regulated by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (CMLRB), based on sections C.R.S. 34-32-101 and C.R.S. 34-32.5-101 of the State Code. This regulation is accomplished through the Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) administering the CMLRB Hard Rock/Metal Mining Rules and Regulations. The CMLRB regulatory program applies to all hard rock mineral activities on all lands in the state.

Plan Threshold and Submission Requirements

Colorado does not have casual use or Notice thresholds for mining activity. Disturbances involving less than 1,600 square feet are exempt from regulation. Suction dredging is not regulated by DMG; it is presumed to be within the <1,600 sq. ft. exemption. The significant threshold in Colorado regulation is that between prospecting and mining. A notice of intent is required for prospecting, regardless of acreage disturbed. A permit application, and issuance of a Reclamation Permit, is required for all mining activity, regardless of disturbed acreage.

The Colorado information requirements for Plans and Notices are functionally equivalent to BLM's (generally more detailed and comprehensive) except possibly for prospecting involving more than 5 acres. Colorado's definition of project area excludes access, pipelines, and other facilities that lie outside the mine area.

Performance Standards

Colorado has extensive operational and reclamation performance standards but not a concept of best available technology and practices or best management practices. Strict engineering standards have to be met for operations involving cyanide leaching or acid rock drainage. Standards for ground water and surface water are all inclusive. The state conducts or requires water quality monitoring for certain operations, requires backfilling when suitable for site conditions, and has requirements for topsoil, recontouring, and revegetation. Colorado maintains comprehensive testing, control, and monitoring procedures for acid-forming and leaching operations. The state's performance standards are generally more comprehensive than BLM's, especially for operations disturbing less than 5 acres.

Colorado has authority to regulate cyanide and acid rock drainage operations but requires no set inspection schedule.

Resource Protection Standards

Colorado does not have a specific statutory provision to protect threatened and endangered species but does have special protection measures for fish and wildlife. Colorado considers protection to both historical (National Historic Preservation Act) and paleontological resources.

There is no state National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) law although Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board hearings provide a process for public involvement. Colorado does not provide specific statutory or regulatory protection under the National Historic Preservation Act or the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, or to caves or cave resources. No special provisions apply to consultation with American Indian governments, but they can request hearings before the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board.

Enforcement, Shut Down, and Bonding

The staff of the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology consists of 18 people, including 15 inspectors. Operations are inspected as needed, depending on the type of operation, resources involved, and operator. The state requires bonding of all operations. Prospecting disturbance is bonded at a minimum of $2,000/acre. Reclamation permits issued for mining require a bond for 100% of expected costs of closure and reclamation Regulations pertaining to shut down operations do not conflict with those proposed by BLM. Operating without a permit, or in violation of the terms of a Notice/Permit results in civil penalties and substantial fines. The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board issues cease and desist orders and can seek injunctive relief in state court.

Significant Differences

Substantive regulatory differences between the Colorado state program and the existing 3809 regulations include disturbance of <1,600 ft2 and suction dredging not being regulated and all prospecting is considered Notice-level activity, regardless of acreage involved. Conversely, all mining is Plan-level activity. Colorado has no set inspection schedule for acid rock drainage and cyanide operations. Colorado requires that prospecting (notices of intent) remain confidential with the Division of Minerals and Geology. The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board issues reclamation permits for all mining operations.

IDAHO

Locatable mineral activities on BLM lands in Idaho are regulated by the Idaho Department of Lands, the Department of Water Resources, and the Division of Environmental Quality under Titles, 39, 42, and 47 of the Idaho Code. This regulation is accomplished through a variety of state regulatory programs and permits that apply to mineral activities regardless of land ownership or surface management agency.

Plan Threshold and Submission Requirements

Idaho does not require a permit for suction dredging or placer mining involving less than half an acre, or for underground mining. The use of suction dredges with intake diameters of 8 inches or less is exempt from regulation. Notice-type documentation is required for exploration involving less than 5 acres, but this notification is required only after the fact.

The information required by Idaho for Plans is generally as comprehensive as that required by BLM. For Notices the state requires less detail. The Idaho definition of project area does not conflict with BLM's. It includes "overburden disposal areas, mined areas, mineral stockpiles, roads, tailings ponds, and other areas disturbed at the surface mining operation site."

Performance Standards

Idaho uses best management practices (BMP) operational standards for water resources. There are generally no variances. The state has specific, detailed standards for ground water and for water quality monitoring. Idaho has topsoil and revegetation standards and requires backfilling for mines where the pit is 2 acres or smaller. Where operations disturb 2 acres or more, all waste piles and depressions must be contoured to the lowest practicable grade. Idaho requires testing, control, and monitoring of acid-forming and leaching operations.

Idaho has requirements for governing testing, control, and monitoring of cyanide operations and acid rock drainage but no set schedule for inspections.

Resource Protection Standards

Idaho has statutory protection for threatened and endangered species as well as for fish and wildlife. Idaho has no state National Environmental Policy Act law, although the decision-making process allows for public involvement and review. Idaho does give statutory protection to historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources but not to caves and cave resources. Native American governments are given the opportunity to comment where affected by a proposed operation.

Enforcement, Shut Down, and Bonding

The staff of the Surface Mining Section of the Idaho Department of Lands consists of 10 people, all of whom are involved in field inspections. Operations are inspected on a case-by-case basis, depending on the sensitivity of the resources. The state handles bonding, with maximum bond coverage of $2,500/acre. Regulations for shut-down operations require reclamation after 3 years and do not conflict with BLM's proposed regulations. Civil penalties for noncompliance with the rules or an approved plan provide for a penalty of not less than $500 or more than $2,500 for each day of violation after notice of violation. The Director of the Department of Lands is also authorized to seek injunctive relief against operators.
Significant Differences

The following provisions of the Idaho state program substantially differ from the existing 3809 regulations: suction dredges under 8 inches in diameter are exempt from permitting; no permit is required for underground mining; documentation for Notice-type operations is required within 7 days of the beginning of operations; no set inspections are required for cyanide and acid rock drainage operations; no specific state protection is given to cave resources; $2,500/acre is the ceiling for bond amounts.

MONTANA

Locatable mineral activities on BLM lands in Montana are regulated by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Environmental Management Bureau, through a variety of state regulatory programs and permits that apply to mineral activities regardless of land ownership or surface managing agency.

Plan Threshold and Submission Requirements

Montana does not have casual use or Notice thresholds, but the Department of Environmental Quality issues three types of permits under the Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act (MMRA): an exploration license, a small miner exclusion statement (SMES), and operating permits. Mining of bentonite is covered under the Open Cut Act.

Under the Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act an exploration license is required for any mechanized exploration, regardless of amount of land involved, including for road building and drilling, trenching, or construction of exploration adits or shafts.

Small-mine operators who disturb less than 5 acres and are not using chemical processing or engaging in placer mining may obtain a small miner exclusion statement.

An operating permit is required for all placer mines, mines using chemical processing, or mines disturbing more than 5 acres. General requirements include mine plans, processing plans, reclamation plans, monitoring plans, rock characterization and handling plans, and environmental baseline data (especially for water).

Performance Standards

All exploration disturbance must be reclaimed.

The small miner exclusion statement (SMES) exempts hardrock operators from performing reclamation. Nevertheless, the SMES operator still must comply with state water quality laws. Suction dredge operators must obtain a 310 permit from the county conservation district, regardless of suction dredge size.

Operating permit requirements vary by size, type, location, and complexity of the project issues. All disturbed lands must be reclaimed to achieve comparable stability and utility to adjacent undisturbed lands. Montana does not automatically require mine pit backfilling, but backfilling is considered during application review and environmental analysis. Areas not backfilled must be mitigated to limit impacts as described in the Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act.

Under the Open Cut Act, bentonite operators need not reclaim disturbance or obtain a mining permit (called an open cut contract) for bentonite exploration or for mining of less than 10,000 cubic yards of material from any one site. Above that level a mining and reclamation plan is required.

Resource Protection Standards

The issuance of permits to operators under the above acts is considered a state action and requires the Department of Environmental Quality to comply with the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). MEPA is similar to the National Environmental Policy Act, with provisions for public involvement and preparing environmental assessments or EISs. MEPA has no provisions for formal appeals, but Montana law allows for up to 90 days for filing suit in state court.

Montana has no state processes analogous to the National Historic Preservation Act for identifying and mitigating impacts to historic properties. Montana does have a requirement to consider cultural resources.

Montana also has no state law analogous to the federal Endangered Species Act or Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Since takings under these acts are prohibited independently of any BLM requirements, the state project review conditions approval on compliance with these federal statutes.

Montana has no formal requirement for government-to-government consultation between the state and American Indian governments similar to the federal process. As a matter of practice, however, the state involves the tribal governments much as they do the counties, and the MEPA process allows for active participation by any citizen or governmental unit.

Enforcement, Shut Down, and Bonding

The staff of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Environmental Management Bureau consists of 19 people, including 13 inspectors. All permitted operations are inspected at least once yearly. Larger operations and operations using cyanide are inspected at least four times a year. Operations with potential for acid rock drainage are inspected as determined to be proper by DEQ.

For all exploration a bond must be posted in the amount of the estimated actual cost for the reclamation to be performed by the DEQ. For operating permits reclamation bonds are based on the actual cost for the agency to implement the approved reclamation plan. This bond amount is reviewed at least every 5 years. Several major mines have been required to provide long-term bonding for establishing trust funds. The trust funds are to be used for postclosure water capture and treatment over an indefinite period of time. A reclamation bond must also be posted for bentonite operations.

Violations of the above acts are punishable by fines. Failure to comply with other Montana environmental laws such as the Water Quality Act or Air Quality Act are also punishable by fine, and operations may be enjoined from continuing.

Significant Differences

Montana has no state requirement for reclaiming small operations that do not use chemicals and disturb less than 5 acres [SMES (small miner exclusion statement) Operations]. Montana also does not require small bentonite operators conducting exploration or mining less than 10,000 cubic yards, to reclaim disturbance.

Montana does consider small exploration projects disturbing less than 5 acres as a state action subject to the Montana Environmental Policy Act and requiring a reclamation bond, whereas BLM would not consider the same project a federal action subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and does not require a reclamation bond for Notice-level projects. The state bonds small exploration projects and small chemical processing and placer operations for reclamation. BLM cannot require a reclamation bond for these small projects conducted under Notices.

NEVADA

Locatable mineral activities on BLM lands in Nevada are regulated by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection under Nevada Administrative Code NAC 445A.350 through 445A.447 and NAC 519A.010 through 519A. The NAC 445A regulations govern design, construction, operation, and closure of mining operations. The NAC 519A regulations cover reclamation and closure to a post-mining productive land use for mining and exploration projects.

Locatable mineral activities that will ultimately become mining operations are regulated through a variety of state programs and permits. The Division of Minerals monitors mineral production and manages the State Bond Pool. The Division of Environmental Protection programs regulate air quality, solid waste management, hazardous waste management, ground water, and mining. Permits include air quality, solid waste management, hazardous waste management, ground water, mining, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge, storm water under NPDES, general permits, and underground injection control. The Division of Water Resources regulates the appropriation of public waters, tailings dam permits, and mineral exploration hole plugging. The Division of Wildlife monitors endangered wildlife, industrial artificial pond permits, and dredging permits. The Division of Health issues permits for sanitation facilities and radioactive materials licenses. The State Fire Marshal Division issues hazardous materials permits and monitors fire and life safety.

Plan Threshold and Submission Requirements

Nevada does not require a reclamation permit for Notice-level operations under 5 acres or operations that mine less than 36,500 tons per year. Water pollution control permits (PCP) are issued for any size of operation that uses process fluids. Leaching operations require a PCP regardless of size.

Nevada does not have a "casual use" threshold or no specific criteria for suction dredging at a casual use level.

Information required for state permits is generally the same as that required by BLM, except for riparian and wildlife habitat information.

Performance Standards

Nevada has performance standards for ground water as well as monitoring requirements. The state has revegetation standards consistent with BLM and considers a requirement for backfilling open pits on a case-by-case basis. Open pits and rock faces, however, can be excluded by regulation. The state has the authority to regulate the testing, control, and monitoring of acid-forming materials (for pit lakes and dumps) and to control operations that use process fluids. Nevada performance standards cover air, water, and other resources and allow variances through a permit modification process.

Nevada generally inspects large mines that use cyanide or produce acid-forming materials three times per year or more, medium-sized mines three times per year, and small mines yearly.

Resource Protection Standards

Nevada does not have a specific statutory provision to protect threatened and endangered species and does not offer statutory protection to historical, archaeological, paleontological, or cave resources.

Nevada has no state NEPA law but uses a process for public involvement in the review and permitting process for mines. No special provisions require consultation with American Indian governments, but these governments can comment through the state's public comment process.

Enforcement, Shut Down, and Bonding

The staff of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation consists of 18 people, including three inspectors. Operations are inspected one to three times per year with no fixed schedule unless problems are found. Then the frequency is increased. The state handles bonding through a state bond pool for small operators up to
$1 million. The state also allows for corporate guarantees and holds bonds for private lands. There is no bonding for Notice-level operations. Regulations pertaining to shut-down operations differ from those proposed by BLM. Operators are required to file a final permanent closure plan 2 years before shutting down. Operations are allowed to shut down temporarily but must maintain site integrity.
Significant Differences

Substantive regulatory differences between the Nevada state program and the existing 3809 regulations include no state equivalent for Notices for exploration less than 5 acres and no baseline information required for riparian or wildlife habitat for permits. Nevada accepts corporate guarantees in lieu of a bond, and BLM Nevada accepts the state's corporate guarantees. Nevada has no specific state statutes for threatened and endangered species, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, or cave resources protection.

NEW MEXICO

Locatable mineral activities on BLM lands in New Mexico are regulated by the Mining and Minerals Division (MMD) of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department under the authority of the New Mexico Mining Act of 1993. The New Mexico Mining Act Rules are published in New Mexico Statutes, Section 69-36-1, et. seq.

Permits are required for various levels of mining and exploration on the basis of the area of proposed surface disturbance, the volume of material to be removed, or both. The New Mexico Mining Act distinguishes between new and existing operations. Existing operations, those grandfathered at the time of the effective date of the act, are subject to less regulation than new operations. BLM surface management regulation standards are most comparable to the state's "new operations" standards. The state regulatory program applies to federal, state, and private land. It does not apply to Indian land.

Plan Threshold and Submission Requirements

New Mexico has a casual use type exemption for "prospectors, gold panners, and rock collectors causing no or very little surface disturbance and not using mechanized sluices or dredges." To be exempt, excavations must involve less than 2 cubic yards/year.

New Mexico's Notice-type mining permit is called a general permit. A general permit is issued upon application, with the operator's agreeing to the permit terms upon signing it. A General permit (wet) is for operations in water, including all suction dredging, regardless of hose intake size. Wet operations must not exceed 2 cubic yards/day and 100 cubic yards/year. Dry operations must not exceed 200 cubic yards/year, with no more than 25/cubic yards and 2 acres unreclaimed at one time.

Plan-type permits (i.e. require an application, review, and approval) include both exploration and mining and are categorized as minimal impact and other than minimal impact. The minimal/ nonminimal impact threshold is based on the total area of proposed surface disturbance, the total volume of material to be removed, or both. Additionally, any permit, including a general permit, may be upgraded to a nonminimal impact permit if the operation falls within or exhibits at least one of nine disqualifying characteristics, which include disturbing environmentally sensitive areas and other specifically listed environmental risks, such as leaching operations and potential for release of acid or toxic substances.

Information requirements and performance standards for state permits are equivalent to those required by BLM regulations. The state's "permit area" is equivalent to BLM's "project area."

Performance Standards

Operations must meet New Mexico State water quality standards as enforced by the State Environmental Department (ED), which regulates both surface and ground water quality. In conjunction with Mining and Minerals Division, the Environment Department, under state water quality regulations, can regulate the testing, control, and monitoring of acid-forming materials and control leaching operations.

The New Mexico Mining Act Rules include standards for topsoil and revegetation. Backfilling
is required "only when needed to achieve reclamation objectives that cannot be met through other mitigating measures." The most appropriate technology and the best management practices must be used in mining and reclamation. At least two inspections per year are required under the Mining Act for all active mining operations. Under certain conditions, a variance from a performance standard may be granted.

Resource Protection Standards

Under various authorities the State of New Mexico protects game animals and migratory birds. The State Wildlife Conservation Act protects state-designated threatened and endangered species, but this law lacks the enforcement authority of the federal Endangered Species Act.

The State of New Mexico has a cave protection law that protects caves, including those on federal land.

A variety of state historic and prehistoric resources protection acts (including protection of ancient burial sites) apply to state and private lands only. The National Historic Preservation Act and Archaeological Resources Protection Act apply to federal lands. BLM coordinates with the State Historic Preservation Division in enforcing these laws on federal land.

No state statutes are specific to protecting paleontological resources.

New Mexico has no state National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) law, but the Mining Act requires an "environmental evaluation" as well as public notification and participation as part of the permitting process. The Mining Act does not include any special provision for consulting with American Indian governments. Locatable-type mining activities on Indian lands are not regulated under the act.

Enforcement, Shut Down, and Bonding

The staff of the Mining Act Reclamation, Bureau of Mining and Minerals Division consists of seven persons, five of whom perform inspections along with their other duties. Active operations are inspected twice a year.

Financial assurance (bonding) is required of all new operations except operations under a general permit and certain minimal impact operations. The amount of financial assurance is the cost of a third party to reclaim the operation.

An operator may qualify for a permit for standby status if operations are inactive for more than 180 days.

The state may issue a notice of violation (NOV) if the violation does not cause imminent danger to health and safety or significant imminent environmental harm. A NOV fixes a time for abatement and may involve a civil penalty. A cessation order (CO) is issued if a violation causes imminent danger to health and safety or significant imminent environmental harm or if a NOV is not timely abated. A cessation order may also involve a civil penalty.

Significant Differences

The state issues seven permits, depending upon whether an operation is new or existing; minimal impact or nonminimal impact; mining or exploration. The minimal/nonminimal impact thresholds are based on total surface disturbance, the amount of material extracted, or both. Additionally, nine specific resource and environmentally sensitive criteria can place a minimal impact permit into a nonminimal status. These factors preclude a direct comparison of the state permitting system with BLM's two-tier system.

New Mexico's Plan-type permits require financial assurance (bonding), but not all Notice-type permits require bonding. No financial assurance is required for general permits, minimal impact exploration permits, and minimal impact mining permits of less than 2 acres total disturbance.

OREGON

Locatable mineral activities on BLM lands in Oregon are regulated through several agencies. The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) issues permits and inspects surface mineral exploration, development, and production operations on lands in the state and is the lead coordinating agency for state mining regulations. Other state permitting agencies include the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the Oregon Water Resources Board, and the Oregon Division of State Lands.

Plan Threshold and Submission Requirements

An Operating Permit is not required for mining less than 50 cubic yards within streambeds and streambanks or if an operation moves less than 5,000 cubic yards or disturbs less than 1 acre per year. All other operations require a permit and approval. Oregon's requirements for Plans and Notices are generally the same as BLM's. The Oregon definition of project area does not conflict with BLM's.

Performance Standards

Oregon has a chemical mining rule (Chapter 632, Division 37) governing operations that use leaching methods.

Oregon standards for ground water protection require that the operator maintain premine quantity and quality. Monitoring and reporting programs include surface and ground water, water balance of the process system, leak detection system, and fish and wildlife injury and mortality. The reclamation and closure plan section includes about 18 provisions for protecting public health, safety, and the environment. Backfilling is considered on a case-by-case basis. The technology based operational standards used are "best available, practicable, and necessary technology" for chemical processing.

Resource Protection Standards

The following provisions to protect fish and wildlife are developed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife: zero mortality, covering and containing wastewater facilities to preclude wildlife access, no overall net loss of habitat value, and no loss of existing critical habitat. Oregon offers statutory protection to historical (National Historic Preservation Act) and cultural sites (Archaeological Resources Protection Act), but not to paleontological or cave resources.

No state National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) law or process applies to mining operations. No special provisions apply to consultation with Native American governments.

Enforcement, Shut Down, and Bonding

The staff of the Oregon Mined Land Reclamation Program/Department of Geology and Mineral Industry consists of eight people, including four inspectors. Oregon imposes civil penalties of not less than $200 per day and not more than $50,000 per day for any violation.



UTAH


Locatable mineral activities on BLM lands in Utah are regulated by the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM), Minerals Reclamation Program under the Utah Mined Land Reclamation Act, Title 40-8, Utah Code Annotated, 1975 as amended. This regulation is accomplished through a variety of state programs and permits that apply to mineral activities on state, private, and federal lands within Utah.

Plan Threshold and Submission Requirements

Utah has a "casual use" type exemption. A permit is not required if no significant surface resource disturbance and no mechanized earth-moving equipment are involved. Recreational dredging and sluicing application provisions do not conflict with BLM's.

The DOGM issues three types of permits under the Utah Mined Land Reclamation Act: Notice of Intention to Conduct Exploration, Notice of Intention to Commence Small Mining Operations, and Notice of Intention to Commence Large Mining Operations. A Notice of Intention to Conduct Exploration does not require DOGM approval unless the proposed activity involves more than 5 acres. A Notice of Intention to Conduct Small Mining Operations does not require DOGM approval but may not exceed 5 acres at any time. A Notice of Intention to Conduct Large Mining Operations is filed on operations that disturb more than 5 surface acres at any time and must be approved by DOGM before mining begins. In addition, a reclamation contract must be executed before mining can begin.

The definition of "project area" is functionally equivalent to BLM's. Filing requirements are similar to the information BLM requires. An annual permit fee is required.

Performance Standards

Utah encourages the use of best available technology (BAT) for mining activity and best management practices (BMP) for water quality protection. The state has specific standards for ground water quality and may require ground water monitoring. Utah also requires suitable soil material to be stockpiled for later redistribution and recontouring. In addition, the site must be revegetated to 70% of premining vegetative ground cover. Roads, pads, dams, impoundments, trenches, pits, waste piles, and spoil piles must be reclaimed. Highwalls must be reduced, but open pits need not be backfilled.

Utah has authority to regulate the testing, control, and monitoring of acid-forming materials or operations that use leaching. Utah also has standards for ground water (BMP) that BLM does not have and provides variances for operational and reclamation standards. Standards for Notice- and Plan of Operations-type operations are similar to those required by BLM. DOGM requires inspections of all mining operations but on an as-needed basis.
Resource Protection Standards

Utah state law protects fish and wildlife, specifically threatened and endangered species, but not plant species. Utah offers statutory protection for archeological and paleontological resources but not caves and cave resources.

Utah has no state National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) law. The public is given notice and may appeal Board of Oil, Gas and Mining decisions only for large mining operations.

Enforcement, Shut Down, and Bonding

The staff of the Utah Minerals Reclamation Program consists of five people, including three inspectors. Operations are inspected on an as-needed basis. Utah bonds Plan-type operations and exploration that disturbs more than 5 acres. Regulations for shutting down mining operations require state notification. Mining operations may have to be reclaimed after 5 years of continued suspension and must be reclaimed when the suspension periods exceed 10 years.

The Board of Oil, Gas and Mining may take any enforcement action authorized by law, including requiring the operator to comply, abate, mitigate, cease operations, forfeit surety, or reclaim an operation. In addition, a civil suit or any other lawful action may be taken.

Significant Differences

Substantive differences exist between the Utah state program and the existing 3809 regulations. Utah requires no set schedule for inspecting any mining operations, no protection for caves and cave resources, no protection for threatened and endangered plant species, and the collection of permit fees. Utah's archeological and paleontological resource statutes, while helpful, are not considered equivalent to federal laws.

WASHINGTON

Locatable mineral activities on BLM lands in Washington are regulated by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Ecology (DOE) under the State Code.

Plan Threshold and Submission Requirements

Washington does not require a permit for disturbing less than 3 acres, nor does it have special provisions for leaching operations.

The information that the State of Washington requires for plans is generally equivalent to that required by BLM. The Washington definition of project area does not conflict with BLM's, but surface mine access roads are not included in the state definition of "disturbed areas."
Performance Standards

Washington State has a general requirement for preserving topsoil and for revegetation but no requirement for backfilling. The state does not require the testing, control, and monitoring of acid forming materials, and there is no state authority relating to operations that use leaching. Washington has no technology-based operational standards, such as best management practices or best available technology. Washington also has no requirements governing cyanide operations or acid rock drainage resulting from mining.

Resource Protection Standards

Washington has no state protection for caves and cave resources. It offers statutory protection to cultural resources (NHPA) but not to paleontological resources.

Washington has a State Environmental Policy Act, which is functionally equivalent to the National Environmental Policy Act and allows for public comment in the environmental review and decisionmaking process for mining. No special provisions apply to consulting with American Indian governments.

Significant Differences

The Washington State program and the existing 3809 regulations differ in that Washington has a 3 acre exemption on "casual use" type operations; has no specific requirements relating to cyanide or acid rock drainage; has no state protection for caves, cave resources, or paleontological resources; and has no technology-based performance standards.

WYOMING

Locatable mineral activities on BLM lands in Wyoming are regulated by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division (DEQ/LQD) based on Section 35-11-(401-437) of the State Code. Regulation is accomplished through a variety of state regulatory programs and permits that apply to mineral activities on all lands in the state: private, state, and federal.

Plan Threshold and Submission Requirements

The level of noticeability of a perceived impact or disturbance dictates whether written authorization is required by BLM or the Department of Environmental Quality. The use of mechanical equipment or other methods that noticeably disturb the land will always initiate permit, license, notice, plan, or other use authorization. The Land Quality Division issues the following authorizations:


1. Letter of Authorization for small disturbances with minimal, infrequent impacts such as a smaller than 3-inch recreational suction dredging.
2. Exploration by Drilling Permit for all exploratory drilling for locatable minerals.
3. Exploration by Dozing Permit for all exploration work done by mechanical earthmoving equipment.
4. Limited Mining Operations Permit for a mining disturbance of 10 acres or less for the life of the mine. This permit can be obtained only for limestone, feldspar, sand, gravel, scoria, ballast, dolomite, or shale.
5. Small-Mining Permit for an operation involving 10,000 yards or less of overburden and 10 acres of affected land in any 1 year.
6. Regular Mining Permit for all larger mining operations not covered under other permits, licenses, or authorizations.

Wyoming has no acreage threshold per se for locatable mineral operations. Information required for Land Quality Division (LQD) authorizations is functionally equivalent to Notices and Plans required by BLM, except LQD requires information in much greater detail. The Wyoming definition of project area does not conflict with BLM's. The BLM and LQD cooperative agreement states the following: "Consistency must be maintained in the application of criteria for delineating the project areas. All lands included in a permit to mine, including roads, are part of the project area, but only the federal surface estate is subject to BLM review."

Performance Standards

Wyoming has standards for ground water resources as well as a monitoring program. The state requires topsoil preservation, revegetation, and partial backfilling. Wyoming also has authority to test, control, and monitor acid-forming materials for their impact to water quality but not operations that use leaching since Wyoming has no leaching operations. In situ uranium leaching is heavily regulated. The technology-based operational standards used are "best technology currently available."

Wyoming's performance standards for ground water are not covered by BLM. The state has a process to obtain variances to its performance standards. Notice-type operations are subject to the same performance standards as are Plan-type operations. The state has no specific requirements governing cyanide operations or acid rock drainage, but these operations would be permitted and inspected like other operations that could contaminate the land and surface and ground waters.

Resource Protection Standards

Wyoming has no specific statutory provision to protect threatened and endangered species, although fish and wildlife are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. Wyoming also has no state law like the National Historic Preservation Act for identifying and mitigating impacts to historic properties. But the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is consulted before surface-disturbing operations. Wyoming offers no statutory protection to caves or cave resources unless they contain historic or cultural values.

Wyoming has a state National Environmental Policy Act law but uses a public process for obtaining input in the environmental review and decisionmaking process for mine approval. Wyoming has no special provisions for consulting with American Indian governments.

Enforcement, Shut Down, and Bonding

The staff of the Wyoming LQD consists of 45 people, including 24 inspectors. Permitted operations are inspected at least annually with other inspections as deemed proper by LQD.

The state has a bonding program for full reclamation of all mining operations. The bond is basically either $1,000 per acre of affected land or the estimated cost of reclamation as outlined in a written proposal computed by established engineering principles. Bond amount can be modified with justification.

If an operator is in noncompliance with the requirements of the permit to mine, a notice of noncompliance (NON) is issued. If the NON requirements are not met in the prescribed time action will be initiated to pull the bond, terminate the operation, and have the Wyoming Attorney General bring suit to recover cost of reclamation if the bond is inadequate. Persons violating the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act are subject to a temporary or permanent injunction and a penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each violation for each day during which the violation continues.

Regulations for shut-down operations allow for temporary cessation of operations
for periods up to 5 years. State regulations do not conflict with BLM regulations.

Significant Differences

The Wyoming Land Quality Division requires the bonding of all noticeable surface-disturbing operations whereas BLM cannot require a bond for Notice-level operations.

Regulatory differences between the Wyoming State program and the existing 3809 regulations include the following. Wyoming exercises some control of casual use-type operations; requires bonding for all operations; has no specific program for cyanide, acid rock drainage, and leaching (except in situ) operations; does not inspect cyanide operations since there are none; and offers no protection for cave resources.







APPENDIX E
CHANGES IN MINERAL ACTIVITY

FUTURE MINERAL ACTIVITY

To help assess the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the proposal and alternatives, several assumptions were developed on future mineral exploration and development under existing regulations, management practices, and policies. These assumptions are fairly general, given the diversity of mining on public lands, variety of mining methods, commodities extracted, geographic scope, and inherent uncertainty of the commodities markets. Projections on the number of Notices and Plans expected in the future are based on historic trends in mining activity (generally dating back to 1980, when the original 3809 regulations took effect), and current trends in commodity markets, exploration, and technological changes.

The following assumptions were used to project the amount of activity that might be reasonably foreseeable.

1. The rate of exploration will remain about the same in the United States. Dollars will continue to increase worldwide but overall remain constant within the United States.

2. Most domestic exploration will be for expansion of existing mines (satellites) rather than for new discoveries.

3. Existing mines will expand to take advantage of new technology and will increasingly extract refractory-grade ores. Technology will continue to advance.

4. Land/mineral base under federal ownership will remain the same in the lower 48 states. In Alaska, claimants on lands that were or will be selected by the State of Alaska have the option of maintaining a federal claim or switching to a state claim. Virtually all placer mining in Alaska will eventually move off public land.

5. The gold price trend will remain relatively stable, based on 10-year averages. But an extended period of lower or higher prices will affect short-term decisions.

6. The past trend in the number of mining Notices and Plans of Operations is an indicator of future level of activity.

7. The current geographic distribution of activity will stay the same. For example, large open pit gold mining will remain concentrated in Nevada. Placer mining will be concentrated in Alaska. Arizona will dominate large open pit copper mining. And industrial mineral mining will remain more evenly distributed across the study area.

8. Domestic industrial minerals production will continue to increase. The portion of total domestic production on public land will increase at a faster rate than the overall domestic rate of increase because previously patented lands will be mined out and production will continue to shift from the eastern to the western United States, where public lands are concentrated.

9. Gold production will remain constant on the basis of production over the 5-year period from 1992 to 1996, during which gold production has been more or less constant. Generally the number of mining operations will also remain constant. More mines are starting to close than open, but mining for industrial minerals will increase.

10. Industrial mineral operations will cause a comparable amount of surface disturbance as precious metals mines, but the degree of impacts will be lower, e.g. fewer water quality impacts.

11. Overall mineral activity on public lands, including the number of Notices and Plans of Operations filed with BLM, will remain steady or slightly decline. Projections on the number of Notices and Plans and acres of disturbance expected under current management are discussed in the Mineral Resource Development section of Chapter 3.

CHANGES IN MINERAL ACTIVITY

Expected changes in mineral activity levels were also estimated for each alternative. As with the assumptions for future mineral activity discussed above, it is neither practical nor even possible to develop complete information on future changes in mineral activity resulting from the implementing of regulatory alternatives. The approach used to document the reasonably foreseeable significant effects conforms to the requirements at 40 CFR Part 1502.22 when dealing with situations where information is incomplete or unavailable. The process used to estimate change in mineral activity, however, has substantial limitations. As such, the estimates are presented as reasonably foreseeable assumptions on future activity. The changes in mineral activity estimates are intended to help evaluate the environmental consequences of the proposed regulations and alternatives, specifically to give the public and decisionmakers information on the potential direction and magnitude of change. The assumptions are estimates of the expected change in mineral activity and should not be considered factual data, or accurate or precise estimates of change.

The changes in mineral activity estimates were based on interpretations by EIS team members of several information sources. These information sources include impact matrixes and mine cost models (discussed below) developed for this EIS, in addition to team member expertise, knowledge, and experiences. The processes for interpreting these information sources were not standardized. Each team member independently interpreted the impact matrices and mine cost model results. The team then compiled and discussed the estimates of change. At several other rounds estimates of change were collected, compiled, and discussed. Through this iterative process a group estimate was reached for each of the 10 mine types and sizes.

The process used by the EIS team to estimate change in mineral activity and also to construct the impact matrixes is generally referred to as the Delphi Method. The Delphi Method is a decision making or forecasting process designed to address highly complex or ambiguous issues where factual data is absent. The process was originally developed by the Rand Corporation, a U.S. intelligence "think tank." The process is widely accepted and used to forecast future events and outcomes.

Changes in mineral activity can be manifested in a several ways, including changes in exploration and mining operations, acres disturbed, mine life, cutoff grade, and annual production. The response to changes in the regulations will be unique for each operation. As such, the following discussion is limited to change in activity without attempting to define how that change may be manifested. Table E-1 gives a breakdown of the expected changes by type of mineral activity for each alternative except Alternative 1, where no change in activity is expected.


Table E-1. Percent Change in Mineral Activity
Alternative Recreational Mining Exploration Placer Open Pit Underground Strip Mine
Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large
2 0 +<5 +5 +<5 +5 +<5 +5 +<5 +<5 +<5
3 -<5 -5 -<5 -5 -<5 -5 -5 -5 -<5 -<5
4 -5 -20 -15 -15 -10 -25 -30 -15 -10 -5


Alternative 1. The No Action Alternative assumes that the current management and regulations continue unchanged. Thus the regulations are not be expected to alter existing or future levels of mining. This does not necessarily mean that the level of future mining would not change. (See the discussion above on other factors that affect mining activity.) For this EIS, however, the overall future of mining under the Mining Law is assumed to remain relatively steady under existing regulations, management practices, and policies.

Alternative 2. The State Management Alternative would eliminate BLM's role in regulating activity under the Mining Law on public lands. In most states this regulatory approach is expected to reduce the regulatory burden to mining operations, thus increasing the level of mineral activity. Except for recreational mining, overall mineral activity on public lands is assumed to increase by 5% or less under Alternative 2. The greatest increase in activity is expected in larger mining operations, specifically those now requiring EISs with extensive baseline studies. But this reduction in regulatory burden and associated increase in activity would not occur uniformly in all states. For example, California and Montana have state versions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Proposed operations in those two states would not avoid the costs and time delays of preparing EISs. For a better understanding of the types of state programs in place, see Appendix D.

Alternative 3. For the proposed regulations it is assumed that the overall level of mineral activity on public lands under the Mining Law will decline by 5% or less. The proposal would likely have negligible affects on recreational mining or large exploration, placer, underground, and strip mining operations. The proposed regulations would, however, have a greater effect on small exploration and mining operations in addition to large open pit mines. Specifically, the financial guarantee and Notice/Plan threshold provisions would likely raise operating costs at small operations by about 30%. For large open pit mines the backfilling provision could greatly increase operating costs and reduce activity. But because of the discretion given BLM in the proposed backfilling provision, changes in costs and activity levels are extremely difficult to estimate and would likely vary by office.

Alternative 4. The alternative that is likely to most reduce overall mineral activity would also give the greatest level of environmental protection. Depending on the type of activity, Alternative 4 is assumed to reduce mineral activity by from 5 to 30%. Many of the provisions would reduce activity levels, including eliminating the Notice provision, requiring claim validity before mining, mandatory penalties and enforcement, automatic stays of all appealed decisions, mandatory backfilling, and establishing specific unsuitability criteria.

IMPACT MATRIXES


One analytic tool used to assess the potential effects of the proposed regulations and alternatives on future mining consists of impact matrixes (See Tables E-2, E-3, and E-4). The rating, weights and scores in these matrixes were developed using a qualitative process based on the expertise of EIS team members. The process is not intended to generate precise measurements of changes, but rather to show the direction and size of those potential changes and which regulatory provisions are likely to have the most effect.

The regulatory provisions were grouped into 25 regulation components (e.g. Notice-Plan Threshold, Appeals Process and Stay Provisions, Performance Standards: Pit Backfilling), and 10 mine types and sizes (e.g. small placer, large open pit). Specialists on the EIS team independently rated the effect each regulation component would have on the different types and sizes of mines, using the following scale: negligible or none = N, low positive or negative = L±, medium positive or negative = M±, and high positive or negative = H±. The team then compiled and discussed the ratings. At several other rounds ratings were collected, compiled, and discussed. Through this iterative process a group rating was reached for each of the 25 regulation components. Tables E-2, E-3, and E-4 show the ratings for each of the provisions.

A similar process was used to obtain a weight for each of the regulation components. A weight (1 through 5) was intended to scale the relative importance of each of the regulation components. For example, the weight for the regulatory provision category covering Pit Backfilling was considered to have one of the highest relative importance, and was given a weight of 5. The Stability, Grading, and Erosion Control category, although important, was considered relatively less important and assigned a weight of 3. Definition of the Project Area was assigned a weight of 1, as it was considered one of the least important provisions relative to the other issues being considered in its potential to affect mining operations. The weights can be found in the second column, following the description of the regulation component, in each of the impact matrices.

The ratings and weighs were then used to estimate the anticipated effects of the 25 regulatory categories on each sector of the industry, the "score." To simplify the scoring, a numerical value category was assigned to a particular sector of the industry. Tables E-2, E-3, and E-4 show the scores for each of the regulatory provision categories.

Table E-5 presents a summary of the scores for all alternatives, broken down by the effects of administrative requirements and effects attributable to the environmental performance standards. To help put these scores in context, the greatest possible score for each alternative is a positive or negative 395.

Alternative 2 - Using this methodology, Alternative 2 received a relatively small positive score for both the administrative and performance standard requirements for all categories of commercial mineral activity. None of the provisions of Alternative 2 were expected to have any effect on recreation and hobby activities.

Several provisions of Alternative 2 were projected to benefit mining on public lands (Table E-2). Provisions with the highest positive scores include Notice and Plan of Operations content and processing requirements; fish and wildlife protection and restoration; wetland and riparian protection and restoration; and cultural, paleontological, and cave resource protection. These positive effects on mining mainly relate to reductions in the following: time delays for reviews and approvals, costs of content and analysis requirements, habitat restoration costs, and costs of documenting and salvaging cultural and paleontological resources.

Because Alternative 2 would rely entirely on the state programs to regulate mining on public lands, this positive effect would not be uniform across all states. For example, California and Montana have state National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) laws requiring comprehensive environmental review and public participation in the decisionmaking process similar to that currently required on public lands under NEPA. For these two states Notice and Plan content and processing requirements would likely have minimal benefits.

Alternative 3 - For most types and sizes of mining activities the proposed regulations received a relatively small negative score (Table E-3). For small mining operations, specifically Notice-level operations, adverse effects are expected to be somewhat higher than for the larger operations.

The Notice/Plan threshold and financial guarantee provisions are the administrative requirements with the greatest likelihood of adversely affecting mining operations. Except for financial guarantee requirements, large operations would not be affected by these proposed regulation changes.

The pit backfilling provision in the proposed regulations is the environmental performance standard most likely to harm mining operations. Because implementing this provisions would depend on site-specific conditions and the discretion allowed BLM, it is difficult to even qualify the magnitude of the effect across the industry. Clearly, this provision could greatly harm individual open pit mines.
Table E-5. Impact Score Summary on Mineral Activity by Type and Size of Operation
-


Alternative
-


Recreation and Hobby Activity
Exploration Placer Mining Open Pit Metal Mine Underground Metal Mine Industrial Mineral Mine
Small
<5 ac.
Large
>5 ac.
Small <5 ac. Large
>5 ac.
Small< 5 ac. Large
>5 ac.
Small <5 ac. Large
>5 ac.
All Sizes
Alternative 1 - No Action (Existing Regulations)
Admin. Impact Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perf. Std. Impact Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alternative 1 - Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alternative 2 - State Management
Admin. Impact Subtotal 0 16 29 16 29 16 29 16 23 23
Perf. Std. Impact Subtotal 0 27 27 39 39 33 39 24 39 45
Alternative 2 - Total 0 43 56 55 68 49 68 40 62 68
Alternative 3 - Proposed Regulations (Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative)
Admin. Impact Subtotal -13 -49 -27 -55 -30 -80 -27 -71 -24 -31
Perf. Std. Impact Subtotal -9 -23 -14 -34 -22 -43 -49 -28 -22 -34
Alternative 3 - Total -22 -72 -41 -89 -52 -123 -76 -99 -46 -65
Alternative 4 - Maximum Protection
Admin. Impact Subtotal -41 -75 -50 -109 -80 -115 -82 -121 -82 -95
Perf. Std. Impact Subtotal -9 -69 -69 -64 -58 -154 -166 -108 -99 -94
Alternative 4 - Total -50 -144 -119 -173 -138 -269 -248 -229 -181 -189

Alternative 4 - Alternative 4 would impose the greatest administrative burden and generally has the highest environmental performance standards of all alternatives considered and analyzed in this EIS (Table E-4). For most mining and exploration on the public lands Alternative 4 would have a higher adverse effect than the other alternatives. For recreation and hobby activities this alternative received a relatively small negative score.

Both administrative and performance standards under Alternative 4 would have a moderate to high adverse effect. The administrative requirements with the greatest negative effect on mining under Alternative 4 include the Notice/Plan threshold, financial guarantees, claim validity, appeals process, and applying the new regulations to existing operations. The change to the Notice/Plan threshold would affect only operations that would be Notice-level operations under the existing regulations. The other provisions would harm operations regardless of size. Most all of the environmental performance standards would have a moderate to high adverse effect on at least some segment of the industry. Mandatory pit backfilling, for example, would have an extremely high negative effect on open pit mining. At the same time the backfilling provision would at most only slightly affect other forms of mineral activity.

MINE COST MODELS

Regulation changes generally affect the mining industry economically. Effects involve such environmental costs as permitting and reclamation, and the time value of money. To determine the costs of the effects of these regulations to the operator and to the mining industry, mine cost models were developed to estimate general costs of mining for analysis purposes. These models are theoretical and highly general in orders of magnitude. They do not represent any existing mines. They are for analysis purposes only to show a general economic impact of these regulations.

The following data and assumptions are used to develop these models.

1.The operating and capital costs were developed from reference models presented in Mining Cost Services (Western Mine Engineering, Inc. 1997), section CM, Cost Models.

A. The following items are included in operating and capital costs:

* All labor, material, supply, and equipment operation costs incurred at the mine or mill site, including supervision, administration, and onsite management
* Benefits and employment taxes
* All onsite development
* Mine and mill equipment and facilities, purchases, and installation or construction
* Limited haul road construction
* Engineering and construction management fees
* Working capital
* Tailings disposal

B. The following items are not included in operating and capital costs:
* Exploration
* Permitting and environmental analysis costs
* Contingencies
* Access roads, powerlines, pipelines, or railroads to the mine and mill site
* Home office overhead
* Taxes (except sales taxes)

* Insurance
* Depreciation
* Townsite construction or operation
* Offsite transportation of products
* Incentive bonus premiums
* Overtime labor costs
* Sales expenses
* Smelting and refining costs (except ore production at hydro metallurgical mills)
* Interest expenses
* Startup costs (except working capital)

2. Permitting, environmental, and reclamation costs are estimated from BLM experience in Nevada, Alaska, and Montana.

3. The equipment used to develop and extract ore from the mine will also be used in reclamation.

4. The costs of these regulations will be borne by the industry and not BLM. Costs are estimated for analysis purposes in these models.

5. Placer model costs are derived from Montana Placer Mining BMPs (best management practices) SP 106.

6. Time delays are not added to cost figures. It is assumed that operators will submit complete documents in a timely manner and that BLM will process projects on time. Time is given no monetary value.

7. Operators will comply with the regulations.

8. Acres disturbed are averages based on actual mine plans and notices submitted to BLM.

9. Costs for equipment were derived from Rental Rate Blue Book by K-III, Mine and Mill Equipment Cost by Western Mine Engineering, Inc. (1997a) and from bond calculations accepted by BLM.

10. Labor costs were derived from Mining Cost Service by Western Mine Engineering, Inc. (1997b), Davis and Bacon Wage Grade tables, and bond calculations accepted by BLM.

11. This analysis assumes that these costs will not be affected by regulation changes. Regulation changes for this analysis will affect permit authorizations and reclamation and closure aspects of mining.

12. Reclamation costs for this analysis include chemical stabilization, removal of equipment and structures, earth work, erosion and water controls, and revegetation.

13. Permit and environmental costs are averages obtained from the mining industry, environmental consultants, and BLM offices. These costs include all costs of preparing environmental documents under the National Environmental Policy Act, cultural work under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and other acts as required to permit operations under existing regulations.

14. Bond costs are based on BLM policy. No bonding is required for Notice-level operations. Exploration Plans of Operation are bonded at cost or $1,000/acre, whichever is lower. Mining Plans of Operations are bonded at 100% of the cost for closing and reclaiming mines that have used chemicals and cost of reclamation or $2,000/acre, whichever is lower.

15. Stream restoration costs were derived from the Handbook for Reclamation of Placer Mined Stream Environments in Western Montana (INTER-FLUVE, Inc. 1991), prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The "stream and floodplain reconstruction" was used as the cost figures in these models.

16. All operations are assumed to be economically viable.

17. The amount of material (topsoil, waste rock) has been estimated for analysis purposes. The estimates will be used from model to model to show estimated changes in cost.

18. The mine models do not spread costs through the years of the project but assume that the capital costs will be accrued in years 1 and 2, operating costs over the life of the project, reclamation costs in the last 2 years of the project, and environmental and permitting costs in the first year.

19. The cost of a validity exam will be used for the cost of conducting a feasibility study under Alternative 4.

As discussed above, the main areas of impacts to the industry are in reclamation and permit/ environmental compliance. To better understand these relationships, the following theoretical costs have been derived for the models above. These costs were used as a basis for estimating economic changes in mining.

The following assumptions and models were used to address the analysis of the impacts from the regulations. These models were developed for comparison and theoretical purposes and will be used only for that purpose.

Exploration Model

This operation is run by a medium-sized exploration company that owns its equipment or rents all of its equipment. This operation will have no major capital costs. The model assumes the exploration is for precious or base metals.

Project size: 4 acres disturbed
Project life: Less than 6 months
Proposed evaluation methods: Drilling (50 holes) and trenches (5) @ 100'x5'x0'
Equipment: Truck-mounted self-contained drills, tracked
excavator (Cat 231D), dozer (Cat D7H)
Permitting: Notice-level, 15 days to complete; no federal/state joint

coordination needed. Note: This operation could require a Plan of Operations depending on alternative or whether the operation is located on sensitive lands.
Reclamation:Recontouring and revegetation, stream restoration,
immediately after completion of drill hole/trenching evaluation.

Permitting and Environmental Costs

Permitting and environmental costs are difficult to determine by a generalized method. The costs of permit authorizations and environmental documentation vary greatly because of site-specific conditions. Depending on the ore body sought, its location, and other local environmental conditions, the costs can cover a broad range. For the following costs, several mining companies and consultant firms were contacted, and average costs were derived. These costs are described below and are detailed in Table E-6.

This exploration operation would file a Notice, and no bond or environmental documents would be required. All actions would be handled by the local BLM office with which the Notice is filed. The only cost to the operator would be to prepare the document to be submitted to BLM. Two people would need 3 days with AutoCAD support to complete the documentation for the Notice, at a cost of $1,000.

Reclamation Costs

Earthwork would include ripping all roads and drill pads, recontouring roads and pads, and plugging drill holes. The work would take 20 hours to complete. Each piece of equipment would operate for 10 hours. The 50 dry drill holes, 200 feet deep, would be backfilled with drill cuttings. This work would take one operator an extra half hour to complete. Equipment needs include a bulldozer and a tracked excavator at a cost of $2,200. Labor costs are estimated to total $1,600 for two equipment operators. Drill hole plugging is estimated to result in additional labor costs of $100. For revegetation, no ground preparation is needed for seeding. The model assumes that the project is completed during good seeding times of the year. The seed mixture would be a combination of native and exotic plants as outlined in the open pit model. The priority is to stabilize the soil. An estimated 4 hours would be needed for seeding. Because of the nature of this operation, chemical stabilization and removal of structures would not be needed.


Table E-6. Exploration Model Costs
Description of Activity Cost Item Unit Cost Total Cost
Permitting (Notice
Preparation
)
2 people, 3 days each $500 ea $1,000
Exploration Activity:
Operating Cost - Labor
Operating Cost - Equipment
Exploration Activity Total

50,000

150,000
200,000
Reclamation:
Earthwork
Equipment

Labor
Drill holes (50)
Revegetation
Seed Mixture
Labor
Miscellaneous
Mob/Demob
Supervision
Equipment
Labor
Reclamation Total



1 dozer (Cat D7H) - 10 hrs
1 tracked excavator (Cat 231D) - 10 hrs
2 equipment operators, 20 hrs each
1 operator, 2.5 hrs

4 acres
1 laborer, 4 hrs

2 vehicles

ton 4X4 pickup, 1 day
environmental manager, 8 hours


120/hr
100/hr
40/hr each
40/hr

56/ac
28/hr

500/vehicle

40/day
25/hr


1,200
1,000
1,600
100

225
112

1,000

40
160
5,437
Total Cost of Exploration Project $207,33 7

Miscellaneous Costs

The equipment to complete reclamation is assumed not to be located at the site. Therefore, mobilizing and demobilizing the equipment would involve more costs to industry. The operation usually would require 8 hours of supervision (employed by the company) to ensure that reclamation is completed correctly.

Alternative 1 - Current Management

Costs would not change under Alternative 1 since the regulations would not change.

Alternative 2 - State Management

Alternative 2 is based on individual states taking over the surface management of mining on public lands. Estimating costs for this alternative for each of the 12 states in the study area would be impractical for this exercise. Therefore, the following cost calculations assume that the state program is based on current BLM regulations, with a few differences. A review of state programs found that most states appear to be similar in posting bonds for reclamation and in reclamation and surface and ground water requirements. States appear generally not to review operations smaller than 5 acres but to require reclamation. The states do not generally review documents for such matters as cultural resources, cave resources, and wildlife.

This analysis assumes that the state will not require any information to be submitted because the project occupies less than 5 acres. The state will still require reclamation and monitor the activity area for compliance.

Permitting and Environmental Costs. The operator would not have to submit a Notice to BLM and usually would not have to submit anything to the state. The operator would therefore save the direct cost of document preparation. An operator making project changes would save time by not having to contact BLM. By not having to prepare a Notice, the operator would save about $1,000 (assuming Notice preparation would take two people 3 days to complete).

Reclamation Costs. This analysis assumes that the state requires reclamation. The company would have to reclaim any disturbance from its operation. The analysis also assumes that reclamation would not require restoring wildlife and fisheries habitat. For exploration operations this restoration could be represented by the types of seed mixtures used. The analysis assumes that the state will require only grasses to stabilize soils. Using the seed mixture in the open pit model and using only the grasses in the mixture would bring the cost to only $28/acre instead of $56/acre. A total of $112 would be saved on revegetation costs (assuming per-acre savings of $28 for seed mixture).

Total Estimated Cost Changes. Total cost savings for this exploration project under Alternative 2 are summarized in Table E-7.


Table E-7. Alternative 2: Changes in Costs for Small Exploration Project
Total Project Cost under Alternative 1 (Existing regulations) $207,337
Change in Costs under Alternative 2 due to
Elimination of Notice preparation
Change in Seed Mixture
Total Change in Costs under Alternative 2

(1,000)
(112)
(1,112)
Total Project Cost under Alternative 2 (State Management) $206,225
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 2 - 1 %


Alternative 3 - Proposed Action

Alternative 3 would establish outcome-based performance standards. This approach outlines to the industry what standards must be met on public lands but lets mine operators determine how to meet these standards. Impacts to exploration would be slight because BLM and industry are already generally following these procedures in authorizing operations and accepting reclamation. Industry will have no costs for paying penalties.

Any operation within a mineral withdrawal area would have the extra cost of time and money for completing a validity exam of mining claims. These types of actions would not occur often and are assumed for this model to be addressed as no cost.

Under the Proposed Action, the most significant potential change would be the possibility that this Notice-level operation would now be required to submit a Plan of Operations.

Permitting and Environmental Costs. The greater cost under the Proposed Action would mainly be the cost of bonding a Notice. Other costs could result from operations being in areas now being classified as sensitive or, under the Forest Service option of Alternative 3, being classified as sensitive and being required to submit a Plan of Operations.

Bonding.
Bonding would be strengthened to include bonding of Notices at 100% of the reclamation cost or $1,000/acre or portion thereof, whichever is higher. Plans of Operations would be bonded at 100% of the reclamation cost or $2,000/acre or portion thereof, whichever is higher. Bonding would be used to pay for site reclamation if operators cannot fulfill their reclamation obligations. This model assumes that the operator is obtaining the bond from a bonding agency and would pay only a certain percentage for the bond amount. Total amount of the bond is estimated to be $106, or 2% of reclamation costs ($5,437 @ 2% = $106).

Notice Versus Plan Threshold. Under the Proposed Action, requirements for when Plans of Operations or Notices must be filed would be strengthened. More categories of exploration would need Plans of Operations than before. For example, any use of chemical leach processing would require a Plan of Operations, whereas now an operation disturbing fewer than 5 acres a year requires only a Notice. If the Forest Service option is used, the number of Notices could be small because of the reasonable aspects of environmental concerns. Notices would be used mostly for exploration and small mines that do not use chemicals onsite.

Estimated costs for an exploration project that would be required to file a Plan of Operations would total about $82,500 ($2,500 for preparing a Plan of Operations and $80,000 for preparing an environmental assessment of small complexity, with costs borne by the operator).

Processing Content. Alternative 3 could delay and increase costs for exploration projects having short turnaround times. The model assumes that the Proposed Action would result in no costs of delay if industry plans reasonably well and BLM's processing of the Notice is timely. Time delays of from 15 to 30 days for approval should not increase costs. But problems could result if delays are not scheduled and the operation assumes the cost of standby time for drill rigs and workers. BLM's late processing of permits could also add to this cost. No delays are assumed for this model.

Validity Exams. This provision requires that BLM conduct a validity exam before approving a Plan of Operations within an area withdrawn from the mining laws. These operations are statistically few but exist on the public lands. The major concern for industry is the delay of processing the exam. The companies would not usually pay for the mineral exam but must support the mineral examiner in preparing the report. The average cost to BLM of conducting a validity exam is about $10,000. BLM would recover the cost of the validity exam from the operator. Few operations would be subject to validity exams; only 2% of mining activities are assumed to require this additional cost.

Reclamation Costs. No additional reclamation costs would be required under Alternative 3.

Total Estimated Cost Changes. If the exploration operation is in an area that has not been withdrawn from the mining laws and does not require a Plan of Operations, the exploration company would bear no additional cost with proper coordination. But if the project needs to submit a Plan of Operations and the area of exploration has been withdrawn from mineral entry, the operator would have to pay for a third-party environmental assessment (EA), and a validity exam would be required before operations could begin. Estimated cost changes are summarized in the Table E-8.


Table E-8. Alternative 3: Change in Costs for Small Exploration Project
Total Project Cost under Alternative 3 $207,337
Change in Costs under Alternative 3 due to Bonding
Total Change in Costs under Alternative 3
106106
Total Project Costs under Alternative 3 207483
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 3 0%
Change in Costs Assuming Plan of Operations Required and
Validity Exam is Conducted
Change in Costs under Alternative 3 due to
Bonding
Plan Preparation
Environmental Assessment
Validity Exam
Total Change in Costs under Alternative 3

106
2,500
80,000
10,000
92,606
Total Project Costs under Alternative 3 $299,943
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 3 + 31%

Alternative 4: Maximum Protection


Alternative 4 is based on design standards that establish specific criteria for protecting environmental resources. These types of standards and criteria would affect exploration operations. The elimination of Notices would directly affect an exploration project in bonding, inspection, and enforcement; soil stability; topsoil; drill hole plugging; and revegetation. The need for a validity exam, bonding criteria, fish and wildlife habitat, and wetlands would affect exploration.

This model assumes that the operator would comply with the regulations and therefore pay no penalties. The automatic stay for appeals under Alternative 4 could delay exploration as well as potential future profits if an economic deposit is discovered. For this model costs of delay were not analyzed, but under Alternative 4 these costs might exist.

Permitting and Environmental Costs. The standards for road construction were developed for well-maintained roads and not for exploration roads. It is assumed that road building will be based on site conditions.

Bonding. Bonding would be as outlined for Alternative 3 but would include more costs for unplanned events (spills, releases, and cleanup). For exploration projects additional costs for major environmental problems would probably not need to be addressed except for potential petroleum spills. Any petroleum spill would require removing contaminated soils and trucking them to an approved disposal site for treatment. The potential cost would be added to the bond amount. The exploration model assumes that the operator would place the full amount of the bond into a certified deposit. The operator would again get a bond through a bonding company. If the operator can get good company ratings, the bond will cost 2% of the bond amount for 1 year. The total estimated bond amount would be $6,437, and the estimated cost of reclamation would amount to $5,437 for general reclamation as described in Alternative 3, plus $1,000 more for a potential unplanned petroleum spill. The total bond cost is estimated to be $129, or 2% of reclamation costs ($6,437 @ 2% = $129).

Notice Versus Plan Threshold. Under Alternative 4 Notices and all mining activity, including exploration, would be replaced by Plans of Operations. The cost of developing and reviewing Plans would apply as outlined for Alternative 3. Estimated costs for an exploration project to file a Plan of Operations would total about $82,500 ($2,500 for preparing a Plan of Operations and $80,000 for preparing an environmental assessment of small complexity, with costs borne by the operator).

Inspections. Under Alternative 4 operators would be required to hire third-party contractors to monitor their operations. This project would require three inspections: once during exploration, once during reclamation, and once for final reclamation and clearance. The monitoring would not require an overnight stay, but 10 hours would be needed to get to the site, complete the inspection, and return to the office and complete the report. No samples would be needed for this program. Total estimated costs for inspection would amount to $1,500 (assuming 1 inspector, 3 trips, 10 hours/trip, at $50/hr).

Validity Exams. This provision requires that a validity exam be conducted before a Plan of Operations is approved. This cost would remain the same as outlined for Alternative 3. The average cost to BLM of conducting a validity exam is about $10,000. BLM would recover the cost of the validity exam from the operator.

Reclamation Costs. Reclamation for wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat would remain the same for this model as under Alternative 1, No Action. The assumption is that the mining industry overall would be diligent and disturbances would be reclaimed within the 10-year limit. Therefore, no other habitat restoration would be required, and no more costs are assumed.

This is a short-term exploration project, and soil stability design limits would not be approached because of reclamation. Any steep slopes could have some erosion control problems, but no additional cost of erosion control blankets would be needed above erosion and sediment control structures.

Water Resources. For the exploration model 50 drill holes will be drilled with a diameter of 5.5 inches. This holes are assumed to be dry. Under Alternative 4 the holes would be plugged with bentonite and 10 feet of cement. Total estimated cement capping costs would amount to $1,250 (assuming 50 holes, 10 feet/hole, at $2.50/linear foot). Total estimated plugging costs would amount to $16,150 (assuming 190 feet/hole, at $1.70/linear foot).

Topsoil. Under Alternative 4 the topsoil would be removed by soil horizons. The operator would remove the topsoil the same as under the other alternatives, but possible increases in travel time to stockpile locations could decrease the efficiency of the earth moving equipment by not allowing the blade to take as deep a cut as possible. These increases would not substantially increase the time needed to remove topsoil.

Under the other alternatives the soil and colluvium would be moved by the earth moving equipment in one or two passes, mixing the material together. The material would be removed to different locations on either side of the road or drill pads. The travel distance would remain the same, but the efficiencies of the equipment would decrease. The efficiencies were estimated from the Caterpillar Performance Handbook (Caterpillar, Inc. 1996) as 0.83. For Alternative 4 the efficiency is estimated at 0.75 or about 1 hour difference in the time needed to complete the dirt work. Total estimated additional costs for equipment and labor to complete dirt work is $300 (assuming an additional hour each for one dozer at $120/hr and one tracked excavator at $100/hour, and two equipment operators for 1 hour each at $40/hr).

Revegetation. Under Alternative 4 revegetation would consist of only native species seed planted. The open pit model outlines the seed mixture used under this alternative. All other aspects of seeding the exploration project would remain the same as under Alternative 1 (No Action). Total estimated additional costs would be $155 (assuming an additional seed mixture cost of about $39/acre for 4 acres).

Total Estimated Cost Changes. If the exploration operation is not in an area withdrawn for minerals, the project would incur the costs shown in Table E-9.


Table E-9. Alternative 4: Change in Costs for Small Exploration Project
Total Project Cost under Alternative 4: $207,337
Change in Costs under Alternative 4 due to:
Bonding
Plan Preparation
Environmental Assessment
Third-Party Monitoring
Drill hole Plugging
Topsoil Management
Revegetation with Natives
Validity Exam
Total Change in Costs under Alternative 4:

129
2,500
80,000
1,500
17,400
300
155
10,000
111,984
Total Project Costs under Alternative 4: $319,321
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 4: + 35%


Placer Model


The placer operation would be conducted by a medium-size mining company. The model assumes the operation is for precious metals, gold. The operation would disturb 1 mile of stream, including the stream channel and uplands. No mercury would be used onsite.

Resource size: 1,000,000 bcy
Production rate: 500 lcy per day
Mine life: 10+ years
Average grade: $4 per bcy @ $300/oz.
Overburden: < 14 feet
Pay gravel: <4 feet
Equipment used:Dozer (D8), Excavator (235), mobile washplant (hopper, vibrating screen, 4' x 30' single sluice, 1200 g.p.m. water use)
Crew: 3 workers
Camp: one-site small trailers and temporary sheds
Fuel storage:1,000 gallons in portable tanks with spill containment, bio- treatment facility onsite
Permitting:Environmental assessment completed, 2 months to complete, joint state coordination
Reclamation: Recontouring and revegetation, stream restoration, concurrent with mining

Note: This operation would require some recontouring of the waste rock. The waste piles would be both in the old part of the pit and out of the pit at a 2:1 slope.

Permitting and Environmental Costs. Permitting and environmental costs are hard to determine in a generalized way. The costs of permit authorizations and environmental documentation greatly vary with site-specific conditions. Depending on the ore body and its location and other local environmental conditions, the cost can cover a board range. For the following costs several mining companies and consultant firms were contacted. These costs are averaged and are shown in Table E-10.

Plans of Operations. The operation would be filed under a Plan of Operations. The operator would pay for the environmental analysis, which would include a wetlands study, steam restoration/reclamation plan, cultural survey, and a wildlife/fisheries field study.

Bonding. The model assumes that the operator is buying from an agency an annuity bond, for which the operator would pay an insurance premium, which would cost an estimated 2% of the bond amount per year. The model further assumes that the operator has a good credit rating and has the assets to back the bond. The bond would be for reclaiming the site at $2,000/acre or for $24,000. The bond would be assessed at 2% for 10 years and would cost $2,400.

Reclamation Cost Estimation. Placer mining is a form or strip mining that usually operates within stream channels. The area would be recontoured concurrently with the production of the gravels. The overall size of the operation would be 12 acres, but at the end of the operation only 6 acres should be reclaimed. The operation would require more reclamation for repairing any stream channels and restoring habitat. The mine would include sediment ponds and other sediment and control structures.

Stream Restoration. There are very few references for the costs of stream restoration. This model used published data from EPA's Handbook for Reclamation of Placer Mined Stream Environments in Western Montana (INTER-FLUVE, Inc. 1991). The figures listed in this document are assumed to cover regrading and stream recontouring, topsoil placement, revegetation, and wildlife work. Topsoil is required only on the floodplain and would not be spread in the channel. Seeds would be broadcast by hand. Stream restoration would include establishing vegetation, reconstruction, and building structures for habitat. The channel dimensions would be 2 feet deep by 8 feet wide by 1 mile long at a 3% slope.

The documentation for reclamation shows several costs, depending on the type of work completed. Table 12 of EPA's Handbook for Reclamation of Placer Mined Stream Environments in Western Montana (INTER-FLUVE, Inc. 1991) shows the cost of stream and floodplain reconstruction to be $7 to $17/foot. This model assumes $10/ft for wildlife and fish restoration.

Chemical Stabilization. The mine would use no chemicals that involve closure issues. Sediments would be reclaimed during recontouring.

Structure Removal. Structure removal would consist mainly of removing process buildings, office trailers, maintenance shop, and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipelines used by the project. The model assumes that three workers would take 10 days to remove the facilities. The complete operation is portable and can be easily transported.


Table E-10. Placer Model Costs
Description of Activity Cost Item Unit Cost Total Cost
Permitting
Plan Preparation

EA preparation






Permitting Total

Two People 5 Days with Computer Support


Includes Wetlands study
Restoration/reclamation plan Wildlife/fisheries studies
Cultural survey

Bond Cost




5,000
5,000
10,000 10,000

2% for 10 yrs

2,500

80,000





2,400
84,900
Placer Mining Activity:
Capital Cost
Operating Cost - Labor
Operating Cost - Equipment

Exploration Activity Total


250,000
425,000

300,000

$975,000
Reclamation:
Stream Restoration

Structural removal
Equipment

Mob/Demob

Labor

Reclamation Total


Based on EPA Reference


2.5 Ton Truck for 10 Days
1 Tracked Excavator (Cat 231d) -20 Hrs
2 Vehicle

3 Person Crew for 10 Days at 10 Hours/day

10/foot


60/day
100/hr
500

27/hr

52,800


600
2000
1000

8,100

64,500
Total Cost of Placer Project $1,124,4 00


Alternative 1: No Action

Costs would not change under Alternative 1 because the regulations would not change.

Alternative 2: State Management

Alternative 2 is based on the states taking over the surface management of mining on public lands. Determining costs for this alternative for all of the states involved in mining would not be practical for this exercise. Therefore, the following cost calculations would be based on the assumptions that the state program would based on current BLM regulations. A review of the state programs reveals that they are similar in posting bonds for reclamation and in surface water, ground water, and reclamation requirements.


This analysis assumes that the state would require a Plan of Operations, reclamation, the posting of bond, and monitoring for compliance, but no environmental review for such aspects of the project as cultural resources, cave resources, and wildlife.

Permitting and Environmental Costs.

Plan of Operations Preparation. The operator would have to submit a Plan to the state but not to BLM. The operator would still produce a Plan of Operations, but the plan would not be subject to environmental review, and the operator would not have to pay for an environmental assessment.

Reclamation Costs.

Stream Restoration. This analysis assumes that the state would require reclamation. The company would have to reclaim any disturbance resulting from their operation, but reclamation would not require restoring wildlife and fisheries habitat.

The documentation for restoration shows several costs, depending on the type of work completed. Table 12 in EPA's Handbook for Reclamation of Placer Mined Stream Environments in Western Montana (INTER-FLUVE, Inc. 1991) shows stream and floodplain reconstruction to be $7 to 17/foot. Assuming that wildlife and fisheries habitat would not be restored, the cost would be $7/foot.

Total Estimated Cost Changes. Total cost savings for this Placer project under Alternative 2 are summarized in Table E-11.


Table E-11. Alternative 2 -- Changes in Costs for Placer Project
Total Project Cost under Alternative 1 (Existing Regulations) $1,124,400
Change in Costs under Alternative 2 Due to
Elimination of Environmental Review
Change in Stream Restoration Cost
Total Change in Costs under Alternative 2

(80,000)
(15,840)
(95,840)
Total Project Cost under Alternative 2 (State Management) $1,028,560
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 2 - 1 %


Alternative 3: Proposed Action

Impacts to the industry would be minimal because BLM and industry are generally following these procedures in authorizing operations and accepting final closure and reclamation.

Under the Proposed Action the soil stability design limit would not be approached because of reclamation. Any steep slopes could have some erosion control problems, but the model assumes
that no additional cost of erosion control blankets would be needed above erosion and sediment control structures.

Under the Proposed Action, bonding and a potential validity exam would add cost to the Placer Mine model. Other reclamation costs would be needed to complete the requirements of higher wildlife and wetland standards.

Permitting and Environmental Cost.

Bonding. The Proposed Action would strengthen bonding to include the bonding of Plans at 100% of reclamation cost. Bonding would be used to reclaim sites if operators could not complete their reclamation obligations. The bond amount would change to cover the estimated cost to reclaim the operation. This model assumes that the operator is buying an annuity bond, for which operators would pay insurance premiums that would cost an estimated 2% of the bond amount.

Validity Exams. The Proposed Action would require BLM to conduct a validity exam before approving a Plan of Operations for an area withdrawn from the mining laws. These costs would remain the same as outlined for exploration under the Proposed Action.

Reclamation Cost.

Stream Restoration. Table 12 of the EPA's Handbook for Reclamation of Placer Mined Stream Environments in Western Montana (INTER-FLUVE, Inc. 1991) shows stream and floodplain reconstruction costs to range from $7 to 17/foot. For the Proposed Action the analysis assumes $17/ft for meeting the wildlife and fish restoration standards. Meeting these standards would result in an additional cost to the operator of $36,900.

Total Estimated Cost Changes. Estimated cost changes are summarized in the Table E-12.


Table E-12. Alternative 3 -- Change in Costs for Placer Project
Total Project Cost under Alternative 3 $1,124,400
Change in Costs under Alternative 3 due to Bonding
Change in Costs under Alternative 3 due to Reclamation
Total Change in Costs under Alternative 3
100 003690046900
Total Project Costs under Alternative 3 1171300
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 3 +4%
Change in Costs Assuming Validity Exam is Conducted
Change in Costs under Alternative 3 due to Validity Exam 10000
Total Project Costs under Alternative 3 $1,174,100
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 3 + 5%

lternative 4: Maximum Protection


These type of standards and criteria under Alternative 4 would affect placer mining. Bonding, inspection and enforcement, replacing topsoil, protecting fish and wildlife habitat and wetlands, and revegetation would directly affect placer mining.

The automatic stay for appeals under Alternative 4 would delay placer mining and result in the costs of lost time and the delay of potential future profits. For this model, costs to industry were not analyzed, but these costs would exist under Alternative 4.

The soil stability design limit would not be approached because of reclamation. Any steep slopes could have some erosion control problems, but this model assumes that no additional costs would be needed for erosion control blankets above erosion and sediment control structures.

Permitting and Environmental Costs.

Bonding. Bonding would be as outlined for Alternative 3 but would include extra money for major environmental events. For placer projects other than petroleum spills, added costs would not need to be addressed for major environmental problems. Any petroleum spill would require removing the contaminated soils and trucking them to an approved disposal site for treatment. No other chemicals are expected to be used onsite.

For Alternative 4 the model assumes that the operator will build an oil treatment facility onsite to handle all spills from the operation. It is also assumed that the operator will purchase an annuity bond from an agency, paying an insurance premium that would cost an estimated 2% of the bond amount. This amount would be the same as under Alternative 3.

Inspections. Under Alternative 4 operators would have to hire third-party contractors quarterly to monitor their operations. The contractor would complete the inspection and prepare the report in a 10-hour day but would not take environmental samples. The contractor would conduct the monitoring program for the 10 years of the mine operation at an average salary of $50/hour.

Validity Exams. Alternative 4 would require BLM to conduct a validity exam before approving a Plan of Operations.

Reclamation Costs.

Stream Restoration. Because of Alternative 4's needs to set design standards, the restoration of riparian areas would be extensive. The handling of topsoil would require more time because of the loss in equipment efficiency. Revegetation would require use of native species, and the wetlands would have to be in properly functioning condition within 10 years. The model assumes that both the stream and the uplands would be disturbed. For riparian areas and wetlands to reach properly functioning condition and to meet wildlife and fishery habitat needs, more restoration would be required.

EPA's Handbook for Reclamation of Placer Mined Stream Environments in Western Montana (INTER-FLUVE, Inc. 1991) shows that the cost of restoring a stream and upland areas can vary greatly. The cost of total stream and floodplain reconstruction with fisheries can cost from $28 to $47/foot. For Alternative 4 the model assumes that total stream and floodplain restoration would be needed and that restoration would cost $28/foot, an amount that includes restoring fisheries to meet the 10-year requirement for properly functioning condition for riparian lands and fisheries use.

Total Estimated Cost Changes. If the exploration operation is not within an area withdrawn from the mining laws, the project would incur the costs shown in Table E-13.


Table E-13. Alternative 4 -- Change in Costs for Placer Project
Total Project Cost under Alternative 4: $1,124,400
Change in Costs under Alternative 4 due to:
Stream Restoration
Third-Party Monitoring
Bond
Validity Exam
Total Change in Costs under Alternative 4

110,880
20,000
10,000
10,000
150,880
Total Project Costs under Alternative 4 1275280
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 4 + 13%


Strip Mining Model

This strip mine is being operated by a medium-sized industrial mineral organization. This mine is the organization's main source and directly supplies an operating mill and production facility. This model is organized after a gypsum operation.

Resource size: 1 million tons
Production rate: 250 tons per day
Mine life: 10+ years
Overburden: 4 feet, no waste rock expected
Pay layer: 4 feet
Equipment used:Dozer (D8), excavator (235), front-end loaders, rear dump trucks, road graders, percussion drill, stationary washplant (hopper, vibrating screen, concentration/flotation mill, 1200 gpm water use)
Crew: 15 workers
Housing: nearby towns
Fuel: 5,000 gallons in portable tanks
Permitting: Environmental assessment completed, 3 months to complete, joint state federal coordination
Reclamation: Recontouring and revegetation concurrent with mining
Note: This model assumes an industrial mineral and little overburden that is not reclaimed in the strip mining process and that a petroleum biotreatment facility is onsite for cleaning up petroleum spills. A construction waste landfill is also onsite.

Permitting and Environmental Cost

Permitting and Environmental costs are hard to determine by a generalized method. The cost of permit authorizations and environmental documentation greatly vary by site-specific conditions. Depending on the ore body and its location and other local environmental conditions, the cost can cover a broad range. The following costs were derived from information obtained from several mining companies and consultant firms. These costs were averaged and are described below.

Processing Cost. The operation would file a Plan of Operations. The operator would pay for the environmental analysis, which would include a wetlands study, steam restoration/ reclamation plan, cultural survey, and a wildlife/fisheries field study.

Bonding
. This model assumes that the operator is purchasing an annuity bond for which it would pay an annual insurance premium of 2% per year for 10 years. The model further assumes that the operator has a good credit rating and has the assets to back up the bond. The bond amount for this project is $24,000.

Reclamation Cost

Earthwork.
The model assumes that strip mining methods are used to extract most industrial minerals even though strip mining is only one of several ways industrial minerals are mined. The basic model is for bentonite- and gypsum-type deposits. No chemicals would be used to process the material, and the material's final processing is off site. The earthwork would consist of recontouring and covering with topsoil the roads, ancillary facilities, and the last strip pit. Strip mining applies ongoing concurrent reclamation, with each mined strip being refilled with the waste rock from the next pit and covered with topsoil. The calculations, therefore, address only the final phase of earth work and revegetation for the operation.

Cost of regrading.

Production rate
Equipment = D9N. and U Blade
Average dozing distance = 270 ft
Production = 300 yd3/hr
Correction factors
Operator average = 0.75
Material - loose stockpile/.ripped or blasted = 1.20 or .08
Type dozing - slot to side by side = 1.20
Job efficiency = 0.83
Weight correction = 0.83
Hourly Production rate = 223 yd3/hr
Cost Rates
Bulldozing (D9N) = $155/hr
Operator = $40/hr

Using the above data, the following table estimates equipment and labor costs for regrading.


Acres Cubic Yards Hours Equipment Cost Labor Cost
Waste Rock 10 1200 54 $18,390 $2,160
Roads* 40 10000 448 $69,440 $17,920
Ancillary Facilities 15 15000 67 $19,385 $2,680
Cost of Recontouring $107,215 $22,760

*Assumption that ripping production is the same as blading work.

Cost of Applying Top Soil. Apply growth medium to an average thickness of 6 inches, using a scraper.

Production rate
Equipment = 615 Scraper
Capacity = 16 yd3
Average haul distance = 1000 ft
Cycle time
Cycles per hour = 13.33 cycles per minute
Correction factors
Load factor = 0.9
Job efficiency = 0.83
Eff. Load capacity = 14.4 yd3
Hourly production= 159.4 yd3/hr
Cost Rates
615 scraper = $100/hr
Operator = $ 40/hr

From the above data, the following table estimates equipment and labor costs for applying topsoil.


Acres Cubic yards Hours Equipment cost Labor cost
Waste Rock 10 24200 152 $15,200 $6,080
Roads 40 96800 608 60800 24320
Ancillary Facilities 15 36300 228 22800 9620
Cost of applying topsoil $98,800 40020


Revegetation. Revegetation would require scarifying and preparing the ground for seeding. Seeds would be planted with drill seeding equipment. Aspects of wildlife habitat enhancement and wetland reclamation would be included in revegetation.

Production rates
Equipment = 14-G grader with scarifier
Scarifying width = 10 feet
Operating speed = 1.0 mph
Production rate = 1.0 hr/ac
Equipment = Small tractor and seed drill
Seeding width = 10 feet
Operating speed = 2.5 mph
Production rate = 0.33 hr/ac
Travel length = 4356 ft/ac
Cost rates
Tractor and seed drill = $50/hr
14-G Grader = $80/hr
Operator - grader = $40/hr
Labor (2) = $27/ac

Seed Mixture

Species $/lb (PLS) Drilled rate (lbs.) Price/ac

Slender Wheatgrass $1.25/lb 3 $3.75
Western Wheatgrass $3.00/lb 2 $6.00
Fourwing Saltbrush $8.00/lb 1 $8.00
Yellow Sweetclover $0.60/lb 0.5 $0.30
Basin Wildrye $5.60/lb 1 $5.60
Shadscale $6.50/lb 2 $13.00
Small Burnett $0.90/lb 2 $1.80
Thickspike Wheatgrass $8.25/lb 0.5 $4.15
Prostrate Kochia $17.50/lb 0.25 $4.40
Sainfoin $1.40/lb 2 $2.80
Sandberg Bluegrass $26.00/lb 0.25 $13.00/ac
Total $56.30/ac

Using the above data, the following table estimates equipment and labor costs for revegetation.


Acres Hours Equipment Cost ($) Labor Cost ($)
Waste Rock 10 10 hrs grader
3 hrs drill
800150563 400162
Roads 40 40 hrs
13 hrs
32006502252 1600202
Ancillary Facilities 15 15 hrs
5 hrs
1200250844 600270
Revegetation Cost 9909 3234

Removal of structures. Structure removal would consist mainly of removing process buildings, office trailers, maintenance shops, and high-density polyethylene pipelines used by the project. The model assumes that five workers would take 30 days to remove the facilities and bury the foundations.


Table E-14. Strip Mine Model Costs
Description of Activity Cost Item Unit Cost Total Cost
Permitting
Plan Preparation


EA Preparation






Bond Cost
Permitting Total


Two people five days, w/ computer support



Includes: Wetlands study
Restoration and reclamation
Wildlife/fisheries studies
Cultural survey

Estimated bond $24,000






$5,000 $5,000
$10,000
$10,000

2% for 10 yrs


$2,500

$80,000






$2,400
$84,900
Open Pit Operation:
Capital Cost
Operating Cost - Labor
Operating Cost - Equipment

Exploration Activity Total


$400,000
$1,800,000
$240,000

$2,440,00 0
Reclamation:
Earth Work
Regrading
Equipment*:
Labor*:
Applying top soil
Equipment*: Labor*:
Revegetation
Equipment*


Labor*:
Total earth work and revegetation

Structural removal
Equipment


Labor
Total Structural removal
Reclamation Total



D9N Dozer
operator

615 Scraper
operator

: 14-G Grader
Small Tractor and seed drill
Seed mixture
Grader operator
2 laborers


2.5 ton truck for 80 days
Ho-lift equipment, 24ft boom-7.7mt lift
D9N Dozer for 2 days

5 person crew for 80 days at 8 hours/day



$155/hr
$40/hr

$100/hr
$40/hr

$80/hr
$50/hr
$56.30/ac
$40/hr
$27/hr


$60/day
$165/day
$155/hr

$27/hr



$107,000
$22,760

$98,800
$40,080


$10,000


$3,234
$282,000



$7,370

$32,400
$39,770
$321,800
Total Cost of Open Pit Project $2,846,70 0
*See estimated time to complete task in the information above.

Alternative 2: State Management

Determining the costs of the State Management Alternative for all of the states in the EIS study area would not be practical for this exercise. Therefore, the following cost calculations assume that the state program is based on current BLM regulations. A review of the state programs reveals that they are similar in requirements for posting bond for reclamation, surface and ground water, and reclamation.

This analysis assumes that the state would require that a plan of operations be submitted. The state would still require reclamation, the posting of bond, and monitoring for compliance. The analysis further assumes that no environmental review of the project would be required for cultural resources, cave resources, or wildlife.

Permitting and Environmental Cost.

Processing Cost. The operator would have to submit a plan of operations to the state but not to BLM. The project would not undergo environmental review, and the operator would not have to pay for an environmental assessment.

Reclamation Cost. The state requires reclamation. The company would have to reclaim any disturbance caused by the operation.

Reflecting general state programs, reclamation is required for soil and slope stabilization only. Therefore, this analysis assumes that the state would require only grasses for soil stability and that wildlife and fisheries habitat would not have to be restored.

The seed mixture under Alternative 2 would contain the following grasses:

Seed Mixture.
Species $/lb (PLS) Drilled rate Price/ac

Slender Wheatgrass $1.25/lb 3 lbs $3.75/ac
Western Wheatgrass $3.00/lb 2 lbs $6.00/ac
Basin Wildrye $5.60/lb 1 lb $5.60/ac
Thickspike Wheatgrass $8.25/lb 0.5 lb $4.15/ac
Sandberg Bluegrass $26.00/lb 0.25 lb $13.00/ac
Total $32.50/ac

The following cost calculations show the cost for the seed mixture under Alternative 2.

Waste Rock 10 acres 325.00
Roads 40 acres 1,300.00
Ancillary Facilities 15 acres 487.50
Total $2,112.50

Total Estimated Cost Changes.
Total cost savings for this strip mine project under Alternative 2 are summarized in Table E-15.


Table E-15. Alternative 2 -- Changes in Costs for a Strip Mine Project
Total Project Cost under Alternative 1 (Existing regulations) $2,846,700
Change in Costs under Alternative 2 due to
Elimination of Environmental review
Change in Seed cost
Total Change in Costs under Alternative 2

(80,000)
(1,500)
(81,500)
Total Project Cost under Alternative 2 (State Management) $2,765,200
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 2 - 3 %


Alternative 3: Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action more costs would be required because of bonding and common variety determination. Impacts to the industry, however, would be minimal because BLM and industry are generally following these procedures in authorizing operations and accepting final closure and reclamation.

Any operation within a mineral withdrawal area would have the additional cost in time and money to complete a validity exam of the claims. These types of actions, however, would not occur often and for this model are assumed to involve no cost.

For this project the soil stability design limit would not be approached because of reclamation. Any steep slopes could have some erosion control problems, but the model assumes that no additional cost of erosion control blankets would be needed above erosion and sediment control structures.

Permitting and Environmental Cost.

Bonding. Under the Proposed Action bonding would be strengthened to include bonding of Notices at 100% of reclamation cost. Bonding would be used for reclaiming the site if the operation could not complete its reclamation obligations. This model assumes that the operator is purchasing an annuity bond from an agency. For the bond the operator would pay an insurance premium that would cost an estimated 2% per year of reclamation costs for 10 years through the operation and reclamation of the project. The bond amount is an estimated at $321,700.

Common Variety Determinations. Common variety determinations would be required for industrial mineral operations. The reclamation and strip mining models would be involved. This determination would verify that the mineral is locatable under the mining law or salable under the Mineral Materials Act of 1947.

Average cost = $30,000 per examination.

Unknown cost to industry if claim is in production and production is lost due to the claimant's assisting BLM in the exam. The model assumes that industry would carry the cost to get the project completed.

The cost to industry is assumed to be $30,000 for preparation work for BLM. It is assumed that only 10% of the exploration model and 50% for the strip mining model activities would require this additional cost.

Total Estimated Cost Changes. Estimated cost changes are summarized in Table E-16.


Table E-16. Alternative 3 -- Change in Costs for a Strip Mine Project
Total Project Cost under Alternative 3 $2,846,700
Change in Costs due to Bonding
Total Change in Costs
6194261942
Total Project Costs 2911642
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 3 +2%
Change in Costs Assuming Validity Exam Is Conducted
Change in Costs under Alternative 3 due to Bonding
Change in Costs under Alternative 3 due to Validity Exam
6194230000
Total Project Costs $2,941,642
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 3 +3%


Alternative 4: Maximum Protection


Under Alternative 4, bonding, inspection and enforcement, soil stability, topsoil, and revegetation would directly affect strip mining.

The waste rock design and road designs would be incorporated into the mine design and would not usually involve major costs. This model assumes that Alternative 4 would incur no more costs for road and slope stability design standards.

The acid rock drainage testing would be completed during the environmental review. The model assumes that the kinetic test would be included in the review. No other tests would be run unless acid generation potential changes from the rock types tested.

Permitting and Environmental Cost.

Bonding. Bonding would not change from that outlined for the Proposed Action except that more money for major environmental events would be added. Other than for petroleum spills, strip mines would not need to address additional cost for major environmental problems. Any petroleum spill would require removing the contaminated soils and trucking them to an approved disposal site for treatment. No other chemicals are expected to be used onsite. This model assumes that the operator would build an oil treatment facility onsite and this site would handle all spills from the operation.

This model further assumes that the operator is purchasing from an agency an annuity bond, for which the operator would pay an insurance premium of 2% per year for 10 years through the operating and reclaiming of the project. The bond would amount to $321,700.

Inspections. Under Alternative 4 operators would be required to hire third-party contractors to monitor their operations. Required to monitor the operation quarterly, the contractor could complete the inspection and prepare the report in a 10-hour day. No environmental samples would be collected.

Common Variety Determinations. For industrial minerals common variety determination and validity exams would be required to determine if the mineral is locatable under the Mining Law or salable under the Mineral Materials Act of 1947. Common variety determinations would be required under the reclamation and strip mining models. The average cost per examination is $30,000. An operation would have an unknown cost if a claim is in production and production is lost due to the claimant's assisting BLM in the exam. This model assumes that industry would carry the cost to get the project completed.

Reclamation Cost.

Earth Work. Under Alternative 4 the topsoil would be removed by soil horizons. The operation would remove the topsoil just as under other alternatives, but increased travel times to stockpile locations would decrease the efficiency of the earth moving equipment by not allowing blades to cut as deeply as possible. But the increased travel times would not be so great as to double the time needed to remove the topsoil.

Under the other alternatives, earth moving equipment would move the soil and colluvium in one or two passes, mixing the material together. The material would be removed into different locations on either side of the road or drill pads. The travel distance would remain the same, but the efficiencies of the equipment would decrease. The efficiencies were estimated from the Caterpillar Performance Handbook (Caterpillar Inc. 1996) as 0.83. For Alternative 4 the efficiency would be estimated at 0.75. This time amounts to about 1 hour difference in the time needed to complete the dirt work.

Production rate
Equipment = 615 Scraper
Capacity = 16 yd3
Average haul distance = 1000 ft
Cycle time
Cycles per hour = 13.33 cycles per minute
Correction factors
Load factor = 0.9
Job efficiency = 0.75
Eff. Load capacity = 10.8 yd3
Hourly production= 144 yd3/hr
Cost Rates
615 scraper = $100/hr
Operator = $ 40/hr

Using the above data, the following table estimates equipment and labor costs for regrading.


Acres Quantity Hours Equipment Cost Labor Cost
Waste Rock 10 24200 168 $16,800 $6,720
Roads 40 96800 672 67200 26880
Ancillary Facilities 15 36300 252 25200 10080
Cost of Applying Topsoil 109200 43680

Revegetation. Under Alternative 4 only native species could be used in revegetation. The open pit model outlines the seed mixture that would be used by this alternative. All other aspects of seeding the strip mine project would remain the same.

Using the above data, the following table estimates equipment and labor costs for revegetation.


Acres Time Equipment Cost Labor Cost
Waste Rock 10 10 hrs grader
3 hrs drill
total
$800
150
950
$400
162
Roads 40 40 hrs
13 hrs
total
32006503800 1600202
Ancillary Facilities 15 15 hrs
5 hrs
total
12002501425 600270
Cost of Revegetation 12425 3234


Soil Stability. To meet the stability standard for Alternative 4, more measures would need to be implemented. Any steep slopes could have some erosion control problems, but the added cost of erosion control blankets would be needed above standard erosion and sediment control structures. For analysis purposes the project would need erosion control blankets on the waste rock piles (20 acres) and the roads (20 acres) for a total of 40 acres. Erosion control blankets cost $0.45/yd2, and the project will cost $87,120.

Wetlands. Alternative 4 requires that all wetlands be restored within 10 years after final closure and reclamation of the operation. If this restoration is not possible, then 1.5 times the amount disturbed or lost would need to be replaced. Reclamation is usually successful in restoring wetlands to proper functioning condition within 10 years. But open pit operations do remove wetlands in placing the pit and waste rock dumps. This model assumes that 10 acres of wetlands would be lost with the replacing of waste rock dumps.

Offsite mitigation is estimated to cost the same as stream restoration under Alternative 4 of the placer mining model. For alternative 4 the model assumes $2,500/acre (INTER-FLUVE, Inc. 1991), which is needed to meet the 10-year requirement for properly functioning condition for wetlands. A stream restoration cost of $2,500/acre was used for this alternative. The project would reclaim 15 acres at a cost of $37,500.

Total Estimated Cost Changes. If the exploration operation is not in an area withdrawn for minerals, the project would incur the costs shown in Table E-17.


Table E-17. Alternative 4 -- Change in Costs for a Strip Mine Project
Total Project Cost under Alternative 4: $2,846,700
Change in Costs under Alternative 4 due to:
Bond Cost
Third-Party Monitoring; 40 hrs at $50/hr/year for 10 years
Applying Top Soil
Revegetation Cost
Soil Stabilization
Validity Exam
Wetland Restoration

Total Change in Costs under Alternative 4:


61,942
20,000
152,880
2,516
87,120
30,000
37,500

391,958
Total Project Costs under Alternative 4: $3,238,658
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 4: + 12%


Open Pit Model

The open pit model is for a medium-sized gold mine of a larger mining company.

Resource size: 7,000,000 tons
Production rate: 4,000 tons per day
mine life: 6 years mining and 4 years reclamation
Average grade: 0.053 oz. per ton @ $300/oz. Strip ratio: 2:1
Pit dimensions: 1000 ft x 900 ft x 130 ft deep
Equipment used:Rotary drill (GD-25C), hydraulic crawler drill (HDR12E), air compressor, 4 loaders (988-B), four 50-ton rear-dump trucks (733), dozer (D-8) dozer (TD-25), grader, 4,000 gal water truck , two maintenance trucks, and two pickups
Fuel: 10,000 gallon portable tank gasoline, 50,000 gallon portable tanks for diesel and propane
Processing:The operation uses conventual heap leach technology. Chemicals used for this process are on the site. A construction material dump is onsite, and a bioremediation facility is onsite to process minor petroleum spills.
Crew: 60 workers
Housing: Nearby towns
Permitting:Environmental impact statement (EIS) completed in 18 months, high public interest, baseline studies required to complete EIS, extensive joint federal/state coordination, cultural field studies
Reclamation:Post mining recontouring and revegetation, stream restoration, water stabilization and recharge, chemical stabilization, wildlife reclamation projects

Note: Waste rock dumps were built to the grade standards outlined for each alternative, i.e. Alternative 3 states a 2:1 slope or a stable system, whereas Alternative 4 states a 3:1 slope. Roads would be built to meet standards for the alternative. The pit would have a small pit lake. Ground water would flow into the pit lake and evaporate. The pit lake would not overflow seasonally. Material at the site has been tested and shows no acid generation potential. The waste rock would have a 30% swell factor.

The model was derived from Mining Cost Services (Western Mine Engineering, Inc. 1997b), CM Appendix D4. The difference between the cost index for the original model development and the cost index for this model development was slight. Therefore, adjustments would not need to be made.

Permitting and Environmental Cost

Plan of Operation Processing.
Permitting and environmental costs are hard to determine in a generalized way. The costs of permit authorizations and environmental documentation highly vary with site-specific conditions. Depending on the ore body and its location and other local environmental conditions, the cost can cover a broad range. The operator would pay for the environmental impact statement, which would include hydrological and hydrogeology reports, acid rock drainage analysis, cultural surveys, soil and vegetation field surveys, fish and wildlife field surveys, Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation, and pit water quality analysis. The costs developed for this model and alternatives were derived from several mining companies and consultant firms.

Bonding. The operation would require a Plan of Operations. The bond would be for 100% cost of the reclamation. Closing the heap leach pads and the rest of the mine would cost $2,000/acre. This model assumes that the operator is purchasing an annuity bond from an agency and would pay an insurance premium for the bond at an estimated 2% of the bond amount per year. The model further assumes that the operator has a good credit rating and has the assets to back the bond.

Reclamation Cost

Earthwork. The earthwork would consist of recontouring the waste rock dump, leach pads, roads, and ancillary facilities and covering all these features with topsoil. The dump had been built to easily conform to the slope requirement. The amount of material moved and the amount of time needed to move the material is estimated below for analysis purposes.

Regrading.

Production rate
Equipment = D9N and U Blade
Average Dozing distance = 300 ft
Final slope configurations = 2.5H:10V(40%)
Production = 500 yd3/hr
Correction factors
Operator average = 0.75
Material - loose stockpile = 1.20
Type dozing - slot to side by side = 1.20
Job efficiency = 0.83
Weight correction = 0.83
Hourly Production rate = 372 cu. yd./hr
Cost Rates
Bulldozing (D9N) = $155/hr
Operator = $40/hr

Using the above data, the following table estimates equipment and labor costs for regrading.


Acres Quantity (yd3) Time (hours) Equipment Cost Labor Cost
Waste Rock 120 2800000 7526 $1,166,530 $301,040
Roads* 200 250000 672 104160 26880
Ancillary Facilities 150 150000 403 62465 16120
Leach Pads 125 200000 536 83080 21440
Total Cost for Regrading $1,416,235 $365,480

*Assumption that ripping production is the same as blading work.

Applying Top Soil.

The growth medium would be applied to an average thickness of 6 inches, using a scraper.

Production rate
Equipment = 615 Scraper
Capacity = 16 yd3
Average haul distance = 1000 ft
Cycle time
Cycles per hour = 13.33 cycles per minute
Correction factors
Load factor = 0.9
Job efficiency = 0.83
Eff. Load capacity = 14.4 yd3
Hourly production= 159.4 yd
Cost Rates
615 scraper = $100/hr
Operator = $ 40/hr

Using the above data, the following table estimates equipment and labor costs for applying top soil.


Acres Quantity (yd3) Hours Equipment Cost Labor Cost
Waste Rock 120 290400 1821 $182,100 $72,840
Roads 200 484000 3036 303600 121440
Ancillary Facilities 150 363000 2277 227700 91080
Leach Pads 125 302500 1897 189700 75880
Total Cost of Applying Top Soil $903,100 $361,240


Revegetation. Revegetation would consist of scarifying and preparing the ground for seeding. Drill seeding would be applied. Aspects of wildlife enhancement and wetlands reclamation would be included in revegetation.

Production rates
Equipment = 14-G Grader with scarifier
Scarifying width = 10 feet
Operating speed = 1.0 mph
Production rate = 1.0 hr/ac
Equipment = Small tractor and seed drill
Seeding width = 10 feet
Operating speed = 2.5 mph
Production rate = 0.33hr/ac
Travel length = 4356.0 ft/ac
Cost rates
Tractor and seed drill = $50/hr
14-G Grader = $80/hr
Operator - grader = $40/hr
Labor (2) = $27/ac

Seed Mixture
Species $/lb (PLS) Drilled rate Price/ac

Slender Wheatgrass $1.25/lb 3.0 lbs $3.75/ac
Western Wheatgrass $3.00/lb 2.0 lbs $6.00/ac
Fourwing Saltbrush $8.00/lb 1.0 lb $8.00/ac
Yellow Sweetclover $0.60/lb 0.5 lb $0.30/ac
Basin Wildrye $5.60/lb 1.0 lb $5.60/ac
Shadscale $6.50/lb 2.0 lbs $13.00/ac
Small Burnett $0.90/lb 2.0 lbs $1.80/ac
Thickspike Wheatgrass $8.25/lb 0.5 lb $4.15/ac
Prostrate Kochia $17.50/lb 0.25 lb $4.40/ac
Sainfoin $1.40/lb 2.0 lbs $2.80/ac
Sandberg Bluegrass $26.00/lb 0.25 lbs $13.00/ac
Total $56.30/ac

Using the above data, the following table estimates equipment and labor costs for reseeding.


Acres Hours Equipment Cost ($) Labor Cost ($)
Waste Rock 120 120 (grader)
39 (drill)
$9,600
1,950
6,756
$ 4,800
2,106
Roads 200 20066 16,000
3,300
11,260
8,000
3,564
Ancillary Facilities 150 15050 12,000
2,500
8,445
6,000
2,700
Leach pads 125 12541 10,000
2,050
7,038
5,000
2,214
Cost of Reseeding $90,899 $34,384


Chemical Stabilization. Chemical stabilization would involve neutralizing the cyanide content of the heap leach pads and processing facilities. Operating costs include any capital items such as pumps, piping, maintenance, and power. Costs for materials include the use of chemicals. The following figures were derived from submitted bond calculations and actual numbers from operations that have met closure. This reclamation involves heap flushing with water only. No other chemicals are added.

Removal of Structures. Structure removal would consist mainly of removing powerlines, process buildings, office trailers, maintenance shops, and high-density polyethylene pipelines used by the project. The model assumes that five workers would take 80 days to remove the facilities and bury the foundations.

Total Open Pit Costs.

Table E-18 lists total costs for the open pit mining model.
Table E-18. Open Pit Model Costs
Description of Activity Cost Item Unit Cost Total Cost
Permitting
Plan Preparation


EIS preparation








Bond Cost
Permitting Total

Environmental and Engineering Departments Several Weeks




Includes: Wetlands Study
Water-Related Reports
Restoration and Reclamation
Wildlife/Fisheries Studies
Vegetation/soil Report
Cultural Survey

Estimated Bond $2,891,842







$5,000 $200,000 $5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$20,000

2% for 10yrs

$10,000


600,000








578,363
1,188,368
Reclamation
Capital Cost
Operating Cost - Labor
Operating Cost - Equipment

Exploration Activity Total


14,000,000
10,368,000
1,382,400

$25,750,4 00
Reclamation:
Earth Work
Regrading
Equipment*:
Labor*:
Applying top soil
Equipment*: Labor*:
Revegetation
Equipment*


Labor*:
Total earth work and revegetation

Chemical Stabilization
Estimated 7,000,000 tons,
rinsing time 3 years

Total Chem. Stabilization

Structural removal
Equipment



Labor
Total Structural removal
Reclamation Total




D9N Dozer
operator

615 Scraper
operator

: 14-G Grader
Small Tractor and seed drill
Seed mixture
Grader operator
2 laborers



Operating Cost
Materials Cost
Labor: 2 people, 12 hours/day, 5 days/wks



2.5 ton truck for 80 days
Ho-lift equipment, 24ft boom-7.7mt lift
D9N Dozer for 2 days

5 person crew for 80 days at 8 hours/day



155/hr
40/hr

100/hr
40/hr

80/hr
50/hr
56.30/ac
40/hr
27/hr



0.07/ton
0.05/ton
27/hr



60/day
165/day
155/hr

27/hr



1,416,235
365,480

903,100
361,240


90,899

34,384

3,171,338


490,000
350,000
505,440
1,345,440




20,480

8,100
106,880
4,623,558
Total Cost of Open Pit Project $31,562,4 26

*See estimated time to complete task in information above.

Alternative 1: No Action

Costs would not change under Alternative 1 because the regulations would not change.

Alternative 2: State Management

Determining costs for Alternative 2 for all of the states in the EIS study area would not be practical for this exercise. Therefore, the following cost calculations assume that the state programs are based on current BLM regulations. A review of state programs reveals that they are similar in requirements for posting reclamation bonds, for surface and ground water, and for reclamation.

This analysis assumes that the state would require a submission of a Plan of Operations. The state would still require reclamation, the posting of bond, and monitoring for compliance, but not environmental review for such values as cultural, cave, and wildlife resources.

Permitting and Environmental Costs.

Plan of Operations Processing. The operator would have to submit a Plan of Operations to the state but not to BLM. The project would not undergo environmental review, and the operator would not pay for an environmental impact statement.

Reclamation Cost.

This analysis assumes that the state requires reclamation and that the company would have to reclaim any disturbance resulting from its operation. Reflecting general state programs, the purpose of reclamation would be only to stabilize soil and slopes. Therefore, this analysis assumes that the state would require only grasses for soil stability and that reclamation would not require restoring wildlife and fisheries habitat.

Seed Mixture

Species $/lb (PLS) Drilled rate Price/ac

Slender Wheatgrass $1.25/lb 3 lbs $3.75/ac
Western Wheatgrass $3.00/lb 2 lbs $6.00/ac
Basin Wildrye $5.60/lb 1 lb $5.60/ac
Thickspike Wheatgrass $8.25/lb 0.5 lb $4.15/ac
Sandberg Bluegrass $26.00/lb 0.25 $13.00/ac
Total $32.50/ac

The following cost calculations show the cost for the seed mixture under Alternative 2.

Waste Rock 120 acres $3,900.00
Roads 200 acres $6,500.00
Ancillary Facilities 150 acres $4,875.00
Leach pads 125 acres $4,062.50
Total $19,337.50

Total Estimated Cost Changes. Total cost savings for this open pit project under Alternative 2 are summarized in Table E-19.


Table E-19. Alternative 2 -- Changes in Costs for a Open Pit Project
Total Project Cost under Alternative 1 (Existing Regulations) $31,562,462
Change in Costs under Alternative 2 due to
Elimination of Environmental Review
Change in Seed cost
Total Change in Costs under Alternative 2

(600,000)
(14,161)
(614,161)
Total Project Cost under Alternative 2 (State Management) 30948300
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 2 - 2 %


Alternative 3: Proposed Action

Impacts to the industry under the Proposed Action would be slight because BLM and industry are generally following these procedures in authorizing operations and accepting final closure and reclamation.

Under the Proposed Action any operation within a mineral withdrawal area would have the additional cost in time and money of completing a validity exam of the claims. The additional cost to industry would involve bond cost, stabilizing the soil, and backfilling. Land use plans are assumed to conform to mineral activity.

Reclamation would not approach the soil stability design limit. Any steep slopes could have some erosion problems, but this model assumes that no additional cost of erosion control blankets would be incurred above erosion and sediment control structures.

The operation would have a small pit lake. This model assumes that ground water flows into the pit and that for environmental and economic reasons 25% of the pit would be backfilled and the pit lake would be covered. To offset the loss of habitat from the open pit, a 200-acre vegetation conversion would be completed with water developments.

Permitting and Environmental Costs.

Bonding. The Proposed Action would strengthen bonding to include bonding of Notice level operations at 100% of reclamation costs. Bonding would be used for reclaiming sites if operators could not meet their reclamation obligations.

This model assumes that the operator is purchasing an annuity bond and paying an insurance premium that would cost 2% of the bond amount, estimated at $4,623,558. The bond would be assessed on the estimated reclamation cost and for 10 years through mining and reclamation.

Validity Exams. This provision requires that a validity exam be conducted before BLM approves a Plan of Operations within an area withdrawn from the mining laws. These costs would remain the same as outlined for exploration under Alternative 3.

Reclamation Costs.

Backfilling. In placer and strip mines after processing, materials mined are normally placed in the mine opening at only minimal cost. Well-blasted rock, however, swells about 50% in volume, and not all material would be returned to the pit. The rest of the materials would have to be reshaped in place and reclaimed. For this operation the model assumes that only 25% of the material would need to be replaced into the pit. The pit would be only partially filled for economic or environmental reasons.

A study by BLM's Nevada State Office (BLM 1998d) on the economics of pit backfilling found that the cost of returning material to a pit ranged from $0.68 to $1/ton. This model uses the average of the figures as $0.75/ton.

The model assumes 7 millions tons of reserves and 14 million tons of overburden. Of this overburden only 25% or 3.5 million tons would be returned to the pit. The remaining waste rock would be placed in a waste rock dump built to conform to the 3:1 slope standard. The amount of material to be moved to complete the final contours would be 25% less than that moved under Alternative 1. Therefore, 10.5 million tons of material would be placed in waste rock dumps. The current model shows that 2.8 million tons of material would have to be recontoured. With 25% of this material removed and placed in the pit, only 2.1 million tons of material would need to be moved to recontour the waste rock dumps. The hourly production rate is 372 yd3/hr.

Cost Rates
Bulldozing (D9N) = $155/hr
Operator = $40/hr

Using the above data, the following table estimates equipment and labor costs for recontouring.


Acres Quantity (yd3) Time (hours) Equipment Cost Labor Cost
Waste Rock 120 2100000 5645 $874,975 $225,800
Roads* 200 250000 672 104160 26880
Ancillary Facilities 150 150000 403 62465 16120
Leach Pads 125 200000 536 83080 21440
Total for Recontouring $1,124,700 $290,200
*Assumption that ripping production is the same as blading work.

Total cost of recontouring work for Alternative 3 = $1,414,920

The cost under Alternative 1 would amount to $1,781,715, and the cost under Alternative 3 would be $1,414,920. Alternative 3 would thus save $366,795 over Alternative 1 by recontouring less material and returning more to the pit.

$2,625,000 for backfilling minus the cost saving of recontouring‹$366,795

For a total cost of backfilling operation at 25% = $2,258,205.

Total Estimated Cost Changes. Estimated cost changes for an open pit mine are summarized in Table E-20.


Table E-20. Alternative 3 -- Change in Costs for an Open Pit Project
Total Project Cost under Alternative 3 $31,562,426
Change in Costs under Alternative 3 due to
Bonding
Reclamation
Total Change in Costs under Alternative 3
364 7002258200
Total Project Costs under Alternative 3 34185326
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 3 8%
Change in Costs Assuming Validity Exam is Conducted
Change in Costs under Alternative 3 due to
Bonding
Reclamation
Validity Exam

364,700
2,258,200
10,000
Total Project Costs under Alternative 3 34195326
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 3 8%

Alternative 4: Maximum Protection

Alternative 4 would directly affect open pit mining through requirements for bonding, inspection and enforcement, backfilling, stabilizing soil, handling topsoil, and revegetation. The need for validity exams, bonding criteria, and fish and wildlife habitat and wetland protection could also affect open pit operations. Waste rock and road designs would be incorporated into the mine design and would not normally have a major economic cost. This model assumes no additional cost for road and slope stability design standards under Alternative 4.

The acid rock drainage testing would be completed during the environmental review. This model assumes that a kinetic test would be included in the review. No other tests would be run unless the potential for acid generation changes from the rock types tested.

For ease of analysis, water from the mine is assumed not to require long-term treatment. The cost of the different types of water treatment vary greatly. If water is treated, it would be difficult to determine if the treatment would stop in 20 years.

Permitting and Environmental Costs.

Bonding. Bonding under Alternative 4 would be as outlined for Alternative 3 but would include more money to cover potential unplanned environmental events, which could involve both processing chemicals and chemicals used in labs and for equipment maintenance (fuels and lubricants).

For open pit mines most spills that would involve more costs for major environmental problems would be petroleum spills. For this model any petroleum spill would be removed with the contaminated soils and trucked to an approved disposal site for treatment. This model assumes that the operator would build an oil treatment facility onsite to handle all spills from this operation. Because estimating the cost of each type of spill scenario would be difficult, this analysis assumes that $250,000 more would be assigned to the bond, placing the current estimated bond at $4,983,658.

The analysis again assumes that the operator is purchasing an annuity bond from an agency and would pay an insurance premium for the bond. This insurance would cost the operator 2% of the bond amount for 10 years through project operation and reclamation.

Inspections. Under Alternative 4 operators would have to hire third-party contractors to monitor their operations. Contractors would have to monitor operations quarterly and could complete inspections and prepare reports in a 10-hour day. Environmental samples would be taken during operations. These samples would be used for acid/base accounting to monitor the acid rock drainage potential and for the 31-element analysis of water quality areas throughout the mine. This model assumes costs from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection's Profile II analysis. These samples would be collected only to verify operator results.

Labor
40 hrs @ $50/hr/year for 10 years $20,000
(Davis and Bacon)

Lab work
Acid/Base accounting $33.08/sample @ 40 samples $1,323
Profile II $354.24/sample @ 40 samples $14,170

Total cost $35,493

Validity Exams. Under Alternative 4 validity exams would need to be conducted before BLM approves Plans of Operations. These costs would remain the same as outlined for exploration under Alternative 3.

Reclamation Costs.

Backfilling. In placer and strip mines, materials mined are normally placed in the mine opening after processing, and only minimal cost is involved. Well-blasted rock would swell about 50% in volume. The material would not go back completely into the pit. The rest must be reshaped in place and reclaimed.

A BLM Nevada State Office (BLM 1998d) study on the economics of pit backfilling found that the cost of returning material to a pit ranged from $0.68 to $1/ton. This model uses the average of the figures as $0.75/ton. The model assumes 7 millions tons of reserves and 14 million tons of overburden and that 75% of the material would be required to fill up the pit and 25% of the material would be placed in a waste rock dump. A total of 10.5 million tons of material would be placed in the pit and would cost $7,875,000.

The remaining waste rock would be placed in a waste rock dump. The dump would be built to conform to the 3:1 slope standard. The amount of material to be moved to complete the final contours‹175,000 tons‹would be 25% less than what would be moved under the Alternative 1 scenario. This analysis assumes that only 50 acres are now covered in waste rock dumps.

Hourly Production rate = 372 yd3/hr
Cost Rates
Bulldozing (D9N) = $155/hr
Operator = $40/hr

Using the above data, the following table estimates equipment and labor costs for backfilling.


Acres Quantity (yd3) Hours Equipment Cost Labor Cost
Waste Rock 50 175000 470 $72,850 $18,800
Roads* 200 250000 672 104160 26880
Ancillary Facilities 150 150000 403 62465 16120
Leach Pads 125 200000 536 83080 21440
Total Cost To Recontour $322,600 $83,200
*Assumption that ripping production is the same as blading work.

The cost of recontouring under Alternative 1 would amount to $1,781,715, and the cost of recontouring under Alternative 4 would amount to $405,800. Alternative 4 would save $1,375,920 in recontouring costs because less material would be recontoured and more would be returned to the pit.

$7,875,000 for backfilling minus the cost saving of recontouring‹$1,375,920

For a total cost of backfilling operation at 25% = $6,499,080.

Topsoil.
Under Alternative 4 the topsoil would be removed by soil horizons. Operations would remove the topsoil as under other alternatives, but increased travel time to stockpile sites would decrease the efficiency of the earth moving equipment by not allowing the blade to take as deep a cut as possible. But the increased travel times would not be so great as to double the time needed to remove topsoil.

Under the other alternatives earth moving equipment would mix the soil and colluvium together as it moves them in one or two passes. Under Alternative 4 the material would be removed to different locations on either side of the road or drill pads. The travel distance would remain the same, but the efficiencies of the equipment would decrease. Efficiencies were estimated from the Caterpillar Performance Handbook (Caterpillar Inc. 1996) as 0.83. For Alternative 4 the efficiency would be estimated at 0.75, about 1 hour more needed to complete the dirt work under the other alternatives.

Production rate
Equipment = 615 Scraper
Capacity = 16 yd3
Average haul distance = 1000 ft
Cycle time
Cycles per hour = 13.33 cycles per minute
Correction factors
Load factor = 0.9
Job efficiency = 0.75
Eff. Load capacity = 10.8 yd3
Hourly production= 144 yd3/hr
Cost Rates
615 scraper = $100/hr
Operator = $ 40/hr

Using the above data, the following table estimates equipment and labor costs of earthwork.


Acres Quantity (yd3) Hours Equipment Cost Labor Cost
Waste Rock 50 90750 630 $63,000 $25,200
Roads 200 484000 3361 336100 134440
Ancillary Facilities 150 363000 2520 252000 100800
Leach Pads 125 302500 2100 210000 84000
Total Cost for Earthwork $861,100 $344,500


Revegetation. Under Alternative 4 only native species would be used in revegetation. The open pit model outlines the seed mixture that would be used. All other aspects of seeding the exploration project would remain the same as under Alternative 1.

Seed Mixture (Mining Cost Service)

Species Amount
Sanberg Bluegrass 20%
Indian Rice Grass 20%
Blue Grama 20%
Thickspike Wheatgrass 10%
Sand Dropseed 10%
Blue Flax 10%
Purple Coneflower 5%
Prairie Coneflower 5%
Scarlet Globemallow 5%
Utah Sweet Vetch 5%
Total $9.50/lb @ 10lbs/ac $95/ac

Using the above data, the following table estimates equipment and labor costs of revegetation.


Acres Hours Equipment Cost Labor Cost
Waste Rock 50 50 grader
25 drill
$4,000
1,250
4,750
$2,000
1,350
Roads 200 20066 16000330019000 80003564
Ancillary Facilities 150 15050 12000250014250 60002700
Leach pads 125 12541 10000205011875 50002214
Total Revegetation Cost $100,975 $30,828


Soil Stability. To meet the stability standard for Alternative 4 other measures would need to be implemented. Any steep slopes could have some erosion control problems, but the added cost of erosion control blankets would be needed above standard erosion and sediment control structures. For analysis purposes the following acreage would need erosion control blankets: waste rock 20 acres, roads 20 acres, leach pads 20 acres, for a total of 80 acres. Erosion control blankets cost $0.45/yd2. For 80 acres @ 4840 yd2/acre, for a total of 287,200 yd2 to be covered, the total cost would amount to $174,240.

Fish and Wildlife. Under Alternative 4 within 10 years some areas of the mine might not return to the fish and wildlife habitat of premining status. Some offsite mitigation would be required to offset this loss. The common type of mitigation is vegetation manipulation. These types of actions take marginal habitat and change the vegetation to a more suitable habitat. Conversations with BLM biologists reveal that the average cost of such manipulation amounts to $1,000/acre. This analysis assumes that the pit and some of the haul roads would not be reclaimed within the 10 years and that 100 acres of vegetation would be manipulated at a cost of $100,000.

Wetlands. Alternative 4 would require that any wetlands would have to be restored within 10 years after a mine closes and is reclaimed. If this goal cannot be reached, then 1.5 times the amount of disturbed or lost land would need to be replaced. Reclamation is usually successful in restoring wetlands to proper functioning condition within 10 years. But open pit mines do remove wetlands in placing the pit or the waste rock dumps. This model assumes that 10 acres of wetlands would be lost to waste rock dumps.

The cost of offsite mitigation is estimated at the same cost as stream restoration under Alternative 4 of the placer mining model. For Alternative 4 the model assumes $2,500/acre (INTER-FLUVE, Inc. 1991), which is needed to meet the 10-year requirement for wetlands in properly functioning conditions. This analysis assumes stream restoration cost to be $2,500/acre for 15 acres for a total cost of $37,500.

Total Estimated Cost Changes. If the exploration operation is not within an area withdrawn for minerals, the project would incur the costs shown in Table E-21.


Table E-21. Alternative 4 -- Change in Costs for an Open Pit Project
Total Project Cost under Alternative 4: $31,562,426
Change in Costs under Alternative 4 Due To:
Bond Cost
Third Party Monitoring
Backfill Cost Minus Earthwork Cost
Applying Top Soil
Revegetation Cost
Soil Stabilization
Habitat Restoration
Validity Exam
Wetland Restoration

Total Change in Costs under Alternative 4:


418,400
35,500
6,499,080
(58,740)
6,520
174,240
100,000
10,000
37,500

7,215,980
Total Project Costs under Alternative 4: 38778400
Percent Change in Costs from Alternative 1 to Alternative 4: + 19%



Table E-22 outlines the change in cost and the percentage of change in cost between Alternative 1 and the others alternatives analyzed in this EIS.


Table E-22. Total Cost of Mine Models
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 % Change Alternative 3 % Change Alternative 4 % Change
Exploration $207,370 $206,200 -1 $207,500
300,000
0
+31
$319,300 35
Placer 1124400 1028500 0 1 1 7 1 3001174100 +4
+5
1275300 13
Strip Mining 2846700 2765200 -3 2 9 1 1 6002941600 +2
+3
3238700 12
Open Pit $31,562,462 $30,948,300 -2 34,185,300
$34,195,300
+8
+8
$38,778,400 19

APPENDIX F
PLANT AND ANIMAL LISTS





CONTENTS

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species161

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Fish and Wildlife Species
on BLM-Managed Lands170

Amphibians and Reptiles Designated as Sensitive Species by BLM State Offices180

Matrix of Regional Priority Bat Species Developed by the Bat Working Group (1998)181

Priority Bird Species in the Western U.S.184

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species
E= endangered, T = threatened, PE = proposed endangered, PT = proposed threatened, C = candidate

Alaska
E--Aleutian shield-fern (=Aleutian holly-fern) (Polystichum aleuticum)

Arizona
E -- Arizona agave (Agave arizonica)
E -- Kearney's blue-star (Amsonia kearneyana)
T -- Welsh's milkweed (Asclepias welshii)
E -- Sentry milk-vetch (Astragalus cremnophylax var. cremnophylax)
T -- Navajo sedge (Carex specuicola)
T -- Cochise pincushion cactus (Coryphantha (=Escobaria) robbinsorum)
E -- Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina)
T -- Jones cycladenia (Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii)
E -- Nichol's Turk's head cactus (Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii)
E -- Arizona hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus)
E -- Huachuca water-umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva)
E -- Brady pincushion cactus (Pediocactus bradyi)
E -- Peebles Navajo cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. peeblesianus)
T -- Siler pincushion cactus (Pediocactus sileri)
E -- Arizona cliffrose (Purshia subintegra)
T -- San Francisco Peaks groundsel (Senecio franciscanus)
E -- Canelo Hills ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes delitescens)
C -- Goodding's onion (Allium gooddingii)
C -- Holmgren milk-vetch (Astragalus holmgreniorum)
C -- Arizona bugbane (Cimicifuga arizonica)
C -- Arizona leatherflower (Clematis hirsutissima var. arizonica)
C -- Gentry's indigobush (Dalea tentaculoides)
C -- Acuna cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis)
C -- Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron lemmonii)
C -- Kaibab plains cactus (Pediocactus paradinei)
C -- Fickeisen plains cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae)
PE -- Parish's alkali grass (Puccinella parishii)
C -- Blumer's dock (Rumex orthoneurus)

California
E -- San Mateo thornmint (Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonii)
T -- San Diego thornmint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia)
E -- Mun's onion (Allium munzii)
E -- Sonoma alopecurus (Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis)
E -- Large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora)
E -- Hoffmann's rock-cress (Arabis hoffmannii)
E -- McDonald's rock-cress (Arabis mcdonaldiana)
T -- Morro manzanita (Arctostaphylos morroensis)
E -- Presidio (=Raven's) manzanita (Arctostaphylos hookeri var. ravenii)
E -- Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia)
E -- Santa Rosa Island manzanita (Arctostaphylos confertiflora)
T -- Pallid manzanita (Arctostaphylos pallida)
E -- Marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola)
T -- Bear Valley sandwort (Arenaria ursina)
E -- Cushenbury milk-vetch (Astragalus albens)
E -- Braunton's milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii)
E -- Clara Hunt's milk-vetch (Astragalus clarianus)
E -- Lane Mountain (=Coolgardie) milk-vetch (Astragalus jaegerianus)
E -- Coachella Valley milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae)
T -- Fish Slough milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. piscinensis)
T -- Peirson's milk-vetch (Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii)
E -- Coastal dunes milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. titi)
E -- Triple-ribbed milk-vetch (Astragalus tricarinatus)
E -- San Jacinto Valley crownscale (=saltbush) (Atriplex coronata var. notatior)
T -- Encinitis baccharis (=Coyote bush) (Baccharis vanessae)
E -- Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevinii)
E -- Island barberry (Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis)
E -- Truckee barberry (Berberis sonnei)
E -- Sonoma sunshine (=Baker's stickyseed) (Blennosperma bakeri)
T -- Thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia)
T -- Chinese Camp brodiaea (Brodiaea pallida)
T -- Tiburon mariposa lily (Calochortus tiburonensis)
T -- Mariposa pussypaws (Calyptridium pulchellum)
E -- Stebbins' morning-glory (Calystegia stebbinsii)
T -- San Benito evening-primrose (Camissonia benitensis)
E -- White sedge (Carex albida)
E -- Tiburon paintbrush (Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta)
T -- Fleshy owl's-clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta)
T -- Ash-gray paintbrush (Castilleja cinerea)
E -- San Clemente Island Indian paintbrush (Castilleja grisea)
E -- Soft-leaved paintbrush (Castilleja mollis)
E -- California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus)
E -- Coyote ceanothus (=Coyote Valley California-lilac) (Ceanothus ferrisae)
T -- Vail Lake ceanothus (Ceanothus ophiochilus)
E -- Pine Hill ceanothus (Ceanothus roderickii)
T -- Spring-loving centaury (Centaurium namophilum)
E -- Catalina Island mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus traskiae)
T -- Hoover's spurge (Chamaesyce hooveri)
E -- Howell's spineflower (Chorizanthe howellii)
E -- Orcutt's spineflower (Chorizanthe orcuttiana)
E --
Ben Lomond spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana)
T -- Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens)
E -- Robust spineflower (includes Scotts Valley spineflower) (Chorizanthe robusta)
E -- Sonoma spineflower (Chorizanthe valida)
E -- Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale obispoense)
E -- Fountain thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale)
E -- Suisun thistle (Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum)
E -- Presidio clarkia (Clarkia franciscana)
E -- Vine Hill clarkia (Clarkia imbricata)
E -- Pismo clarkia (Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata)
T -- Springville clarkia (Clarkia springvillensis)
E -- Salt marsh bird's-beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus)
E -- Palmate-bracted bird's-beak (Cordylanthus palmatus)
E -- Pennell's bird's-beak (Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris)
E -- Soft bird's-beak (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis)
E -- Santa Cruz cypress (Cupressus abramsiana)
T -- Gowen cypress (Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana)
E -- San Clemente Island larkspur (Delphinium variegatum ssp. kinkiense)
E -- Slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras)
T -- Conejo dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. parva)
T -- Marcescent dudleya (Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens)
T -- Santa Monica Mountains dudleya (Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia)
T -- Santa Cruz Island dudleya (Dudleya nesiotica)
E -- Santa Clara Valley dudleya (Dudleya setchellii)
T -- Laguna Beach liveforever (Dudleya stolonifera)
E -- Santa Barbara Island liveforever (Dudleya traskiae)
T -- Verity's dudleya (Dudleya verityi)
E -- Kern mallow (Eremalche kernensis)
E -- Santa Ana River woolly-star (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum)
T -- Hoover's woolly-star (Eriastrum hooveri)
T -- Parish's daisy (Erigeron parishii)
E -- Indian Knob mountain balm (Eriodictyon altissimum)
T -- Southern mountain wild-buckwheat (Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum)
E -- Cushenbury buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum)
E -- San Mateo woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum latilobum)
E -- San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii)
E -- Loch Lomond coyote-thistle (Eryngium constancei)
E -- Contra Costa wallflower (Erysimum capitatum var. angustatum)
E -- Menzies' wallflower (Erysimum menziesii)
E -- Ben Lomond wallflower (Erysimum teretifolium)
E -- Pine Hill flannelbush (Fremontodendron californicum ssp. decumbens)
E -- Mexican flannelbush (Fremontodendron mexicanum)
E -- Island bedstraw (Galium buxifolium)
E -- El Dorado bedstraw (Galium californicum ssp. sierrae)
E -- Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria)
E -- Hoffmann's slender-flowered gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii)
T -- Ash Meadows gumplant (Grindelia fraxino-pratensis)
T -- Island rush-rose (Helianthemum greenei)
T -- Otay tarplant (Hemizonia conjugens)
T -- Marin dwarf-flax (Hesperolinon congestum)
T -- Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis)
E -- Burke's goldfields (Lasthenia burkei)
E -- Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens)
E -- Beach layia (Layia carnosa)
E -- San Joaquin wooly-threads (Lembertia congdonii)
E -- San Bernardino Mountains bladderpod (Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina)
E -- San Francisco lessingia (Lessingia germanorum (=L. g. var. germanorum)
E -- Western lily (Lilium occidental)
E -- Pitkin Marsh lily (Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense)
E -- Butte County meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica)
E -- Sebastopol meadowfoam (Limnanthes vinculans)
E -- San Clemente Island woodland-star (Lithophragma maximum)
E -- San Clemente Island broom (Lotus dendroideus ssp. traskiae)
E -- Clover lupine (Lupinus tidestromii)
E -- San Clemente Island bush-mallow (Malacothamnus clementinus)
E -- Santa Cruz Island bush-mallow (Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. nesioticus)
E -- Santa Cruz Island malocothrix (Malacothrix indecora)
E -- Island malacothrix (Malacothrix squalida)
E -- Willowy monardella (Monardella linoides ssp. viminea)
T -- Navarretia, spreading (=prostrate, =no-named) (Navarretia fossalis)
E -- Navarretia, few-flowered (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora (=N. pauciflora))
E -- Navarretia, many-flowered (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha)
T -- Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana)
E -- Amargosa niterwort (Nitrophila mohavensis)
E -- Eureka Valley evening-primrose (Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis)
E -- Antioch Dunes evening-primrose (Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii)
E -- Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia treleasei)
E -- California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica)
T -- San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis)
E -- Hairy (=pilose) Orcutt grass (Orcuttia pilosa)
T -- Slender Orcutt grass (Orcuttia tenuis)
E -- Sacramento Orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida)
E -- Cushenbury oxytheca (Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana)
E -- Lake County stonecrop (Parvisedum leiocarpum)
E -- White-rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta bellidiflora)
E -- Lyon's pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii)
E -- Island phacelia (Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis)
E -- Yadon's piperia (Piperia yadonii)
E -- Calistoga allocarya (Plagiobothrys strictus)
E -- San Bernardino bluegrass (Poa atropurpurea)
E -- Napa bluegrass (Poa napensis)
E -- San Diego mesa mint (Pogogyne abramsii)
E -- Otay mesa mint (Pogogyne nudiuscula)
E -- Hickman's potentilla (Potentilla hickmanii)
E -- Hartweg's golden sunburst (Pseudobahia bahiifolia)
T -- San Joaquin adobe sunburst (Pseudobahia peirsonii)
E -- Gambel's watercress (Rorippa gambellii)
T -- Layn's butterweed (Senecio layneae)
E -- Santa Cruz Island rockcress (Sibara filifolia)
E -- Kenwood Marsh checker-mallow (Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida)
E -- Pedate checker-mallow (Sidalcea pedata)
E -- Metcalf Canyon jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus)
E -- Tiburon jewelflower (Streptanthus niger)
E -- California seablite (Suaeda californica)
E -- Eureka Dune grass (Swallenia alexandrae)
E -- California taraxacum (Taraxacum californicum)
E -- Slender-petaled mustard (Thelypodium stenopetalum)
T -- Hidden Lake bluecurls (Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum)
E -- Showy Indian clover (Trifolium amoenum)
E -- Monterey (=Del Monte) clover (Trifolium trichocalyx)
E -- Greene's orcutt grass (Tuctoria greenei)
E -- Solano grass (Tuctoria mucronata)
T -- Red Hills vervain (Verbena californica)
T -- Big-leaved crownbeard (Verbesina dissita)
C -- Ramshaw Meadows sand-verbena (Abronia alpina)
PE -- San Diego thornmint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia)
PE -- Munz's onion (Allium munzii)
PT -- Rawhide Hill onion (Allium tuolumnense)
PE -- Sonoma alopecurus (Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis)
PT -- Johnston's rock-cress (Arabis johnstonii)
PT -- lone manzanita (Arctostaphylos myrtifolia)
PT -- Pallid manzanita (Arctostaphylos pallida)
PT - Bear Valley sandwort (Arenaria ursina)
PE - Clara Hunt's milk-vetch (Astragalus clarianus)
PE - Lane Mountain milk-vetch (Astragalus jaegerianus)
PE - Coachella Valley milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae)
PT - Shining milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. micans)
PE - Fish Slough milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. piscinensis)
PT - Sodaville milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. sesquimetralis)
PE - Peirson's milk-vetch (Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii)
PE - Coastal dunes milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. titi)
PE - Triple-ribbed milk-vetch (Astragalus tricarinatus)
PE - San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior)
PE - Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevinii)
PT - Thread-leaf brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia)
PE - Chinese Camp brodiaea (Brodiaea pallida)
PE -- Mariposa pussy-paws (Calyptridium pulchellum)
PE -- White sedge (Carex albida)
PT -- Carpenteria (Carpenteria californica)
PT -- Ash-gray paintbrush (Castilleja cinerea)
PT -- Vail Lake ceanothus (Ceanothus ophiochilus)
C -- Purple amole (Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum)
C -- Camatta Canyon amole (Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum)
PE -- Suisun thistle (Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum)
C -- La Graciosa thistle (Cirsium loncholepis)
PE -- Vine Hill clarkia (Clarkia imbricata)
PT -- Springville clarkia (Clarkia springvillensis)
PE -- Soft bird's-beak (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis)
PE -- Baker's larkspur (Delphinium bakeri)
PE -- Yellow larkspur (Delphinium luteum)
PE -- Laguna Beach liveforever (Dudleya stolonifera)
C -- Lompoc yerba santa (Eriodictyon capitatum)
PE -- lone buckwheat (Eriogonum apricum (incl. vars. apricum and prostratum)
C -- Red Mountain buckwheat (Eriogonum kelloggii)
PE -- Southern Mountain wild buckwheat (Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum)
PE -- Mexican flannelbush (Fremontondendron mexicanum)
PT -- Greenhorn adobe-lily (Fritillaria striata)
PE -- Otay tarplant (Hemizonia conjugens)
C -- Gaviota tarplant (Hemizonia increscens ssp. villosa)
C -- Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia)
C -- Two-flowered lathyrus (Lathyrus biflorus)
PE -- Pitkin Marsh lily (Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense)
PE -- Mariposa lupine (Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus)
C -- Nipomo Mesa lupine (Lupinus nipomensis)
PE -- Kelso Creek monkey-flower (Mimulus shevockii)
PE -- Willowy monardella (Monardellla linoides ssp. viminea)
PT -- Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis)
PT -- Piute Mountains navarretia (Navarretia setiloba)
PT -- Dehesa bear grass (Nolina interrata)
C -- Yreka phlox (Phlox hirsuta)
PE -- Yardon's piperia (Piperia yadonii)
PE -- Calistoga allocarya (Plagiobothrys strictus)
PE -- San Bernadino bluegrass (Poa atropurpurea)
PE -- Napa bluegrass (Poa Napensis)
PE -- Hickman's potentilla (Potentilla hickmanii)
PE -- Parish's alkali grass (Puccinella parishii)
C -- Red Mountain stonecrop (Sedum eastwoodiae)
C -- Parish's checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. parishii)
PE -- Keck's checkermallow (Sidalcea keckii)
PE -- Kenwood Marsh checkermallow (Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida)
C -- Red Mountain catchfly (Silene campanulata ssp. campanulata)
PE -- California dandeloin (Taraxacum californicum)
C -- Kneeland Prairie penny-cress (Thlaspi californicum)
PT -- Hidden Lake bluecurls (Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum)
PE -- Showy Indian clover (Trifolium amoenum)
PE -- Monterey clover (Trifolium trichocalyx)
PT -- Red Hills vervain (Verbena californica)
PT -- Gowen cypress (Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana)

Colorado
E -- Mancos milk-vetch (Astragalus humillimus)
E -- Osterhout milk-vetch (Astragalus osterhoutii)
E -- Clay-loving wild-buckwheat (Eriogonum pelinophilum)
T -- Penland alpine fen mustard (Eutrema penlandii)
T -- Dudley Bluffs bladderpod (Lesquerella congesta)
E -- Knowlton cactus (Pediocactus knowltonii)
E -- Penland beardtongue (Penstemon penlandii)
E -- North Park phacelia (Phacelia formosula)
T -- Dudley Bluffs twinpod (Physaria obcordata)
T -- Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus)
T -- Mesa Verde cactus (Sclerocactus mesae-verdae)
T -- Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)
C - Sleeping Ute milk-vetch (Astragalus tortipes)
C -- Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis)
C -- Parachute beardtongue (Penstemon debilis)
C -- Graham beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii)
C -- White River beardtongue (Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvus)
C -- DeBeque phacelia (Phacelia submutica)

Idaho

T -- Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis)
T -- MacFarlane's four-o'clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei)
T -- Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)
C -- Christ's paintbrush (Castilleja christii)

Nevada
T -- Ash Meadows milk-vetch (Astragalus phoenix)
T -- Spring-loving centaury (Centaurium namophilum)
T -- Ash Meadows sunray (Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata)
E -- Steamboat buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium var. williamsiae)
T -- Ash Meadows gumplant (Grindelia fraxino-pratensis)
T -- Ash Meadows ivesia (Ivesia kingii var. eremica)
T -- Ash Meadows blazing-star (Mentzelia leucophylla)
E -- Amargosa niterwort (Nitrophila mohavensis)
PT - Sodaville milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. sesquimetralis)
C - Clokey's egg-vetch (Astragalus oophorus var. clokeyanus)
C -- Sulphur Springs buckwheat (Eriogonum argophyllum)
C -- Blue Diamond cholla (Opuntia whipplei var. multigeniculata)


Montana
T -- Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis)
T -- Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)

New Mexico
E -- Sacramento prickly-poppy (Argemone pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisecta)
E -- Mancos milk-vetch (Astragalus humillimus)
T -- Sacramento Mountains thistle (Cirsium vinaceum)
T -- Lee pincushion cactus (Coryphantha sneedii var. leei)
E -- Sneed pincushion cactus (Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii)
E -- Kuenzler hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri)
E -- Lloyd's hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus lloydii)
T -- Lloyd's Mariposa cactus (Echinomastus (= Sclerocactus) mariposensis)
T -- Zuni (=rhizome) fleabane (Erigeron rhizomatus)
T -- Gypsum wild-buckwheat (Eriogonum gypsophilum)
E -- Todsen's pennyroyal (Hedeoma todsenii)
E -- Holy Ghost ipomopsis (Ipomopsis sancti-spiritus)
E -- Knowlton cactus (Pediocactus knowltonii)
T -- Mesa Verde cactus (Sclerocactus mesae-verdae)
C -- Goodding's onion (Allium gooddingii)
C -- Puzzle sunflower (Helianthus paradoxus)
PE -- Parish's alkali grass (Puccinella parishii)

Oregon

E -- Marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola)
E -- Applegate's milk-vetch (Astragalus applegatei)
T -- Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta)
T -- Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis)
E -- Western lily (Lilium occidental)
E -- Bradshaw's desert-parsley (=lomatium) (Lomatium bradshawii)
T -- MacFarlane's four-o'clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei)
T -- Nelson's checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana)
E -- Malheur wire-lettuce (Stephanomeria malheurensis)
C -- Umpqua mariposa lily (Calochortus umpquaensis)
C -- Willamette daisy (Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens)
C -- Gentner's fritillaria (Fritillaria gentneri)
C -- Large-flowered wooly meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. grandiflora)
C -- Cook's lomatium (Lomatium cookii)
C -- Rough popcornflower (Plagiobothrys hirtus)
C -- Howell's spectacular thelpody (Thelypodium howelii var. spectabilis)

Utah
E -- Dwarf bear-poppy (Arctomecon humilis)
T -- Welsh's milkweed (Asclepias welshii)
T -- Heliotrope milk-vetch (Astragalus montii)
T -- Navajo sedge (Carex specuicola)
T -- Jones cycladenia (Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii)
T -- Maguire daisy (Erigeron maguirei)
E -- Barneby ridge-cress (=peppercress) (Lepidium barnebyanum)
E -- Kodachrome bladderpod (Lesquerella tumulosa)
E -- San Rafael cactus (Pediocactus despainii)
T -- Siler pincushion cactus (Pediocactus sileri)
T -- Winkler cactus (Pediocactus winkleri)
E -- Clay phacelia (Phacelia argillacea)
T -- Maguire primrose (Primula maguirei)
E -- Autumn buttercup (Ranunculus acriformis var. aestivalis)
T -- Clay reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea)
E -- Barneby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe barnebyi)
E -- Shrubby reed-mustard (=toad-flax cress) (Schoenocrambe suffrutescens)
T -- Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus)
E -- Wright fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus wrightiae)
T -- Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)
T -- Last Chance townsendia (Townsendia aprica)
C - Deseret milk-vetch (Astragalus desereticus)
C - Horseshoe milk-vetch (Astragalus equisolensis)
C - Shem milk-vetch (Astragalus eremiticus var.ampullariodes)
C - Holmgren milk-vetch (Astragalus holmgreniorum)
C -- Aquarius paintbrush (Castilleja aquariensis)
C -- Wonderland alice-flower (Gilia caespitosa)
PE -- Winkler cactus (Pediocactus winkleri)
C -- Graham beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii)
C -- White River beardtongue (Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvus)

Washington
E -- Marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola)
T -- Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta)
T -- Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis)
E -- Bradshaw's desert-parsley (=lomatium) (Lomatium bradshawii)
T -- Nelson's checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana)
T -- Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)
C -- Basalt daisy (Erigeron basalticus)
PE --Wenatchee Mountains checkermallow (Sidalcea oregana ssp. calva)

Wyoming
T -- Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)
C -- Small rock-cress (Arabis pusilla)
C -- Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis)
C -- Desert yellowhead (Yermo xanthocephalus)

TYPE COMMON NAME GENUS, SPECIES STATUS
Amphibians Boreal toad Bufo boreas boreas C
California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii FT
California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense C
Chiricahua leopard frog Rana chiricahuensis C
Columbia Frog (East and West) Rana luteiventris C
Desert slender salamander Batrachoseps aridis FE
Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa C
Sonora tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi FE
Wyoming toad Bufo hemiophrys baxteri FE
Birds Aleutian Canada goose Branta canadensis leucopareia FT
American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FE
Audubon's crested caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii FT
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT
Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis FE
Cactus ferrunginous pygmy-owl Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum FE
California condor Gymnogyps californianus FE
Coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica FT
Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis FE
Florida scrub jay Aphelocoma coerulescens FT
Inyo California (brown) towhee Pipilo crissalis eremophilus FT
Least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE
TYPE COMMON NAME GENUS, SPECIES STATUS
Least tern Sterna antillarum FE
Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus FT
Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida FT
Birds Mountain plover Charadrius montanus C
Northern aplomado falcon Falco femoralis septentrionalis FE
Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina FT
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus FE
Piping plover Charadrius melodus FE/FT
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis FE
Short-tailed albatross Diomedea albatrus FE
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE
Spectacled eider Somateria fischeri FT
Steller's eider Polystricta stelleri FT
Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus FT
Whooping Crane Grus americana FE
Wood stork Mycteria americana FE
Yuma clapper rail Rallus longirostris yumaensis FE
Crustaceans Conservancy fairy shrimp Branchinecta conservatio FE
Illinois cave amphipod Gammarus acherondytes PE
Socorro isopod Exosphaeroma thermophilus FE
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi FE
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Brachinecta lynchi FT
Fish Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus C
TYPE COMMON NAME GENUS, SPECIES STATUS
Arkansas darter Etheostoma cragini C
Arkansas river shiner Notropis girardi PE
Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes FE
Ash Meadows speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis FE
Beautiful shiner Cyprinella formosa FT
Big Spring spinedace Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis FT
Fish Bonytail chub Gila elegans FE
Borax Lake Chub Gila boraxobius FE
Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus PT/PE
Chihuahua chub Gila nigrescens FT
Clover Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus FE
Coho salmon (Oregon) Oncorhynchus kisutch FT
Coho salmon (Central CA) Oncorhynchus kisutch FT
Colorado squawfish Ptychocheilus lucius FE
Cowhead Lake tui chub Gila bicolor vaccaceps C
Cui-ui Chasmistes cujus FE
Desert dace Eremichthys acros FT
Desert pupfish Cyprinodon macularius FE
Devil's Hole pupfish Cyprinodon diabolis FE
Fall chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FT
Foskett speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus spp. 3 FT
Gila chub Gila intermedia C
Gila trout Oncoryhnchus gilae FE
Gila topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis FE
TYPE COMMON NAME GENUS, SPECIES STATUS
Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias FT
Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi FT
Hiko White River springfish Crenichthys baileyi grandis FE
Humpback chub Gila cypha FE
Hutton tui chub Gila bicolor spp. 1 FT
Independence Valley speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus FE
June sucker Chasmistes liorus FE
Fish Kendall Warm Springs dace Rhinichthys osculus thermalis FE
Kootenai River white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus FE
Lahontan cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi FT
Least chub Lotichthys phlegethontis PE
Little Colorado spinedace Lepidomeda vittata FT
Loach minnow Rhinichthys (Tiaroga) cobitis FT
Lost River sucker Deltistes (Catostomus) luxatus FE
Moapa dace Moapa coriacea FE
Modoc sucker Catostomus microps FE
Mohave tui chub Gila bicolor mohavensis FE
Nevada speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis FE
Okaloosa darter Etheostoma okaloosae FE
Oregon chub Oregonichtys (Hybopsis) crameri FE
Owens pupfish Cyprinodon radiosus FE
Owens tui chub Gila bicolor snyderi FE
TYPE COMMON NAME GENUS, SPECIES STATUS
Pahranagat roundtail chub Gila robusta jordani FE
Pahrump killifish Empetrichthys latos FE
Paiute cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris FT
Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus FE
Pecos bluntnose shiner Notropis simus pecosensis FT
Pecos gambusia Gambusia nobilis FE
Pecos pupfish Cyprinodon pecosensis PE
Railroad Valley springfish Crenichthys nevadae FT
Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus FE
Rio Grande silvery minnow Hybognathus amarus FE
Shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris FE
Fish Sicklefin chub Macrhybopsis meeki C
Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka FE
Sonora chub Gila ditaenia FT
Spikedace Meda fulgida FT
Spring/summer chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tschawytscha FT
Steelhead trout Oncorhynchus mykiss FE/FT
Sturgeon chub Macrhybopsis gelida C
Umpqua River cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki clarki FE
Unarmored three-spine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni FE
Virgin River chub Gila robusta seminuda FE
Warm Springs Amargosa pupfish Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis FE
Warner sucker Catostomus warnerensis FT
White River spinedace Lepidomeda albivallis FE
TYPE COMMON NAME GENUS, SPECIES STATUS
White River springfish Crenichthys baileyi baileyi FE
Winter-run Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tschawytscha FE
Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus FE
Yaqui catfish Ictalurus pricei FT
Yaqui chub Gila purpurea FE
Yaqui topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis sonoriensis FE
Insects and Arthropods American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus FE
Ash Meadows naucorid bug Ambrysus amargosus FT
Coral pink sand dunes tiger beetle Cicindela limbata albissima C
Delta sands flower loving fly Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis FE
Fender's blue butterfly Icaricia icarioides fenderi PE
Holsinger's cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus holsingeri C
Insects and Arthropods Karner blue butterfly Lycaeides melissa samuelis FE
Kern primrose sphinx moth Euproserpinus euterpe FT
Kincaid's lupine Lupinus sulphureus ssp. Kincaidii PT
Oregon's silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta FT
Pawnee montane skipper Hesperia leonardus montana FT
Uncomphagre fritillary butterfly Boloria acrocnema FE
TYPE COMMON NAME GENUS, SPECIES STATUS
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus FT
Mammals Alabama beach mouse Peromyscus polionotus ammobates FE
Amargosa vole Microtus californicus scirpensis FE
Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes FE
Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus FE
Chocawhatchee beach mouse Peromyscus polionotus allophrys FE
Columbian white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus leucurus FE
Finback whale Balaenoptera physalus FE
Florida black bear Ursus americanus floridanus C
Florida panther Felis concolor coryi FE
Fresno kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis FE
Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens FE
Gray bat Myotis grisescens FE
Gray whale Eschrichtius robustus FE
Gray wolf Canis lupis FE
Grizzly (brown) bear Ursus arctos FT
Hualapai Mexican vole Microtus mexicanus hualapaiensis FE
Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae FE
Idaho ground squirrel Spermophilus brunneus PT
Mammals Indiana bat Myotis sodalis FE
Jaguar Panthera onca FE
Jaguarundi Felis yagouaroundi FE
Lesser long-nosed bat Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae FE
TYPE COMMON NAME GENUS, SPECIES STATUS
Lower Keys marsh rabbit Sylvalagus palustirs hefneri FE
Manatee (West Indian) Trichechus manatus FE
Mexican gray wolf Canis lupus baileyi FE
Mexican long-nosed bat Leptonycteris nivalis FE
North American wolverine Gulo gulo luscus C
North American lynx Lynx canadensis C
Ocelot Felis pardalis FE
Perdido Key beach mouse Peromyscus polioonotus trissyllepsis FE
Peninsular bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis cremnobates FE
Peninsular pronghorn Antilocapra americana peninsularis FE
Right whale Balaena glacialis FE
Saint Andrew's beach mouse Peromyscus polionotus penninsularis PE
San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica FE
San Joaquin Valley woodrat Neotoma fuscipes riparia PE
Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis FE
Silver rice rat palustris natator FE
Sonoron pronghorn Antilocapra americana sonoriensis FE
Southern sea otter Enhydra lutris nereis FT
Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus FE
Steller (Northern) sea lion Eumetopias jubatus FT
Stephen's kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FE
Swift fox Vulpes velox C
TYPE COMMON NAME GENUS, SPECIES STATUS
Tipton kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides FE
Utah prairie dog Cynomys parvidens FT
Woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou FE
Reptiles American alligator Alligator mississippiensis FT
Black legless lizard Anniella pulchra nigra PE
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia silus FE
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii FT
Coachella Valley fringe toed lizard Uma inornata FT
Desert tortoise (Mojave) Gopherus agassizii FT
Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi FT
Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas FT
Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus FT
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas FE/FT
Lake Erie water snake Nerodia sipedon insularum PT
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriaccea FE
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta FT
New Mexican ridge nosed rattlesnake Crotalus willardi obscurus FT
Northern copperbelly water snake Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta FT
Olive-Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea FT
Wyoming toad Bufo hemiophyrs baxteri FE
Mussels and Snails Alamosa springsnail Tryonia alamosae FE
Banbury Springs limpet Lanx spp. FE
Bliss Rapids snail Taylorconcha serpenticola FT
Bruneau Hot Springsnail Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis FE
TYPE COMMON NAME GENUS, SPECIES STATUS
Mussels and Snails Cave snail Antrobia culveri C
Chipola slabshell Elliptio chipolaensis FT
Chupadera springsnail Prygulopsis chupaderae C
Clubshell mussel Pleuobema clava FE
Cumberland elktoe Alasmindonta atropurpurea FE
Cumberlandian combshell Epioblasma brevidans FE
Cylindrical lioplax Lioplax cyclostomaformis PE
Fat three ridge mussel Amblema meislerii FE
Fat-whorled pondsnail Stagnicola bonnevillensis C
Flat pebblesnail Lepyrium showalteri PE
Gila springsnail Prygulopsis gilae C
Gulf moccainshell Medionidus penicillatus FE
Huachuca springsnail Pyrgulopsis thompsoni C
Idaho springsnail Fontelicella idahoensis FE
Kanab ambersnail Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis FE
Koster's tryonia Tryonia kosteri C
Lacy elimia Elimia crenatella PT
New Mexico hotspringsnail Prygulopsis thermalis C
Ochckonee moccainshell Medionidus simpsonianus FE
Ogden Deseret mountainsnail Oreohelix peripherica wasatchensis C
Oval pigtoe Pleurobema pyeiforme FE
Oyster mussel Epionlasma capsaeformis FE
Page springsnail Pyrgulopsis morrisoni C
Painted rocksnail Leptoxis taeniata PT
Pecos assiminea snail Assiminea pecos C
TYPE COMMON NAME GENUS, SPECIES STATUS
Mussels and Snails Plicate rocksnail Leptoxis plicata PE
Purple bankclimber Elliptoideus sloatianus FT
Purple bean Villosa perpurpurea FE
Roswell springsnail Prygulopsis roswellensis C
Rough rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica strigillata FE
Round rocksnail Leptoxis ampla PT
San Xavier talussnail Sonorella eremita PE
Shiny-rayed pocketbook Lampsilis subangulata FE
Snake River physa snail Physa natricina FE
Socorro springsnail Prygulopsis neomexicana FE
Utah valvata snail Valvata utahensis FE
Wet Canyon talussnail Sonorella macrophallus C

Amphibians and Reptiles Designated as Sensitive Species by BLM State Offices


Amargosa toad Glen Canyon chuckwalla Ringneck snake
Arizona toad Gray-checkered whiptail Rosy boa
Arizona skink Great Plains rat snake Sacramento Mountain salamander
Banded Gila monster Jemez Mountain salamander Smooth green snake
Blanchard's cricket frog Larch Mountain salamander Snapping turtle
California king snake Longnose leopard lizard Sonora lyre snake
Canadian toad Lowland leopard frog Sonora tiger salamander
Canyon spotted whiptail Massasauga Southern torrent salamander
Canyon whiptail Mexican garter snake Southwestern black snake
Cascades frog Midget-faded rattlesnake Southwestern speckled rattlesnake
Chuckwalla Milk snake Spiny softshell turtle
Coeur d'Alene salamander Mojave black-collard lizard Spotted frog
Collard lizard (Mojave black) Mojave Desert sidewinder Tailed frog
Common kingsnake Mojave patch-nosed snake Tarahumara frog
Cowles fringe-toed lizard Narrow-headed garter snake Texas horned lizard
Desert night lizard Narrowhead garter snake Utah banded gecko
Desert spiny lizard Northern leopard frog Utah blind snake
Desert iguana Northern red-legged frog Utah milk snake
Desert tortoise (Sonoran Desert) Northern sagebrush lizard Utah mountain king snake
Desert glossy snake Northwestern pond turtle Western toad
Desert horned lizard Pacific chorus frog Western chuckwalla
Dunes sagebrush lizard Painted Desert glossy snake Western ground snake
Eastern short-horned lizard Plains leopard frog Wood frog
Flat-tailed horned lizard Plateau striped whiptail




Matrix of Regional Priority Bat Species Developed by the Bat Working Group (1998)
Species Region 1 Region 2 Regions 3, 4, 9, 10 Region 5 Region 6 Regions 7, 8
MULTIPLE HABITAT BATS
Southwestern myotis M
California myotis L M L L M L
Western small-footed myotis P M L M M M
Long-eared myotis M M L M M M
Keen's myotis H
Little brown bat L L L M M M
Arizona myotis M
Northern myotis L
Fringed myotis H H M H H M
Long-legged myotis M M L H L M
Yuma myotis L M L L M L
Big brown bat L L L L L L
Lappet-eared bat H H
Pallid bat H M L H M L
Mexican free-tailed bat L L L M L
TREE-ROOSTING BATS
Western red bat H H H
Eastern red bat L
Hoary bat M M M M M M
Western yellow bat H H
Silver-haired bat M M M M M M
H = high priority; M = medium priority; L = low priority; P = periphery (species on the edge of its range).
Matrix of Regional Priority Bat Species Developed by the Bat Working Group (1998)
Species Region 1 Region 2 Regions 3, 4, 9, 10 Region 5 Region 6 Regions 7, 8
CLIFF-ROOSTING BATS
Western pipestrelle P L L L M L
Spotted bat P H M H H M
Pocketed free-tailed bat M M
Big free-tailed bat L M H M
Western mastiff bat H H M
Underwood's mastiff bat M
CAVE-ROOSTING BATS
Ghost-faced bat M
California leaf-nosed bat H H
Mexican long-tongued bat M H
Lesser long-nosed bat H
Big long-nosed bat H
Cave myotis L M
Townsend's big-eared bat H H H H H H
H = high priority; M = medium priority; L = low priority; P = periphery (species on the edge of its range).

Map of Regions used by Bat Working Group Partners In Flight Western Working Group Group
Priority Bird Species in the Western U.S.
177 species on the list of one or more, e.g. (3) states

10 October 1997

Abert's Towhee
American Pipit
American Redstart
American Bittern
Aplomado Falcon
Arctic Warbler
Baird's Sparrow (3)
Bald Eagle (3)
Band-tailed Pigeon (3)
Bank Swallow (3)
Bell's Vireo (5)
Belted Kingfisher
Bendire's Thrasher (2)
Black-billed Cuckoo
Black-throated Gray Warbler (5)
Black Swift (5)
Black Rail
Black Tern (2)
Black-throated Sparrow (2)
Black-backed Woodpecker
Black-chinned Sparrow
Black-shouldered Kite
Blackpoll Warbler
Blue Grosbeak (2)
Blue Grouse
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Blue-throated Hummingbird
Bobolink (2)
Bohemian Waxwing
Boreal Owl (2)
Botteri's Sparrow (2)
Brewer's Sparrow (7)
Broad-billed Hummingbird
Brown Pelican (California)
Brown-capped Rosy Finch
Brown Creeper
Buff-breasted Flycatcher
Burrowing Owl (8)
Caspian Tern
Cassin's Sparrow (2)
Cassin's Vireo
Chestnut-collared Longspur (3)
Chestnut-backed Chickadee
Chipping Sparrow
Common Yellowthroat (2)
Common Ground Dove
Common Black-Hawk (2)
Common Tern
Cooper's Hawk (2)
Cordilleran Flycatcher (4)
Costa's Hummingbird
Dickcissel
Eastern Bluebird
Elegant Trogon (2)
Elf Owl
Ferruginous Hawk (10)
Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl
Flammulated Owl (2)
Forster's Tern
Franklin's Gull
Gila Woodpecker
Golden-crowned Kinglet (2)
Golden Eagle
Grace's Warbler (4)
Grasshopper Sparrow (4)
Gray Catbird (2)
Gray Flycatcher (6)
Gray Hawk
Gray Vireo (6)
Gray-cheeked Thrush
Greater Pewee
Greater Prairie-Chicken
Green-tailed Towhee
Gyrfalcon
Hammond's Flycatcher (6)
Harlequin Duck
Harris' Hawk
Hermit Warbler
Hooded Oriole
Lark Bunting (3)
Le Conte's Thrasher (2)
Least Flycatcher
Least Tern (4)
Lesser Prairie-Chicken (2)
Lewis' Woodpecker (5)
Lincoln's Sparrow
Loggerhead Shrike (6)
Long-billed Curlew (7)
Long-eared Owl (2)
Lucifer Hummingbird
Lucy's Warbler (4)
MacGillivray's Warbler (7)
Marsh Wren
McCown's Longspur (3)
McKay's Bunting
Montezuma Quail
Mountain Plover (5)
Mountain Bluebird
Northern Beardless-Tyrannulet
Northern Goshawk (6)
Northern Harrier
Northern Shrike
Northern Waterthrush
Northwestern Crow
Olive-sided Flycatcher (11)
Olive Warbler
Orange-crowned Warbler
Orchard Oriole
Osprey
Pacific-slope Flycatcher
Painted Bunting
Peregrine Falcon (3)
Phainopepla
Pileated Woodpecker
Pinyon Jay
Piping Plover (2)
Prairie Falcon
Purple Martin (2)
Red-breasted Sapsucker
Red-eyed Vireo (2)
Red-naped Sapsucker (5)
Red-faced Warbler (2)
Red-headed Woodpecker
Red-shouldered Hawk
Rock Wren
Rufous Hummingbird (3)
Rufous-winged Sparrow
Rusty Blackbird
Sage Grouse (2)
Sage Sparrow (7)
Sage Thrasher (2)
Sandhill Crane (2)
Savannah Sparrow (2)
Scott's Oriole (2)
Sharp-shinned Hawk Sharp-tailed Grouse (Columbian)
Short-eared Owl (2)
Siberian Tit
Smith's Longspur
Snowy Plover (4)
Spotted Owl (2)
Sprague's Pipit (2)
Summer Tanager (3)
Swainson's Hawk (2)
Swainson's Thrush Thick-billed Kingbird
Three-toed Woodpecker
Townsend's Warbler (4)
Tree Swallow
Tricolored Blackbird
Trumpeter Swan
Upland Sandpiper (3)
Varied BuntingVaried Thrush (2)
Vaux's Swift (5)
Veery (2) Virginia's Warbler (6)
Warbling Vireo
Western Bluebird
Western Wood-Pewee
Western Screech-Owl
Whip-poor-will
Whiskered Screech-Owl
White-headed Woodpecker
Vermillion Flycatcher (2)
Violet-crowned Hummingbird (2)
Appendix G
Economics


Figures G-1-G-4, Maps Showing Distribution of Mineral Commodities Across
the United StatesA-187

Table G-1. Gross State Product (GSP) for Study Area 1982-1996A-191

Table G-2. Personal Income and Employment in Study Area, 1980, 1990, 1996 A-193

Table G-3. Employment Trends in Study Area, 1980-1996 A-194

Methodology for Estimating the Contribution of Locatable Mineral Production to the
Economies of the 12 Western States A-196

Figure G-1 Figure G-2 Figure G-3 Figure G-4

Table G-1. Gross State Product (GSP) for Study Area 1982-1996 (millions of chained 1996 dollars)

State
1982 % of 1982
State Total
1990 % of 1990
State
1996 % of 1996
State Total
Percent Change 1982-1996
Alaska
Total Gross State Product $25,800 1.000 $28,400 1.000 $24,200 1.000 -0.063
Mining $6,070 23.5% $9,640 0.339 $5,420 0.224 -0.106
Metal mining $6 0.000 $197 0.007 $176 0.007 26.167
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $7 0.000 $10 0.000 $19 0.001 1.571
Arizona
Total Gross State Product $54,400 1.000 $79,200 1.000 $112,000 1.000 1.049
Mining $494 0.009 $839 0.011 $1,480 0.013 1.994
Metal mining $438 0.008 $719 0.009 $1,260 0.011 1.879
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $27 0.001 $38 0.000 $83 0.001 2.037
California
Total Gross State Product $623,000 1.000 $925,000 1.000 $963,000 1.000 0.545
Mining $6,350 0.010 $6,340 0.007 $5,780 0.006 -0.090
Metal mining $70 0.000 $214 0.000 $289 0.000 3.108
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $382 0.001 $697 0.001 $903 0.001 1.365
Colorado
Total Gross State Product $73,800 1.000 $85,900 1.000 $116,000 1.000 0.574
Mining $1,450 0.020 $1,750 0.020 $1,940 0.017 0.338
Metal mining $211 0.003 $90 0.001 $114 0.001 -0.459
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $41 0.001 $49 0.001 $140 0.001 2.450
Idaho
Total Gross State Product $15,900 1.000 $19,900 1.000 $27,900 1.000 0.755
Mining $153 0.010 $206 0.010 $174 0.006 0.136
Metal mining $85 0.005 $114 0.006 $95 0.003 0.115
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $63 0.004 $95 0.005 $77 0.003 0.222
Montana
Total Gross State Product $15,100 1.000 $15,200 1.000 $18,500 1.000 0.225
Mining $719 0.048 $737 0.048 $903 0.049 0.256
Metal mining $85 0.006 $161 0.011 $272 0.015 2.190
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $40 0.003 $72 0.005 $66 0.004 0.667
Nevada
Total Gross State Product $23,400 1.000 $36,800 1.000 $53,700 1.000 1.295
Mining $314 0.013 $1,090 0.030 $1,970 0.037 5.265
Metal mining $216 0.009 $967 0.026 $1,830 0.034 7.477
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $94 0.004 $91 0.002 $133 0.002 0.409
New Mexico
Total Gross State Product $26,600 1.000 $29,500 1.000 $42,700 1.000 0.607
Mining $2,860 0.108 $2,710 0.092 $3,050 0.071 0.066
Metal mining $169 0.006 $216 0.007 $180 0.004 0.064
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $124 0.005 $176 0.006 $319 0.007 1.569
Oregon
Total Gross State Product $50,900 1.000 $66,500 1.000 $87,000 1.000 0.708
Mining $59 0.001 $87 0.001 $104 0.001 0.750
Metal mining $8 0.000 $5 0.000 $3 0.000 -0.600
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $42 0.001 $75 0.001 $99 0.001 1.333
Utah
Total Gross State Product $28,300 1.000 $36,000 1.000 $50,400 1.000 0.777
Mining $682 0.024 $1,360 0.038 $1,620 0.032 1.375
Metal mining $163 0.006 $285 0.008 $684 0.014 3.185
Table G-1. Gross State Product (GSP) for Study Area 1982-1996 (millions of chained 1996 dollars)

State
1982 % of 1982
State Total
1990 % of 1990
State
1996 % of 1996
State Total
Percent Change 1982-1996
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $51 0.002 $87 0.002 $30 0.001 -0.408
Washington
Total Gross State Product $99,800 1.000 $136,000 1.000 $160,000 1.000 0.599
Mining $111 0.001 $251 0.002 $332 0.002 1.983
Metal mining $30 0.000 $66 0.000 $53 0.000 0.750
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $67 0.001 $136 0.001 $222 0.001 2.318
Wyoming
Total Gross State Product $13,900 1.000 $14,200 1.000 $16,800 1.000 0.208
Mining $3,250 0.233 $4,460 0.313 $5,320 0.316 0.637
Metal mining $117 0.008 $27 0.002 $19 0.001 -0.838
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $369 0.026 $589 0.041 $754 0.045 1.044
Study Area
Total Gross State Product $1,050, 000 1.000 $1,470, 000 1.000 $1,670,000 1.000 0.590
Mining $22,100 0.021 $28,900 0.020 $28,100 0.017 0.273
Metal mining $1,590 0.002 $3,060 0.002 $4,970 0.003 2.121
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $1,310 0.001 $2,110 0.001 $2,850 0.002 1.177
Metals, nonmetals combined $2,900 0.003 $5,170 0.004 $7,820 0.005 1.696
U.S. (GDP)
Total Gross Domestic Product $5,030, 000 1.000 $6,660, 000 1.000 $7,630,000 1.000 0.518
Mining $87,800 0.017 $108,000 0.016 $114,000 0.015 0.294
Metal mining $2,350 0.000 $3,970 0.001 $6,840 0.001 1.909
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels $5,070 0.001 $7,830 0.001 $10,200 0.001 1.006
Metals, nonmetals combined $7,420 0.001 $11,800 0.002 $17,000 0.002 1.292
Study Area as % of U.S. Total
Total GSP 0.209 N/A 0.221 N/A 0.219 N/A 0.047
Mining 0.251 N/A 0.268 N/A 0.247 N/A -0.016
Metal mining 0.678 N/A 0.771 N/A 0.727 N/A 0.073
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels 0.258 N/A 0.270 N/A 0.280 N/A 0.085
Metals, nonmetals combined 0.391 N/A 0.439 N/A 0.460 N/A 0.176

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 1998.

Table G-2. Personal Income and Employment in Study Area,
1980, 1990, 1996 (million 1996 dollars)
Category 1980 1990 1996
PERSONAL INCOME
Total Personal Income
Study Area Total $891,000 $1,240,000 $1,390,000
U.S. Total $4,350,000 $5,750,000 $6,480,000
Study Area as Percent of U.S. Total 0.205 0.215 0.215
Personal Income - Metal Mining
Study Area Total $3,660 $1,940 $2,360
U.S. Total $6,030 $2,740 $3,260
Study Area as Percent of U.S. Total 0.606 0.709 0.725
Personal Income - Nonmetallic Minerals, except fuels
Study Area Total $1,320 $1,140 $1,110
U.S. Total $5,110 $5,070 $4,900
Study Area as Percent of U.S. Total 0.258 0.224 0.226
Personal Income - Metals, Nonmetals combined
Study Area Total $4,980 $3,080 $3,470
U.S. Total $11,100 $7,810 $8,160
Study Area as Percent of U.S. Total 0.447 0.394 0.425
EMPLOYMENT (000)
Total Employment
Study Area Total 22,300 29,500 32,700
U.S. Total 114,000 139,000 152,000
Study Area as Percent of U.S. Total 0.196 0.212 0.215
Employment - Mining
Study Area Total 245 203 181
U.S. Total 1,280 1,040 880
Study Area as Percent of U.S. Total 0.192 0.195 0.206
POPULATION (000)
Study Area Total 42,500 52,000 57,300
U.S. Total 227,000 249,000 265,000
Study Area as Percent of U.S. Total 0.187 0.208 0.216
Notes: All figures rounded to three significant digits. Mining employment not available for metal and nonmetal subsectors.
Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 1998.

Table G-3. Employment Trends in Study Area, 1980-1996

State

1980
Percent of
1980 Total

1990
Percent of
1990 Total
1996 Percent of
1996 Total
Percent Change
1980-1996
Alaska
Total 169,000 1.000 233,000 1.000 257,000 1.000 0.525
Total Private 115,000 0.685 165,000 0.708 189,000 0.736 0.638
Mining 6,680 0.040 11,400 0.049 9,620 0.037 0.439
Metal Mining 320 0.002 1,060 0.005 1,040 0.004 2.259
Nonmetallic minerals 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A
Arizona
Total 1,020,000 1.000 1,500,000 1.000 1,890,000 1.000 0.861
Total Private 825,000 0.810 1,240,000 0.828 1,600,000 0.847 0.944
Mining 21,100 0.021 12,700 0.008 14,000 0.007 -0.338
Metal Mining 19,200 0.019 10,600 0.007 12,000 0.006 -0.394
Nonmetallic minerals 658 0.001 855 0.001 1,260 0.001 0.918
California
Total 10,100, 000 1.000 13,300, 000 1.000 13,100, 000 1.000 0.299
Total Private 8,400,000 0.831 11,300, 000 0.848 11,100, 000 0.843 0.318
Mining 43,300 0.004 40,100 0.003 28,800 0.002 -0.335
Metal Mining 0 N/A 2,390 0.000 2,560 0.000 N/A
Nonmetallic minerals 7,960 0.001 6,730 0.001 5,510 0.000 -0.307
Colorado
Total 1,230,000 1.000 1,500,000 1.000 1,870,000 1.000 0.521
Total Private 996,000 0.809 1,240,000 0.823 1,580,000 0.843 0.586
Mining 36,000 0.029 19,800 0.013 13,600 0.007 -0.622
Metal Mining 11,700 0.009 3,440 0.002 2,250 0.001 -0.807
Nonmetallic minerals 806 0.001 985 0.001 1,410 0.001 0.748
Idaho
Total 316,000 1.000 386,000 1.000 493,000 1.000 0.557
Total Private 250,000 0.789 309,000 0.801 402,000 0.815 0.609
Mining 4,670 0.015 3,870 0.010 3,070 0.006 -0.343
Metal Mining 3,100 0.010 2,760 0.007 1,850 0.004 -0.403
Nonmetallic minerals 1,400 0.004 1,110 0.003 1,200 0.002 -0.142
Montana
Table G-3. Employment Trends in Study Area, 1980-1996

State

1980
Percent of
1980 Total

1990
Percent of
1990 Total
1996 Percent of
1996 Total
Percent Change
1980-1996
Total 265,000 1.000 287,000 1.000 350,000 1.000 0.320
Total Private 204,000 0.768 223,000 0.776 280,000 0.802 0.377
Mining 8,850 0.033 6,280 0.022 5,420 0.015 -0.388
Metal Mining 1,920 0.007 2,640 0.009 2,090 0.006 0.088
Nonmetallic minerals 841 0.003 826 0.003 808 0.002 -0.039
Nevada
Total 398,000 1.000 620,000 1.000 841,000 1.000 1.115
Total Private 341,000 0.857 544,000 0.877 742,000 0.882 1.176
Mining 6,220 0.016 14,300 0.023 14,600 0.017 1.346
Metal Mining 3,640 0.009 13,000 0.021 13,000 0.015 2.571
Nonmetallic minerals 1,770 0.004 1,130 0.002 1,470 0.002 -0.169
New Mexico
Total 444,000 1.000 561,000 1.000 672,000 1.000 0.514
Total Private 335,000 0.754 430,000 0.767 525,000 0.782 0.569
Mining 29,460 0.066 16,100 0.029 15,400 0.023 -0.477
Metal Mining 10,700 0.024 2,120 0.004 2,160 0.003 -0.798
Nonmetallic minerals 3,400 0.008 2,310 0.004 1,970 0.003 -0.420
Oregon
Total 1,020,000 1.000 1,240,000 1.000 1,470,000 1.000 0.445
Total Private 824,000 0.811 1,030,000 0.833 1,240,000 0.847 0.510
Mining 2,280 0.002 1,530 0.001 1,800 0.001 -0.213
Metal Mining 271 0.000 106 0.000 52 0.000 -0.808
Nonmetallic minerals 1,620 0.002 1,300 0.001 1,710 0.001 0.057
Utah
Total 523,000 1.000 694,000 1.000 923,000 1.000 0.767
Total Private 407,000 0.778 553,000 0.796 767,000 0.830 0.885
Mining 18,500 0.035 0 0.000 7,930 0.009 -0.571
Metal Mining 8,430 0.016 3,090 0.004 2,840 0.003 -0.664
Nonmetallic minerals 999 0.002 0 0.000 924 0.001 -0.075
Washington
Total 1,600,000 1.000 2,140,000 1.000 2,410,000 1.000 0.502
Total Private 1,290,000 0.807 1,760,000 0.825 1,980,000 0.823 0.531
Mining 3,160 0.002 0 N/A 3,320 0.001 0.051
Metal Mining 869 0.001 963 0.000 495 0.000 -0.430
Table G-3. Employment Trends in Study Area, 1980-1996

State

1980
Percent of
1980 Total

1990
Percent of
1990 Total
1996 Percent of
1996 Total
Percent Change
1980-1996
Nonmetallic minerals 1,580 0.001 1,650 0.001 2,190 0.001 0.388
Wyoming
Total 205,000 1.000 191,000 1.000 214,000 1.000 0.042
Total Private 163,000 0.793 140,000 0.734 161,000 0.752 -0.011
Mining 36,000 0.176 18,300 0.096 15,900 0.074 -0.559
Metal Mining 6,430 0.031 760 0.004 596 0.003 -0.907
Nonmetallic minerals 5,690 0.028 3,920 0.021 3,140 0.015 -0.449
Study Area Total
Total 0 1.000 22,300, 000 1.000 24,200, 000 1.000 0.419
Total Private 0 0.819 18,700, 000 0.836 20,300, 000 0.838 0.453
Mining 0 0.012 138,200 0.006 128,000 0.005 -0.383
Metal Mining 0 0.004 40,300 0.002 38,500 0.002 -0.405
Nonmetallic minerals 0 0.002 20,000 0.001 20,800 0.001 -0.196
U.S. Total
Total 89,200, 000 1.000 109,000, 000 1.000 118,000, 000 1.000 0.323
Total Private 73,400, 000 0.823 90,900, 000 0.837 99,300, 000 0.842 0.353
Mining 10,400, 002 0.012 711,000 0.007 578,000 0.005 -0.444
Metal Mining 100,000 0.001 58,900 0.001 53,900 0.000 -0.461
Nonmetallic minerals 124,000 0.001 112,000 0.001 107,000 0.001 -0.136
Study Area as Percent
of U.S.
Total 0.191 0.206 0.205
Total Private 0.190 0.205 0.204
Mining 0.199 0.194 0.221
Metal Mining 0.647 0.685 0.715
Nonmetallic minerals 0.208 0.178 0.194
Notes: Figures rounded to three significant digits. "0" shows data that were withheld to avoid disclosure of proprietary information.
N/A = not applicable.
Source: Ball 1997.
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING THE CONTRIBUTION OF LOCATABLE MINERAL PRODUCTION TO THE ECONOMIES OF THE 12 WESTERN STATES

Introduction

This analysis provides baseline estimates of the regional economic impacts of locatable mineral production in the western United States under current conditions. The estimates are based on estimated values of mine production and use of the U.S. Forest Service IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) model. The IMPLAN model estimates the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of an economic activity on a defined region. A general overview of regional input-output (I-O) modeling is presented along with limitations of the methodology. Some results of previous regional economic analyses for energy and minerals are presented as a basis for comparison with the analysis presented here. Also presented are U.S. Department of Commerce data, which may provide some basis for potentially varying production functions and rates of return for mining operations in various states. Finally, this section of Appendix G estimates the multipliers and regional impacts from production of locatable minerals.

Estimating Regional Impacts

Regional impacts represent the effect, typically measured by the value of total output and income, of an activity on the local economy. Regional impacts can be distinguished by direct effects, indirect effects, and induced effects. Direct effects are represented by changes in the value of production in the original final demand industry. Indirect effects are backward linkages, where production is needed from industries supplying the original industry. These backward linkages can continue for several rounds and provide other economic impacts to the region. Induced effects are changes in regional household spending caused by regional employment changes. These changes in employment and income result from direct and indirect effects. The combination of direct, indirect, and induced effects result in multiplier effects from economic activities within a region.

The IMPLAN model uses the U.S. Department of Commerce national I-O model to estimate the flows of commodities used and produced by industry. The social accounts of the region under consideration are also included in the IMPLAN data base. Social accounts represent the flow of commodities to industry from producers and consumers as well as consumption of the factors of production from outside the region. Social accounts are converted to the input/output accounts and multipliers for each industry. IMPLAN includes tables that account for the percentage of each category's expenditures that remain within the region and expenditures that would flow outside the region.

Assumptions used in the I-O based regional impact models can potentially limit the accuracy of some basic models. The inputs used by every firm and the outputs produced by every firm in an industry are assumed to be used or produced in the same proportions. The assumption of homogeneous production can be a problem if production techniques greatly vary within the same industry.

The level of output for any industry is also assumed to be the only factor that determines input purchase requirements. Changes in the relative prices of inputs that would affect the mix of inputs purchased are not accounted for. Changes in technology are not accounted for unless the production functions are modified over time and the models are rerun after each change. Constant returns to scale are assumed, where production functions are linear, the effects of increased demand are additive, and the distribution of purchases and sales is assumed to be static.

I-O models represent the current relationships among production, technology, market structures, and inter-regional trade. Because these relationships are assumed to be static, substitutions between inputs are not allowed to occur. One major reason that substitution would be expected consists of changes in input prices. If the relative prices for inputs change, input substitution would be expected to occur because a different mix of inputs may become more cost effective. Changes in output prices can also cause substitution effects that would reduce total regional impacts. But substitution is not allowed to occur within the I-O model. In addition, the supply of all inputs required for current and future production is not considered to be a constraint in an I-O model.

In the short run these limitations in the I-O methodology may not create significant problems because of the relatively limited adjustments that can be made in a short time. Input substitutions may not be possible immediately, so price changes may not have a short-run impact on the types of inputs used. In the long run, however, an I-O based analysis may not reliably estimate regional impacts. The longer period of time allows producers to respond to price changes, and technology can change substantially in the long run. These factors allow for greater substitution in the long run and a greater possibility of error in a static I-O based model.

The problems of I-O based analyses may also be minor if the impact region is not large enough to significantly affect the market and, therefore, significantly affect prices of inputs and outputs. A small-market impact results in minor price effects and, therefore, minor substitution effects. If a large region is included in an analysis, price effects are more likely, and the input-output analysis will miss some substitution effects.

Estimating the regional impacts from changes in mineral production using IMPLAN may result in significant errors due to the problems mentioned above. Mining techniques for the same mineral can vary a great deal in different regions, resulting in varied input requirements. Input and output prices in the mineral industry can also fluctuate significantly over a relatively short period of time. Despite these potential problems, an analysis of mineral extraction impacts using IMPLAN reveals the magnitude of mineral production impacts.

Types of Multipliers

Output multipliers translate the impact of changes in final demand spending into changes in output. Total industry output is the value of sales, in producer prices, from industry production. Final demand reflects the value of all commodities and services purchased for final use. Final demand is equal to the sum of household purchases, government purchases, business investment purchases, exports, and inventory sales. Payments between governmental units are considered transfer payments and are excluded from this measure. Exports include purchases of goods or services that are exported out of the region.

Total income multipliers translate the impact of changes in final demand spending into changes in total income. Total income is defined as the sum of changes in employee compensation, proprietary income, and other property income, resulting from a change in final demand. Total income is equal to property income plus employee compensation. Property income includes proprietary income and other property income. Proprietary income can be defined as all income from self-employment, such as income earned by noncorporate business owners, doctors, and lawyers. Other property income includes dividends, interest, royalties, rental income, corporate profits, and corporate transfer payments. Employee compensation, a subcategory of total income, represents worker income as measured by wages, salaries, benefits, and retirement payments.

Value added multipliers translate the impact of changes in final demand spending into changes in value added. Value added represents income generated by local factors of production and payments to government, including employee compensation, proprietary income, other types of property income, and indirect business taxes. Indirect business taxes are payments to government on production, sales, purchase, or use of goods and services. Indirect business taxes do not include taxes on profit or income.

Employment multipliers are based on the fact that a change in final demand will have direct, indirect, and induced effects that will lead to employment changes. Employment multipliers measue the total change in employment from the production of $1 of output for final demand. Employment is measured by both part- and full-time jobs. Therefore, the number of jobs are not full-time equivalents.

The extent of regional impacts can be measured in IMPLAN by two types of multipliers. Type I multipliers measure the sum of the direct plus indirect effects divided by the direct effects, or: Type I multiplier = (Direct + Indirect)/(Direct). Type III multipliers account for induced effects, where: Type III multiplier = (Direct + Indirect + Induced)/(Direct). The induced effects in Type III multipliers are derived from an open model where households are exogenous or "outside" the model. The open model allows the assumption that some household spending occurs outside the region of consideration.

A large multiplier generally means that an industry is closely linked to the local economy. But if the industry is small relative to the size of the local economy, then a big multiplier does not translate into a large stimulus. A small increase in demand for a sector with a small multiplier, however, can have a significant impact if that industry produces a large proportion of total output of the regional economy. Also, if the direct effect is tiny compared to the calculated indirect and induced effects, then dividing it into indirect or the sum of indirect and induced effects will result in a large number. In these cases the large multiplier is not meaningful and should be ignored.

The Value of Mineral Production, Costs of Production, and Profits

Current information on the costs of mineral production, profits or value added from production, and the variation from region to region can provide some basis for evaluating the overall importance of locatable minerals in each region and how average production relationships apply to specific regions. The rates of return for mining operations have varied a great deal over the last 10 years. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, the average rate of return for all mining operations with assets of $50 million or more from the fourth quarter of 1987 to the first quarter of 1996 was 5.05 cents per dollar investment before taxes and 3.54 cents after taxes (Bureau of the Census 1997). The rate of return over the 10-year period has ranged from -7.4 cents to 14.1 cents per dollar after taxes. The rate of return for mineral extraction investment is fairly low, but this does not say that the regional impacts from mineral production are small.

Mineral production requires large amounts of investment, which supports industries providing production inputs. Tables G-4 and G-5 show the value of inputs and value added for mineral industries by state and as a national average from the 1992 Census of Mineral Industries. Although the data are not complete, they do show the relative costs of labor, supplies, and capital for different types of operations. This information is useful for modifying production relationships in the IMPLAN model.

Recent Mineral Impact Studies

A recent study of the U.S. gold industry estimated the regional impacts from gold and silver production at the state level (Dobra 1997). The Dobra study included estimates of the total value of gold and silver production as well as employment, output, and earnings impacts in 1995. The results are presented in Table G-6.

The Dobra study used production estimates provided by individual state geology agencies or the U.S. Geological Survey, London gold and silver prices, and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis impact multipliers. The important result of the study is the large regional impacts associated with gold production in the western states.

Another study of regional impadcts of resttraints to mineral access in the East Mojave National Scenic Area estimated the potential impacts to industry output, earnings, and employment in San Bernardino County, California, from mine construction and production (Schantz and Adams 1990). The East Mojave study showed impacts of about $1.27 billion from cumulative gold mine revenues of $968 million at the county level. These amounts represent substantial impacts considering the small study area.

Another study, published by the National Mining Association (see Table G-7) estimated the economic impact of the solid-minerals mining industry (Leaming 1997). This study, which included minerals such as coal and many nonlocatable types, estimated that the western states generated $115 billion and 1.1 million jobs in 1995. These figures amount to 37% of the $524

Table G-4. Employment, Payroll, Value Added, and Costs of Production for Mining
(million $)

State/type of mining
Establish ments Total
Employees

Payroll
Value added by mining Cost of
supplies
Capital expenditures
Alaska
Lead and zinc ores
Gold
Arizona

Copper ores
Gold ores
Silver ores
Metal mining services
California
Gold ore
Miscellaneous metal ores
Colorado
Lead and zinc ores
Gold ores
Silver ores
Metal mining services
Idaho
Lead and zinc ores
Gold ores
Silver ores
Miscellaneous metal ores
Montana
Copper ores
Gold & silver ores
Metal mining services
Miscellaneous metal ores
Nevada
Gold and silver ores
Metal mining services
New Mexico
Copper ores
Utah
Copper ores
Gold and silver ores
Metal mining services
Miscellaneous metal ores
Washington
Gold and silver ores
Metal mining services
Wyoming
Miscellaneous metal ores

2
41

28
28
1
27

45
11

5
52
1
20

5
25
9
4

3
21
16
7

119
36

7

5
23
22
11

13
14

15

250-499
400

10,100
300
<199
500

2,100
250-499

-
1,200
-
200

100-249
250-499
250-499
250-499

500-999
1000
200
250-499

9,900
1,100

1000-2499

1000-2499
500
400
100-249

500
100

300

-
$19.0

384.6
11.3
-
15.1

77.3
-

-
88.7
-
7.0

-
-
-
-

-
36.8
6.3
-

455.1
40.6

-

-
20.2
16.4
-

23.5
4.9

$15.3

-
$129.4

1,429.9
48.1
-
42.2

267.7
-

-
4.8
-
12.2

-
-
-
-

-
160.6
15.0
-

1,718.0
106.4

-

-
79.3
14.2
-

67.2
8.8

$14.5

-
-

$888.9
-
-
17.9

-
-

-
-
-
4.3

-
-
-
-

-
60.9
-
-

1,096.2
-

-

-

-
-

-
-

-

-
-

$187.2
-
-
5.0

-
-

-
-
-
1.2

-
-
-
-

-
31.6
-
-

556.1
-

-

-
-
-
-

-
-

-
Source: Bureau of the Census 1996a and 1996b.


Table G-5. National Average Costs of Production for Various Minerals, 1992 (million $)

Item

Copper

Gold
Metal Mining
Services
Miscellaneous
Metal Ores

Silver
Supplemental labor costs
Purchased fuels consumed
Purchased electricity
Contract work
Minerals/ores for preparation
Purchased machinery
Parts and attachments
Industrial chemicals
Explosive materials
Tires and inner tubes
Lime
Iron & steel castings and forgings
Steel shapes and forms
Other supplies
Undistributed
Communication services
Value of shipments and receipts
Change in inventories 1991-1992
New capital expend, buildings
New capital expend, equipment
Used capital expenditures
Mineral exploration/development
Rental payments
Lease rents
$136.7
61.4
316.7
113.7
208.3
370.5
146.9
104.1
37.4
39.9
21.8
79.5
43.5
175.5
2.5
1.7
3,374.9
21.6
-
385.8
8.6
-
$18.4
-
$181.2
108.9
143.9
-
NA
362.1
147.1
128.3
61.6
39.0
26.3
37.1
34.9
196.1
21.2
3.3
4,340.0
18.4
538.2
103.8
16.4
335.3
23.6
$10.1
$29.9
16.2
2.2
-
NA
13.1
8.7
NA
-
-
-
-
-
23.8
23.0
0.8
350.4
3.2
0.4
16.5
-
NA
$6.9
NA
$24.7
8.8
29.5
-
1.6
9.5
13.0
13.6
3.2
0.8
1.2
-
3.7
19.6
9.8
0.4
312.2
-14.7
5.0
14.4
-
-
$2.0
-
$16.7
4.5
4.5
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
114.6
-10.9
-
-
0.1
5.0
-
$0.1
Source: Bureau of the Census 1996c and 1996d.

billion total U.S. impact of solid-mineral mining and 22% of the estimated 5 million total jobs. The data and methodology used in this study differ substantially from the multiplier analyses
described previously, and the figures cannot be compared between the studies. This study, nevertheless, provides a useful comparison of the western mining industry in relation to the national industry as a whole.

A U.S. Forest Service analysis of energy and minerals industries in the United States provided information on the economic contribution of U.S. extractive industries at the state, regional, and national levels (USFS 1996). This study estimated multipliers for metallic ores, including copper, gold, silver, ferroalloy ores, uranium, radium, and other metal ores not classified elsewhere. The study also estimated multipliers for metal mining services, describing in detail mineral industry impacts. This study can be used to help validate the regional economic impacts presented in this analysis. The Forest Service analysis estimated multipliers for 1977, 1982, 1985, and 1990 for the Nation, for each Resource Planning Act region in the United States, and for individual states. State-level multipliers are presented for 1985 and 1990 in Tables G-8 and G-9.

Table G-6. Impacts of U.S. Gold and Silver Production, 1995 ($000)

State

Total value
Employment
(jobs)

Output

Earnings
Alaska
Arizona
California
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
Utah
$54,474
63,209
302,828
64,091
180,676
2,708,263
$303,070
757
2,010
5,602
1,416
4,553
51,457
12,093
$96,500
154,977
621,039
116,421
365,272
4,832,354
$661,330
$27,798
51,389
170,977
34,000
105,587
1,485,211
$239,001
Source: Dobra 1997.


The Forest Service analysis also presented base year statistics that estimate the regional impacts from extraction industries. These results showed significant impacts from mineral and energy industry activities. But the importance of metal mining in the United States appeared to have decreased slightly from 1977 to 1990. The decrease in the importance of metal mining was not universal. Metal mining increased in importance in Nevada from 0.52% of nominal gross state product in 1977 to 6.12% of nominal gross state product in 1990.


Table G-7. Economic Impact of Solid-Mineral Mining from NMA Study ($000)

State
Total Value of Solid
Minerals Produced
Total
Economic Impact
Total
Employment
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
12-State Total
U.S. Total

Western Region as
Percent of U.S.
$589,600
4,975,800
2,866,100
995,500
383,300
1,049,400
3,291,300
1,775,300
391,600
2,417,000
730,300
2,695,500
22,160,700
$60,055,000

37%
$1,342,600
13,715,900
52,475,900
7,634,600
1,898,300
2,214,100
7,067,000
3,409,000
5,108,300
6,907,000
9,604,800
3,967,400
115,344,900
$523,604,100

22%
12,000
137,300
469,200
77,300
23,600
24,900
63,000
44,000
53,500
66,200
92,300
41,400
1,104,700
4,954,000

22%
Source: Leaming 1997.

Multipliers and Regional Impacts from Locatable Mineral Production

The IMPLAN model was used along with estimates of the value of locatable mineral production at the state level to estimate regional impacts. The categories of minerals include gold, silver, copper, and other metals and industrials. The regional impacts for the "other metals and industrials" category were estimated using the metal mining services and other metals sectors. The types of mining operations in the West greatly vary, and the input requirements can vary a great deal. This variation will affect the estimated multipliers. The multipliers estimated using the IMPLAN model are based on national-level production relationships. The multipliers and regional impact analysis can be improved by adjusting the input requirements for different types of operations.

The production function coefficients can be modified in IMPLAN to account for regional production differences. These modifications require detailed input requirement data from which production relationships can be estimated. Detailed input requirement data are not available from a cross section of mining operations at a small regional level. But Bureau of the Census data, such as in Tables G-4 and G-5, can be used to estimate the percentage of total production costs attributable to labor and capital expenditures. These percentages, on a statewide basis, can be compared to the national average and used to modify the labor and capital percentages represented in the IMPLAN model.

The U.S. Department of Commerce mining cost data for employee payroll and capital expenditures for each of the 12 states and the study area total were compared to the national average. These percentages were then applied to the national average employee compensation and capital equipment categories included in the IMPLAN model. The new coefficients were
then applied to the individual states. In most cases the differences were less than a 10% change in the coefficient, but the change was important enough to merit the modification.

Although this method for modifying the production functions is not precise, it does attempt to account for regional differences in mineral production. Any evaluation of surface mining regulation alternatives will use a consistent methodology so the economic impacts of the alternatives can be compared on an equal basis. The multipliers for locatable minerals in the study area are presented by state and type of mineral in Table G-10.

The regional impacts from locatable mineral production are based on the estimated value of production adjusted for the local level of activity using IMPLAN local purchase coefficients (LPCs). These LPCs show the percentage of regional demand that can be met by local sources and represent the proportion of activity that occurs in the model region. Using the LPCs better represents the true impact of the mining on the region because the need for some imports is recognized. Assuming all regional demand can be met locally would overstate the regional economic impacts.

The mineral production values used to estimate the regional impacts are presented in Table G-11. These figures represent the portion of mine production of locatable minerals estimated to originate only from public lands in the study area.

Table G-8. 1985 Multipliers Derived in the Forest Service Analysis

State or Region
Output
Type I Type III
Total Income
Type I Type III
Value Added
Type I Type III
Employment
Type I Type III
Alaska
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Arizona
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Idaho
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Montana
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
New Mexico
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Nevada
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Utah
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Wyoming
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Pacific Region (California, Oregon, and Washington)
Metallic ores

1.28 1.44
1.23 1.46

1.40 1.68
1.28 1.49

1.24 1.61
1.22 1.63

1.45 2.10
1.34 1.93

1.43 1.86
1.39 2.02

1.47 2.01
1.36 1.89

1.46 1.81
1.31 1.61

1.28 1.56
1.24 1.47


1.58 2.31


1.64 2.06
1.41 1.87

1.69 2.27
1.53 1.99

1.34 1.89
1.30 1.88

2.09 3.95
1.61 2.75

1.65 2.38
1.83 3.24

1.77 2.77
1.43 2.11

1.75 2.41
1.47 1.94

1.52 2.07
1.39 1.76


2.08 4.32


1.44 1.71
1.32 1.65

1.62 2.13
1.29 1.54

1.32 1.85
1.27 1.82

1.66 2.72
1.40 2.12

1.56 2.19
1.50 2.36

1.76 2.74
1.44 2.12

1.65 2.21
1.33 1.65

1.36 1.74
1.27 1.53


1.99 4.05


1.27 1.52
1.14 1.35

1.40 1.79
1.39 1.78

1.26 1.82
1.21 1.74

1.47 2.50
1.38 2.36

1.45 2.16
1.27 1.89

1.49 2.24
1.36 2.05

1.48 2.06
1.41 1.96

1.25 1.68
1.27 1.71


1.39 2.34

Source: USFS 1996.

The estimated regional impacts from the production of locatable minerals on public lands in the study area are presented in Table G-12. The impacts presented here are based on average production relationships at the national level. Therefore, the estimates are representative of the magnitude of the impacts rather than precise estimates.

The study-area total listed in Table G-12 is not a summation of the impacts estimated for each state. The study area represents a separate IMPLAN impact area. The expenditure and income leakages from the aggregate 12-state area would not be the same as the sum of leakages for each state. Since the larger area would be expected to have relatively small leakages, the overall economic impact of mineral production from a 12-state perspective would be expected to be larger than shown by the individual states.

In comparison, Table G-13 shows the regional economic impacts of all locatable-type mineral production in the study area regardless of land ownership (i.e. including production originating from federal, state, and private lands).

Tables G-14 through G-16 show the regional economic impacts by alternative for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. See the Economics section in Chapter 3 for an explanation of these impacts.

Table G-9. 1990 Multipliers Derived in the Forest Service Analysis

State or Region
Output
Type I Type III
Total Income
Type I Type III
Value Added
Type I Type III
Employment
Type I Type III
Alaska
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Arizona
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Idaho
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Montana
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
New Mexico
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Nevada
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Utah
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Wyoming
Metallic ores
Metal mining services
Pacific Region (California, Oregon, and Washington)
Metallic ores

1.16 1.22
1.14 1.25

1.54 1.76
1.27 1.67

1.33 1.56
1.27 1.64

1.40 1.67
1.26 1.63

1.56 1.79
1.33 1.77

1.37 1.62
1.32 1.70

1.55 1.77
1.30 1.66

1.19 1.37
1.20 1.38


1.45 1.88


1.22 1.31
1.18 1.35

2.43 3.24
1.29 1.77

1.47 1.80
1.31 1.74

1.61 2.08
1.30 1.77

2.35 3.06
1.38 1.94

1.49 1.82
1.36 1.81

2.18 2.78
1.32 1.73

1.19 1.40
1.20 1.41


1.57 2.14


1.19 1.26
1.14 1.27

2.48 3.36
1.28 1.75

1.46 1.78
1.29 1.70

1.55 1.96
1.25 1.63

2.29 2.99
1.34 1.86

1.50 1.85
1.36 1.82

2.15 2.74
1.30 1.67

1.18 1.36
1.18 1.37


1.59 2.19


1.39 1.70
1.15 1.40

2.50 3.85
1.30 2.02

1.92 3.00
1.37 2.17

2.00 3.31
1.37 2.28

2.56 4.07
1.34 2.15

1.82 2.69
1.34 1.99

2.52 3.84
1.36 2.10

1.25 1.72
1.24 1.71


1.97 3.43

Source: USFS 1996.


Table G-10. Estimated 1994 Multipliers

State or Region
Output
Type I Type III
Total Income
Type I Type III
Value Added
Type I Type III
Employment
Type I Type III
Alaska
Gold
Silver
Other
Arizona
Gold
Silver
Copper
Other
California
Gold
Silver
Copper
Other
Colorado
Gold
Silver
Copper
Other
Idaho
Gold
Silver
Copper
Other
Montana
Gold
Silver
Copper
Other
Nevada
Gold
Silver
Copper
Other
New Mexico
Gold
Silver
Copper
Other
Oregon
Gold
Copper
Other
Utah
Gold
Silver
Copper
Other
Washington
Gold
Silver
Copper
Other
Wyoming
Other
12 State Total
Gold
Silver
Copper
Other

1.32 1.45
1.10 1.37
1.12 1.25

1.34 1.62
1.00 1.57
1.29 1.56
1.19 1.66

1.37 1.70
1.10 1.86
1.30 1.68
1.10 1.37

1.43 1.67
1.12 1.76
1.36 1.60
1.15 1.37

1.29 1.50
1.21 1.62
1.20 1.40
1.17 1.57

1.37 1.57
1.11 1.25
1.31 1.53
1.11 1.29

1.41 1.60
1.04 1.39
1.37 1.63
1.01 1.28

1.52 1.71
1.24 1.46
1.50 1.79
1.24 1.62

1.11 1.37
1.07 1.30
1.20 1.71

1.40 1.64
1.15 1.44
1.38 1.63
1.20 1.45

1.24 1.47
1.09 1.55
1.20 1.48
1.05 1.50

1.18 1.32

1.59 1.97
1.11 1.67
1.49 1.87
1.19 1.50


1.40 1.60
1.09 1.35
1.13 1.30

1.39 1.77
1.00 1.42
1.31 1.63
1.23 1.89

1.36 1.71
1.07 1.63
1.27 1.64
1.08 1.29

1.46 1.74
1.09 1.62
1.36 1.60
1.13 1.34

1.27 1.47
1.20 1.64
1.17 1.34
1.14 1.49

1.37 1.61
1.09 1.23
1.28 1.51
1.08 1.26

1.48 1.73
1.03 1.26
1.43 1.76
1.01 1.17

1.77 2.15
1.29 1.62
1.78 2.31
1.36 2.03

1.08 1.28
1.05 1.20
1.26 1.96

1.53 1.90
1.12 1.40
1.46 1.82
1.22 1.53

1.20 1.39
1.06 1.41
1.15 1.36
1.03 1.32

1.25 1.46

1.70 2.22
1.07 1.49
1.58 2.09
1.19 1.54


1.35 1.53
1.07 1.28
1.12 1.26

1.37 1.71
1.00 1.36
1.30 1.60
1.21 1.79

1.36 1.73
1.07 1.61
1.28 1.66
1.08 1.30

1.43 1.68
1.08 1.52
1.34 1.57
1.12 1.31

1.26 1.47
1.17 1.55
1.17 1.35
1.13 1.46

1.33 1.54
1.07 1.16
1.27 1.48
1.07 1.22

1.47 1.74
1.03 1.26
1.44 1.79
1.01 1.18

1.58 1.84
1.18 1.38
1.65 2.09
1.27 1.78

1.08 1.27
1.05 1.20
1.22 1.82

1.46 1.77
1.09 1.31
1.42 1.75
1.19 1.46

1.20 1.40
1.06 1.37
1.15 1.38
1.03 1.32

1.20 1.36

1.68 2.19
1.07 1.45
1.53 2.00
1.17 1.47


1.63 2.13
1.08 1.43
1.19 1.56

1.68 2.64
1.00 1.59
1.62 2.55
1.16 1.85

1.58 2.51
1.05 1.69
1.39 2.21
1.17 1.86

2.14 3.41
1.07 1.74
1.96 3.13
1.31 2.09

1.63 2.54
1.23 1.95
1.50 2.34
1.19 1.88

1.83 2.93
1.27 2.03
1.61 2.58
1.22 1.94

1.75 2.42
1.03 1.45
1.48 2.08
1.01 1.42

2.98 4.65
1.49 2.33
1.94 3.02
1.25 1.98

1.20 1.98
1.14 1.89
1.19 1.99

2.04 3.17
1.19 1.85
1.83 2.85
1.34 2.08

1.51 2.43
1.08 1.77
1.32 2.13
1.04 1.71

1.49 2.15

2.11 3.44
1.08 1.80
1.84 3.00
1.32 2.15
Source: USFS 1996.


Table G-11. Value of Locatable Mineral Production Originating from Public Lands - 1996 ($000)
Portion of study-area production originating from public lands1
43.4%

36.2%

1.0%

2.4%

N/A

State

Gold

Silver

Copper
Other Metals & Industrials
Total
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Study-Area Total
U.S. Total (all land types)

Public Land Portion as Percent of U.S. Total

$26,500
9,500
130,000
26,000
40,300
49,500
1,160,000
2,170
0
126,000
21,100
0
1,590,000
$3,980,000


40%
$7,890
11,400
1,310
453
13,900
5,680
36,600
1,210
0
10,000
0
0
88,400
$263,000


34%
$0
29,800
0
0
0
940
580
6,150
0
7,080
0
0
44,550
$4,610,000


1%
$11,500
7,300
23,000
6,020
5,830
5,350
5,590
1,830
1,830
12,700
3,910
4,850
89,700
$8,800,000


1%
$45,800
58,000
154,000
32,500
60,000
61,500
1,210,000
11,400
1,830
156,000
25,000
4,850
1,820,000
$17,700,000


10%
1 Source: USDI 1993.
N/A = not applicable. Figures rounded to three significant digits. Some totals may reflect rounding errors.


Table G-12. Estimated Regional Impacts from Production of
Locatable Minerals on Public Lands 1996 ($000)
Personal Income

State
Total industry
Output
Total Employee
Compensation

Value added
Employment
(jobs)
Alaska $52,800 $42,800 $11,400 $31,400 370
Arizona $53,700 $26,700 $15,900 $31,200 410
California $233,900 $124,500 $75,700 $136,200 1,650
Colorado $47,000 $23,200 $13,200 $27,500 280
Idaho $79,800 $41,100 $24,500 $47,300 675
Montana $86,200 $40,200 $25,100 $51,700 570
Nevada $1,866,900 $854,800 $479,900 $935,300 11,060
New Mexico $13,200 $4,900 $2,300 $6,600 100
Oregon $1,100 $800 $500 $900 10
Utah $108,100 $43,700 $23,100 $54,000 760
Washington $27,900 $16,500 $10,700 $18,600 170
Wyoming $3,300 $1,700 $800 $2,300 30
12-State Area $3,339,300 $1,495,300 $819,200 $1,706,300 22,860
Note: These estimates include only production estimated to originate from federal lands
Source: IMPLAN Input-Output Modeling System



Table G-13. Estimated Regional Impacts from Production of
Locatable Minerals 1996 ‹ All Land Ownerships
($000)
Personal Income

State
Total industry
Output
Total Employee
Compensation

Value added
Employment
(jobs)
Alaska $420,800 $251,900 $118,400 $316,400 4,100
Arizona 0 $2,331,800 0 0 35,200
California 0 $735,400 0 0 11,150
Colorado 0 $164,400 0 0 2,100
Idaho 0 $195,500 0 0 3,800
Montana 0 $248,000 0 0 3,650
Nevada 0 $2,105,400 0 0 27,150
New Mexico 0 $31,200 0 0 6,450
Oregon 0 $35,000 0 0 350
Utah 0 $765,600 0 0 13,350
Washington 0 $99,200 0 0 1,350
Wyoming 0 $69,800 0 0 1,250
Study Area $18,301,200 $8,857,600 $4,928,800 $10,249,10 0 135,650

Table G-14. Alternative 2 (State Management)
Estimated Total Regional Economic Impacts from Production of Locatable Minerals on Federal Lands ($000)


State

Value of Production


Total Industry Output
Personal Income

Value Added


Jobs


Total
Employee Compensation
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Study-Area Total
$48,100
60,900
162,000
34,100
63,000
64,500
1,270,000
11,900
1,920
163,000
26,300
5,090
$1,910,000
$55,400
56,400
246,000
49,400
83,800
90,500
1,960,000
13,900
1,160
114,000
29,300
3,470
$3,510,00 0
$26,000
28,000
131,000
24,400
43,200
42,200
898,000
5,150
840
45,900
17,300
1,790
$1,570,00 0
$12,000
16,700
79,500
13,900
25,700
26,400
504,000
2,420
525
24,300
11,200
840
$860,000
$33,000
33,000
143,000
28,900
49,700
54,300
982,000
6,930
945
56,700
19,500
2,420
$1,790,00 0
400
450
1,750
300
700
600
11,600
100
<25
800
200
50
24,000

Estimated Change in Regional Economic Activity from Current Conditions ($000)


State

Value of Production


Total Industry Output
Personal Income

Value
Added



Jobs

Total
Employee Compensation
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Study Area Total
$2,300
2,900
7,710
1,630
3,000
3,070
60,300
568
91
7,780
1,250
242
$90,800
$2,640
2,690
11,700
2,350
3,990
4,310
93,300
660
55
5,410
1,400
165
$166,000
$1,240
1,340
6,230
1,160
2,060
2,010
42,700
245
40
2,190
825
85
$74,800
$570
795
3,790
660
1,230
1,260
24,000
115
25
1,160
535
40
$41,000
$1,570
1,560
6,810
1,380
2,370
2,590
46,800
330
45
2,700
930
115
$85,300
<25
<25
100
<25
50
50
550
<25
<25
50
<25
<25
1,150
Notes: Figures rounded to three significant digits. Employment figures rounded to nearest 50, except figures under 25.



Table G-15. Alternative 3 (Proposed Action)
Estimated Total Regional Economic Impacts from Production of Locatable Minerals on Federal Lands ($000)


State



Value of Production

Total Industry Output
Personal Income

Value Added


Jobs


Total
Employee Compensation
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Study Area Total
$43,500
55,100
146,000
30,900
57,000
58,400
1,150,000
10,800
1,740
148,000
23,800
4,610
$1,730,00 0
50,200
51,000
222,000
44,700
75,800
81,900
1,770,000
12,500
1,050
103,000
26,500
3,140
$3,170,000
$23,600
25,400
118,000
22,000
39,000
38,200
812,000
4,660
760
41,500
15,700
1,620
$1,420,00 0
$10,800
15,100
71,900
12,500
23,300
23,800
456,000
2,190
475
21,900
10,200
760
$778,000
$29,800
29,600
129,000
26,100
44,900
49,100
889,000
6,270
855
51,300
17,700
2,190
$1,620,00 0
350
400
1,550
250
650
550
10,500
100
<25
700
150
50
21,700

Estimated Change in Regional Economic Activity from Current Conditions ($000)


State



Value of Production

Total Industry Output
Personal Income

Value
Added



Jobs

Total
Employee Compensation
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Study Area Total
($2,290)
(2,900)
(7,710)
(1,630)
(3,000)
(3,070)
(60,300)
(568)
(91)
(7,780)
(1,250)
(242)
($90,800)
($2,640)
(2,690)
(11,700)
(2,350)
(3,990)
(4,310)
(93,300)
(660)
(55)
(5,410)
(1,400)
(165)
($167,000)
($1,240)
(1,340)
(6,230)
(1,160)
(2,060)
(2,010)
(42,700)
(245)
(40)
(2,190)
(825)
(85)
($74,800)
($570)
(795)
(3,790)
(660)
(1,230)
(1,260)
(24,000)
(115)
(25)
(1,160)
(535)
(40)
($41,000)
($1,570)
(1,560)
(6,810)
(1,380)
(2,370)
(2,590)
(46,800)
(330)
(45)
(2,700)
(930)
(115)
($85,300)
(<25)
(<25)
(100)
(<25)
(50)
(50)
(550)
(<25)
(<25)
(50)
(<25)
(<25)
(1,150)
Notes: Figures rounded to three significant digits. Employment figures rounded to nearest 50, except figures under 25.


Table G-16. Alternative 4 (Maximum Protection)
Estimated Total Regional Economic Impacts from Production of Locatable Minerals on Public Lands ($000)


State



Value of Production

Total
Industry Output
Personal Income

Value Added


Jobs


Total
Employee Compensation
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Study Area Total
$39,000
40,600
116,000
22,800
48,000
43,000
844,000
7,950
1,740
109,000
20,000
4,610
$1,300,000
$44,900
37,600
175,000
32,900
63,800
60,300
1,310,000
9,240
1,050
75,700
22,300
3,140
$2,340,000
$21,100
18,700
93,400
16,200
32,900
28,100
598,000
3,430
760
30,600
13,200
1,360
$1,050,00 0
$9,690
11,100
56,800
9,240
19,600
17,600
336,000
1,610
475
16,200
8,560
640
$573,000
$26,700
21,800
102,000
19,300
37,800
36,200
655,000
4,620
855
37,800
14,900
1,840
$1,190,00 0
300
300
1,250
200
550
400
7,750
50
<25
550
150
<25
16,000
Estimated Change in Regional Economic Activity from Current Conditions ($000)


State



Value of Production

Total Industry Output
Personal Income

Value
Added



Jobs

Total
Employee Compensation
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Study Area Total
($6,880)
(17,400)
(38,500)
(9,760)
(12,000)
(18,400)
(362,000)
(3,410)
(91)
(46,700)
(5,000)
(242)
($520,000)
($7,920)
(16,100)
(58,500)
(14,100)
(16,000)
(25,900)
(560,000)
(3,960)
(55)
(32,400)
(5,580)
(165)
($1,000,000 )
($3,720)
(8,010)
(31,100)
(6,960)
(8,220)
(12,100)
(256,000)
(1,470)
(40)
(13,100)
(3,300)
(340)
($449,000 )
($1,710)
(4,770)
(18,900)
(3,960)
(4,900)
(7,530)
(144,000)
(690)
(25)
(6,930)
(2,140)
(160)
($246,000)
($4,710)
(9,360)
(34,100)
(8,250)
(9,460)
(15,500)
(281,000)
(1,980)
(45)
(16,200)
(3,720)
(460)
($512,000 )
(50)
(100)
(400)
(100)
(150)
(150)
(3,300)
(50)
(<25)
(250)
(50)
(<25)
(6,850)
Notes: Figures rounded to three significant digits. Employment figures rounded to nearest 50, except figures under 25.




APPENDIX H
RECIPIENTS OF THE DRAFT EIS

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS


3 R Minerals
3 R Associate Environmental Consultants
Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma
ADEQ
AEG
AES Engineering
Afognak Native Corporation
AGRA Earth & Environment
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Ahtna, Inc.
Ak-Chin Indian Community
Akhiok-Kaguyak,inc.
Akiachak, Limited
Akutan Corporation
Alabama and Coushatta Tribes
Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town
Alakanuk Native Corporation
Alamo Navajo Chapter
Alaska Miners Association, Inc.
Alaska Peninsula Corporation
Alaska State Governor's Office
Alaska Placer Development, Inc.
Aleknagik Natives Ltd.
Aleut Corporation
Alta Gold
Alturas Rancheria Federal Reservation
Amax Gold Inc. - Sleeper Mine
American Assay Labs, Inc.
American Canoe Association
American Colloid Company
American Whitewater
American Land Conservancy
American Fisheries Society, OR Chapter
American Resource Corporation, Inc.
Amigos
Andalex
Apache Tribe of Oklahoma
Apex Bulk Commodities
Applied Independent Technology
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.
Arapaho Tribe
Arco Alaska, Inc.
Arctic Slope Consulting Group
Arctic Village
Arctic Treks
Arizona Builders Alliance
Arizona Department of Commerce
Arizona Audubon Council
Arizona Mining Association
Arizona Department of Mines/Mineral Resources
Arizona State Governor's Office
Arizona State Historic Preservation Off.
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
Arizona Game & Fish Department
Arizona State Parks
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
Arviq, Inc.
ASARCO Inc.
ASE Management - BHP Minerals, Int.
Askinuk Corporation
Aspen Exploration
Atmauthluak, LimitedAtqasuk Corp.
Atxam Corporation
AUR Resources (USA) Inc.
Austin Powder Company
Avalon Development Corporation
Azachorok, Inc.
Baan-O-Yeel Kon Corporation
Bagdad Unified School District, AZ
Bagdad Fire Department, AZ
Bald Mountain Mine
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll
Bamberg Associates
Barona Group of the Barona Reservation
Barretts Minerals, Inc.
Barrick Bullfrog Mine
Barrick Gold Corporation
Battle Mountian Band Colony
Battle Mountain Gold
Bay View Inc.
Bean Ridge Corporation
Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria
Bear Creek Council
Beartooth Alliance
Beaver Kwit'Chin Corporation
Becharof Corporation
Behre Dorbear
Belkofski Corporation
Bells Flats Natives, Inc.
Benton County Commission, OR
Bentonite Corporation
Bering Straits Native Corporation
Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians
Bethel Native Corporation
Beveridge & Diamond
BHP Copper
BHP - DC Office
BHP Nevada Mining Company
BHP Copper Robinson
BHP Minerals
Big Valley Rancheria
Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute-Shoshone Indians
Big Lagoon Rancheria
Big Sandy Rancheria Of Mono Indians
Bjork, Lindley & Danielson, P.C.
Blackfeet Reservation
Blue Lake Business Council
BMOA/OIM
Boart Longyear Company
Breckenridge Minerals
Brevig Mission Native Corporation
Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony
Bristol Bay Native Corporation
Brohm Mining Corporation
Brush Wellman, Inc.
Bureau of Land Management Resource Advisory Councils
Bureau of Land Management
Burns Paiute Tribe
Butte District Resource Advisory Council
C.W. Rech & Company, Inc.
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Cable Mountain Mine
Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indian of the Colusa Ind.
Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma
Cahto Indian Tribe
Cahuilla Band of Indians
California Department of Fish & Game
California Wilderness Coalition
California Coastal Commission
California Department of Transportation, District 3
California Senate Committee on Environmental Quality
California Department of Fish and Game, Region 5
California State Governor's Office
California Native American Tribes
California Mining Association
California Trade and Commerce Agency, Office of Permit Assistance
Calista Corporation
Campo Band of Mission Indians
Camtec Industrial Sales
Canoncito Navajo Colony
Canyon Resources Corporation
Cape Fox Corporation
Carlotta Copper Company
Carson Colony Community Council
Casper Star-Tribune
Cedarville Rancheria of Northern Paiute Indians
Celilo Village Portland Office
Center for Alternative Mining Development Policy
Center for Science in Public Participation
Chalkyitsik Native Corporation
Chaluka Corporation
Chefarnrmute, Inc.
Chehalis Business Council
Chehalis, Chinook, and Quinault
Chemehuevi Indian Tribe
Chemical Lime Company
Chenega Corporation
Cherokee Nation Economic & Business Development
Chevak Company Corporation
Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Chickaloon-Moose Native Assoc., Inc.
Chignik River Limited
Chignik Lagoon Native Corporation
Chilkoot Indian Association
Chinuruk Inc.
Chippewa-Cree Tribe
Chitina Native Corporation
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
Choggiung Ltd
Chugach Natives Inc.
Chugach Alaska Corporation
Churchill County Commission, NV
Citizen Band of Potawatomi
Citizen's Coal Council
Citizens for the West
City of Globe, AZ
City of Safford, AZ
CLC
Clean Sites
Clean Age Minerals
Climax Moly Company
Coast Indian Community
Coastal Chemicals, Inc.
Cochise Co., AZ
Cocopah Indian Tribe
Coeur D'Alene Tribal Council
Coeur D'Alene Mines Corporation
Coeur Rochester, Inc.
Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians
Colorado Mining Association
Colorado State Governor's Office
Colorado Indian Tribe
Colville Reservation
Comanche Tribe of Oklahoma
Cominco American
Condor Earth Technologies, Inc.
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes
Confederated Tribe of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Consumers Health Freedom Coalition
Continental Minerals, Inc.
Continental Lime, Inc.
Control Industries, Inc.
Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
Coquille Indian Tribe Community
Cordex Exploration Company
Corporon Hoehn Svitavsky Eyler & Hill Cortez Gold Mines
Cortina Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians
Cotter Corporation
Council Native Corporation
County of San Bernardino, CA
Covelo Indian Community
Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians
Coyote Valley Tribal Council
CR Minerals
CR Kendall
CRC, Company
Creek Nation of Oklahoma, Office of the Principal Chief
Crosible Filtration, Inc.
Crow Creek Sioux Reservation
Crow Tribe
Crowell & Moring
Crown Resources
Crusher Service Company
CSM
Cully Corporation
CURE
Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians
CWG
Cyprus Amax Minerals
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corporation
Cyprus Sierrita Corporation
Cyprus Miami Mining
D.H. Blattner & Sons
D&D Tire, Inc.
Dakota Resource Council
Danzhit Hanlaii Corporation
Davis, Graham & Stubbs
Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band
Dee Gold Mining Company
Defenders of Wildlife
Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma
Deloycheet, Inc.
Desert Survivors
Devils Lake Sioux Tribe A.K.A. Mni Wakan Oyate Tribe
Dickenson City Citizens Committee "Save Virginia's Baby"
Digmore Mine
Dineega Corporation
Dinyea Corporation
Diomede Native Corporation
DOC/OMR
Dot Lake Native Corporation
Doyon, Ltd.
Dresslerville Colony
Duck Valley Reservation
Duckwater Shoshone Tribe
Dupont Specialty Chemicals
Dupont
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
Earth Science Consulting Service, Inc.
Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma
Eastern Arizona Counties Organization
Eastern Shoshone Tribe
Echo Bay McCoy Cove
Echo Bay Minerals Company
Ecology Center of Southern California
EEEE, Inc.
Ekeok Natives Ltd.
Eklund Drilling
Eklutna, Inc.
Eldorado Gene's Music
Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians
Elim Native Corporation
Elk Valley Tolowa
Elko Band Colony
Elko Daily Free Press
Ely Indian Colony
Emery County, UT
Emmonak Corporation
Enchem Technology, Inc.
Energy Lab, Inc.
Energy West Mining
English Bay Corporation
Entrix, Inc.
Environmental Chemistries, Inc.
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
ERO Resources Corporation
ESA Consultants
Esmerelda County Board of Commissioners, NV
Eugene Sand & Gravel
Eureka Development Company, Ltd.
Eureka County Commissioners, NV
Euro-Nevada Mining
Evans Environmental Consultants
Evansville, Inc.
Eyak Corporation
Fairbanks Industrial Development Corporation
Fairmile Gold Corporation
Fallon Colony
Far West Inc.
Federal Reservation Miwok
Federal Reservation
Federal Reservation Cahuilla Band of Indians
Federal Reservation Pomo
Federal Paiute Reservation
Federal Reservation Eastern Pomo Federal Reservation Me-wuk
Federal Summit Fluids
Federal Reservation Rumsey Rancheria
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe
Fleischli Oil Company
Florida Canyon Mining, Inc.
Forest Hydrology Northwest
Fort Mcdermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe
Fort Belknap Tribes, Environmental Protection Agency
Fort Bidwell Indian Community Of Piaute Indians
Fort Belknap Indian Community Gros Ventre & Assiniboine Tribes
Fort Mcdowell Mohave-Apache Indian Community
Fort Mohave Tribal Council
Fort Mojave Reservation
Fort Peck Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes
Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma
Franco-Nevada Mining Corporation, Inc.
Friends of The Rocky Mountain Front
Friends of Westwater
Gallagher & Kennedy
Gallatin Wildlife Association
Gana-A 'Yoo, Ltd.
Genwal
Geotemps, Inc.
Getchell Gold Corporation
Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Gildarstone Mining & Restoration Ventures
Givens, Funke & Work
Glamis Gold, Inc.
Glenbrook Nickel
Globe-Miami Chamber of Commerce
Gochnour & Associates, Inc.
Gold Hill Town Meeting, Inc.
Golden Sunlight Mines
Golden Eagle Group
Golder Associates
Golovin Native Corporation
Goshute Pauite Tribe
Goshute Reservation
Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman Attorneys at Law
Governor of Guam's Office
Governor of Northern Mariana Island's Office
Governor of American Samoa's Office
Graham Chamber of Commerce, AZ
Graham Co. Board of Supervisors, AZ
Grande Ronde Tribal Council
Grassroots Environmental Effective Network
Great Basin Mine Watch
Great Plains Rain Forest
Greater Wyoming Valley Audubon Soc.
Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce, AK
Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Green Network
Greenlee County, AZ
Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians
Grindstone Indian Rancheria of Wintun-Wailaki
GSL Electric
Guardians of the Rural Environment Inc.
Gust Rosenfeld
Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation
Hadum Inc.
Hagler Bailly
Haida Corporation
Harding Lawson Associates
Harold Runnels Building
Havasu Gold Seekers
Havasupai Tribe
Hecla Mining Company
Hee-Yea-Lindge Corporation
Heklet Association
Heritage Land Bank
High Country Citizens' Alliance
Hoh Indian Tribe
Homestake Mining Company
Hoopa Vally Tribe
Hopi Tribe
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians
Horizons West
Hualapai Tribe
Huekel Corporation
Humboldt City Board of Commissioners, NV
Humboldt County Commission, NV
Huna Totem Corporation
Hungwitchin Corporation
Hycroft
Hydrometrics, Inc.
Idaho Department of Lands
Idaho Rural Council
Idaho State Governor's Office
Idaho Mining Association
Igiugig Native Corporation
Iliamna Natives, Limited
Immanuel Congregational Church
Independence Mining Co, Inc.
Ingalik, Inc.
Inland Empire Public Land Council
Institute of Environmental Solutions
Institute for Policy Research Northwestern University
Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma
Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska
Iqfijouaq Company
Isanotski Corporation
Island Mountain Protectors
J.M. Beck & Associates
J.R. Simplot Company, Smoky Canyon Mine
Jackson Band of Mewuk Indians
James Heimler Inc.
Jamestown S'klallam Tribe
Jamul Indian Village
JBR Environmental
Jicarilla Apache Tribe
Johnson Matthey
Judith River Farm
K'Oyitl'Ots'Ina, Ltd.
Kaibab-Paiute Tribe
Kake Tribal Corporation
Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation
Kalispel Business Council
Kalmiopsis Audubon
Kansas State Governor's Office
Karuk Tribe of California
Kasigluk, Inc.
Kavilco, Inc.Kaw Nation
Kennecott Minerals Company
Kennecott Ridgeway Mining Company
Kennecott Exploration Company
Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation
Kennecott/Borax
Kern County Planning Department
Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas
Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas
Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma
Kijik Corporation
Kikiktagruk Inupiat Corporation
King Cove Corporation
King Mineral Resources Inc.
Kinross Gold
Klamath General Council
Klawock Hennya Corporation
Kleinfelder
Kluckwan, Inc.
Knight Piesold
Knikatnu, Inc.
Kokarmiut Corporation
Koliganek Natives, Ltd.
Kongniglkilnomiut Yuita Corp.
Koniag, Inc.
Kootenia Tribe of Idaho
Kootznoowoo, Inc.
Kotlik Yupik Corporation
Koyuk Native Corporation
Kugkaktlik, Inc.
Kuitsarak, Inc.
Kuskokwim Corporation
Kuukpik Corporation
Kvaerner
Kwenthluk, Inc.
Kwik Inc.
La Posta Band of Indians
Lake Superior Greens
Land & Water Consulting, Inc.
Land Management Consultants
Land & Water Fund of the Rockies
Lander County Commission, NV
Las Vegas Paiute Tribe
Laser, Inc.
Lassen County, CA
Law Offices of R. Vrooman
Le Tourneau Sales & Service Company
Levelock Natives, Ltd.
Lewis & Clark Water Quality Protection District, MT
Lewis & Clark County, MT
Lewistown District Resource Advisory Council
Lilburn Corporation
Lime Village Company
Lincoln County Public Lands Commission, NV
Little River Band of Pomo Indians
Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians
Lovelock Paiute Tribe
Lower Elwha Reservation
Lower Brule Sioux Tribal Council
Lower Snake River Resource Advisory
Council
Lucky Seven, Inc.
Lummi Indian Nation
Luzenac America Technical Center
Luzenac America Yellowstone Mine
Luzenac America, Inc.
Lyon County Public Lands Comm., NV
Makah Tribal Council
Malin Lewis Distributing Company
Manakotak Natives, Ltd.
Manzanita Band of Mission Indians
Mar-Industrial Falk Renew
Maricopa Audubon Society
Marigold Mining Company
Mary's Igloo Native Corporation
Maserculiq, Inc.
Mayer Equipment, Inc.
Mcclelland Laboratories, Inc.
McCoy/Cove Mine
MCZ
Mec & Echo Bay Mines
MEIC
Mendas Chaag Native Corporation
Meridian Gold Company
Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians
Mescalero Apache Reservation
Metlakatla Indian Community
MGA Communications
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma
Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians
Miller Mountain Corporation
Mine Regulation Reporter
Mineral Policy Center Affiliation
Minerals Exploration Coalition
Mining & Environmental Services
Mining Journal Ltd.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Minerals
Moapa Band of Paiute Indians
Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma
Mohave County Public Land Use, CA
Montana River Action Network
Montana Department of State Lands
Montana State Governor's Office
Montana Trout Unlimited
Montana Mining Association
Montana Wildlife Federation
Moran & Associates
Morenci Unified School District, AZ
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Motten & Associates
Mountain Pass Wind Company
Mountain Messenger
Mountain States Legal Foundation
MPH Consulting
MT Environmental Information Center
Mtnt, Ltd.
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Nambe Pueblo
Nana Regional Corporation
Napaskiak Corporation
National Wildlife Federation
National Outdoor Leadership School
National Regional Environmental
National Citizens' Coal Law Project
National Mining Association
National Research Council
National Association of Mining Districts
National Parks andConservation Assoc.
Native Village of Tetlin
Native Village of Venetie
Navajo Nation
Nebraska State Governor's Office
Nelson Lagoon Corporation
Nevada Wildlife Federation's Endangered Species Alliance
Nevada Division of Minerals
Nevada Wildlife Federation
Nevada State Governor's Office
Nevada Landme's Association
Nevada Division of Wildlife
Nevada Mining Association
Nevada Cement
Nevada State Clearinghouse
Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection
Nevada Bureau of Mines & Geology
Nevada Miners and Prospectors Assoc.
Nevada Wild Horse Commission
New Gold
New Mexico Mining/Minerals Division
New Mexico Environment Department
New Mexico Office of Lieutenant Governor
New Mexico Mining Association
New Mexico State Governor's Office
Newcrest Resources, Inc.
Newmont Gold Company
Newtok Corporation
Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho
Nima Corporation
Ninilchik Native Association, Inc.
Nisqually Indian Tribe
Nooksack Indian Tribe
North Start Borough Assembly, AK
North Santiam Watershed Council, OR
North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians
North Dakota State Governor's Office
Northern Plains Resource Council
Northern Sierra Mining Council
Northern Cheyenne Tribe
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
Northway Natives, Inc.
Northwest Cancer Center
Northwest Pipe
Northwest Mining Association
Northwestern Mutual Life
NPRC
Nunakauiak Yup'ik
Nunamiut Corporation
Nunapitchuk, Limited
Oceanside Corporation
Office of the Governor-Jemez Pueblo
Oglala Sioux Tribal Office
OHM Remediation Services
Oil DRI Corp of America
Okanogan Highlands Alliance
Okeefe Drilling Company
Old Harbor Native Corporation
Olgoonik Corporation
Omaha Tribe
ONDA
Oregon Department of Geology &
Mining Industries
Oregon Natural Desert Association
Oregon Independent Miners
Oregon State Governor's Office
Oro Nevada
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliff
Osage Tribe
Oscarville Native Corporation
Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians
Ottawa Tribe
Ounalashka Corporation
Ouray County Alliance
Ouzinkie Native Corporation
Paimuit Corporation
Paiute Shoshone Indians
Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Parsons Behle & Latimer
Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Paskenpa Band of Nomelecki Indians
Paug-Vik Inc., Ltd.
Pauma Band of Mission Indians
Pawnee Tribe of Oklahoma
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
Pedro Bay Native Corporation
Pegasus Gold Corporation
People for the West
Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma
Pete Lien & Sons
Phelps Dodge Tyrone
Phelps Dodge Mining Company
Phelps Dodge Exploration Corporation
Phelps Dodge Morenci, Inc.
Picuris Pueblo
Pilot Point Native Corporation
Pilot Station, Inc.
Pinoleville Rancheri Of Pomo Indians
Pit River Tribe
Pitka's Point Native Corporation
Pittston Nevada Gold Company
Pittston Mineral Ventures
Placer Dome Inc.
Planning Information Corporation
Pleuss-Staufer (California) Inc.
Pojoaque Pueblo
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma
Port Graham Corporation
Port Gamble S'klallam
Poudre Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Powder River Basin Resource Council
Power Resources, Inc.
Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas
Precious Metals Producers
Preston Gates & Ellis
Prochnau-Sutherland Company
Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Project Underground
Protect Our Resources Coalition
Pruitt, Gushee & Bachtell
PTI Environmental Services Public Lands Foundation
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Pueblo of San Juan Governors Office
Pueblo of Cochiti
Pueblo of Sandia
Pueblo of Acoma
Pueblo of Santo Domingo
Pueblo of Zia
Pueblo of San Felipe
Pueblo of Zuni
Pueblo of Isleta
Pueblo of Laguna
Puyallup Tribe
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
Qanirtuuq, Inc.
Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma
Quartz Valley Indian Community
Quechan Federal Reservation
Quechan Tribe
Quest International Management Services, Inc.
Quileute Nation
Quinault Business Committee
R.A.M. Enterprise, Inc.
Radiation Oncology Services
Ramah Navajo Chapter
Rand Mining Company
Redding Rancheria
Redi Insulation, Inc.
Redwood Valley Little River Band of Pomo Indians
Reno-Sparks Colony
Restoration Minerals Company
Rheox, Inc.
Rincon San Luiseno Band of Mission Indians
Riverside Cement Company
Roadrunner Prospectors
Rocky Mountain Air & Lubrication, Inc.
Rocky Mountain Ch. of the Sierra Club
Rocky Mountain Scout
Romarco Minerals
Root & Schindler, P.C.
Rosebud Sioux Tribe
Rough Country Drilling, Inc.
Round Mountain Gold Corporation
Royal Gold, Inc.
Rubber Engineering
Russian Mission Native Corporation
S.F. Phosphates
Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri
Sac and Fox Nation
Sagebrush Exploration
Saguyak Inc.
Salamatof Native Association, Inc.
San Ildefonso Pueblo
San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians
San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tribal Planning Office
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
San Juan Southern Paiute Council
Sanak Corporation
Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians
Santa Rosa Indian Community
Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians
Santa Ana Pueblo
Santa Ysabel Band of Mission Indians
Santa Clara Pueblo
Sauk-suiattle Indian Tribe
Savoonga Native Corporation
Sealaska Corporation
Seldovia Native Association, Inc.
Seminloe Nation of Oklahoma
Seneca-Cayuga Tribe
Sepa Resources
Seph-De-Ye-Ah Corporation
Seven Up Pete Joint Venture
Seven Oaks Ranch
Shaan Seet Inc.
Shaktoolik Native Corporation
Shea & Gardner
Shee Atika, Inc.
Shepherd Miller, Inc.
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton Llp
Sherwood Valley Rancheria Of Pomo Indians
Shingle Springs Rancheria
Shishmaref Native Corporation
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
Shumagin Corporation
Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter
Sierra Chemical Company
Sierra Club California/Nevada RCC Mining Committee
Siletz Indians of Oregon
Silver Valley, Peoples Action Coalition
Siskiyou Audubon Society
Siskiyou Project
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe
Sitnasuak Native Corporation
Sivuqaq Inc.
Skokomish Tribal Council
Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians
Small Mine Operators Association
Soboba Band of Mission Indians
Society for Environmental Truth
Solomon Native Corporation
Sorptive Minerals Institute
South Fork Band Colony
South West Corporation
South Dakota State Governor's Office
South Dakota Office of School & Public Lands
Southern California Gem Industries
Southern Ute Tribe
Southern California Border Miners Assoc
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity
Southwestern Minerals Exploration Assoc.
Spearfish Canyon Preservation Trust Inc.
SPJV
Spokane Tribe of Indians
Squaxin Island Tribe
SRK
St.George Tanaq Corporation
St.Michael Native Corporation
Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council
State of Utah-DCED
State of Nevada, Human Resources
State of Arizona
State of New Mexico, Environmental Department
State of New Mexico, Department of Fish & Game
State of Wisconsin
Stebbins Native Corporation
Steffen Robertson & Kirsten, Inc.
Stewart Colony
Stillaquamish Board of Directors
Stillwater Computer Assistance
Stillwater News
Stillwater Protective Association
Stoel Rives Llp
Stuyahok, Ltd.
Summit Valley Engineering
Summit Valley Equipment
Summit Lake Paiute Tribe
Summitville-San Luis Valley
Summo USA Corporation
Sundance Ventures
Superstition Mountain Treasure Hunters
Suquamish Tribal Council
Susanville Indian Rancheria
Swan Lake Corporation
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
SWOMA
Sycamore Valley Environmental Awareness Group
Sycuan Band of Misson Indians
Table Mountian Rancheria Federal Reservation
Tanacross Inc.
Tanadgusix Corporation
Taos Pueblo
Tatitlek Inc.
Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians
Technical Writer's Ink
Teck Resources
Teller Native Corporation
Tesuque Pueblo
Thatcher Building Supply
The Gold Institute
The Surveyor's Exchange
The University of Chicago
The Conservation Fund
The Tulalip Tribes
The Chickasaw Nation
The Nature Conservancy
Thlopthlocco Tribal Town
Thomas Olsen, Associates, Inc.
Thompson Creek Mine
Three Affiliated Tribes
Tigara Corporation
Tihteet'All, Inc.
Toghotthele Corporation
Togiak Natives Limited
Tohono O'Odham
Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma
Tonto Apache Tribe
Torres Martinez Band of Mission Indians
Tovitna Limited
Tri-Star Design & Manufacturing
Tri-Con Mining Al, Inc.
Tri-State Truck & Equipment, Inc.
Tricon Metals & Services, Incorpoated
Trimac Transportation, Inc.
Trinidad Rancheria
Trout Unlimited
Tule River Indian Tribe
Tulkisarmute Inc.
Tuntunrmiut Rinip Corporation
Tuntutuliak Land Limited
Tuolumme Band of Me-Wuk Indians
Turtle Mountian Band of Chippewa
Twenty-nine Palms Reservation
Twin Hills Native Corporation
Tyonek Native Corporation
U.S. Representative Cannon's Office
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
U.S. EPA, Snake River Basin Field Office
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Representative Hayworth's Office
U.S. Representative Shadegg's Office
U.S. Representative Stump's Office
U.S. Representative Herger's Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Borax, Inc.
Umatilla Reservation
Unalakleet Native Corporation
Unga Corporation
United Keetoowah Band of Indians in Oklahoma
United Auburn Community of Indians
University of Nevada-Reno, Department of Mining
University of Utah
University of Montana
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
Upper Lake Band of Pomo Indians
Upper Snake River Resource Advisory Council
Upper Columbia-Salmon Clearwater Resource Advisory Council
Uranerz USA
Utah School Trust
Utah Mining Association
Utah Dept. of Environmental Quality
Utah Oil, Gas & Mining
Utah State Governor's Office
Utah Geological Survey
Ute Indian Tribe
Ute Mountian Indian Tribe
Ute Indian Tribe Business Committee
Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute
Valentine Mining Company
Vector Engineering, Inc.
Veex Company
Viceroy Resources
Viceroy International Exploration
Viejas Band of Mission Indians
Village of Andreafsky
Vista Gold, U.S. Inc.
VKO Mine Development Weaver District
W.R. Ryan Company
Wales Native Corporation
Walker River Paiute Tribe
Warm Springs Reservation
Washington Department of Ecology
Washington State Governor's Office
Washoe Tribe of Nevada and CaliforniaWells Band Council
West States Public Lands Coalition
Westech
Western Shoshone Defense Project
Western Mining Action Project
Western Mining Corporation
Western Arizona College
Western Governor's Association
Western Regional Council
Western Environmental Law Center
Western Organization of Resource Councils
Western States Minerals
Wharf Resources Partnership
Wharf Resources
White Mountian Native Corporation
White Mountian Apache Tribe
White Pine County Public Lands Commission, NV
Whitman & Company
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes
Wind River Originals
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
Winnemucca Indian Colony
Women in Mining Education Foundation
Women's Mining Coalition
Woodfords Community Council
Woodward Clyde
Worthington, Lennart & Carpenter
WP CO Land Users Advisory Committee, NV
Wyandotte Nation
Wyo-Ben, Inc.
Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra Club
Wyoming State Governor's Office
Wyoming Mining Association
Wyoming Game & Fish Department
WZI
Yak-tat Kwaan, Inc.
Yakama Nation
Yankton Sioux Tribal Business and Claims Committee
Yavapai-Apache Tribe
Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe
Yerington Paiute Tribe
Yomba Shoshone Tribe
Young & Kester Attorneys at Law
Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo
Yuma County Board of Supervisors, AZ
Yurok Council
Zho-tse, Inc.
Zortman Mining, Inc.

INDIVIDUALS

Bent Aaquist
R.L. Abbott
Rick Achermann
Patricia Acker
Teresa Adams
Norman Adams
Ron Adamson
Michael Aderhold
Butch Adkins
H. Adler
Joan Agamenoni
Susan Ahern
Mike Ahrens
Don Ainsworth
Audrey Akhavan
Russell Allen
Duane Allen
N. Allen
Sylvia Allen
Stephen Allen
Gary Allen
Don Allen
Jennifer Allen
Richard Allison
Richard Allison, Jr.
John Alonge
Tim Alpers
John Ames
Robert Amidon
Dennis Anderson
Charles Anderson
Carol Anderson
Scott Anderson
Larry Anderson
Mark Anderson
Wade Anderson
Jeff Anderson
Linda Anderson
Jay Anderson
A.C. Anderson
Don Andrews
Jill Andrews
Dwayne Andrews
June Anna-fey
Fred Antinora
Steve Antonioli
Peter Apostolakis
Steven Arita
J. Armbrust
Timothy Arnold
Clay Arnold
Phillip Ashcroft
Carole Ashworth
Ronald Askin
Cory Atiyeh
Marlene Atiyeh
David Atkins
Alfred Austin
Barbara Ayala
Jim Baca
Cindy Bachman
William Bachman
Tom Bachtell
David Bacon
John Badovinac
Charles Bagley, Jr.
Sandy Bahr
Rod Baier
R. Bailey
Joan Bailey
Brent Bailey
Jerry Baird
Kenneth Baker
Daniel Baker
Eugene Baker
Anne Baldrige
John Balia
Sherman Ball
John Balla
Geoff Ballantyne
Sam Bamberg
John Barber
Cathy Barcomb
Bill Barger
Frank Barkanyi
Charles Barnard
Phil Barnes
George Barnes
Robert Barnes
Mary Barraco
Dan Barrett
Steve Barrett
George Barrier
Steven Barringer
James Barron
Dennis Bartlett
Joan Barton
Nathan Barton
Hank Bartos
Paul Bartos
Daniel Basketfield
Jim Bates
Stephen Bates
Karri Bath
Edwin Battermann
Paul Bauer
Dana Bauer
Jerry Baughman
Louise Bayard-De-Volo
Robert Bayer
Frank Bayhman
Mary Beager
Cassie Beals
John Bean
Edward Beard
T. Beaver
Jim Beck
Alison Beck-Hass
Tim Becker
Fred Bedall
Thomas Bedell
Richard Bedell
Richard Bedell, Jr.
Larry Beebe
Anne Beierle
Lilani Belad
James Belcher
Pam Bell
John Bella
John Bellmon
James Belshe
Sharon Belton
Les Bender
Kathleen Benedetto
Stu Bengson
Julia Bengston
Robert Bennett, Jr.
John Bentley
Chuck Bentzer
Trish Berg
Larry Berg
Robert Berghaier, Jr.
Jeffrey Berman
John Bernardy
John Bernt
James Berry
Charles Bertelsen
Bret Bessac
Frank Bessac
Ted Bethel
Avo Bethel
Fred Beuler
Howard Beuler
Tom Biggs
C. Bilbrey
Jack Billingsley
Dave Billingsley
Thomas Bingham
Gilbert Binns
Marion Birch
John Bishoff
E. Bittner
William Bixby
Harvey Bjornlie
Phil Blacet
Ernie Black
Russell Blalack
Tom Blanchard
Doug Bland
Blankenship
Debra Blanton
Greg Blaylock
Linda Bliss
Johnny Blizzard
Steve Blomeke
Jordon Bluestien
Carol Blumenthal
Ken Blunt
Gibert Boeza
David Bogese
Douglas Boggan
Sam Boggs
Vera Boone
Steve Borell
Benny Bossingham
Aimee Boulanger
Mark Bowling
Michael Bowman
Dr. James Bowns
Arleen Boyd
Alan Boyer
Bob Bozzuto
Susan Brackett
Bert Brackett
Brett Brackett Iii
Daniel Bradley
Agnes Brailsford
Robert Brammer
Rick Branch
David Brinkley
Bob Brister
Jim Britell
Brent Bronson
Gerald Brookman
Alexandra Brooks
Lois Brooks
Fred Brossy
Yvette Broussal
Judy Browing
Mike Brown
Mark Brown
Chris Brown
Brett Brown
Albert Brown
James Brown
Nancy Brown
David Brown
Richard Brown
Quentin Browne
Jim Browning
Lee Brubaker
Joseph Brunner
Dennis Bryan
William Bryant
Karen Buckingham
Mark Buckles
Paul Buckley
Alan Buffo
Shelley Bull
Angelita Bullets
Gina Bulock
Burton Bundy
Denton Bungarz
David Burch
Olive Burch
Burggraf
George Burghard
Peter Burk
Glynn Burkhardt
Mike Burl
Arthur Burley
H.a. (Hap) Burnett
Isabella Burns
John Burrows
Glen Burton
John Burton
Phyllis Burwell
Bill Bussman
Ray Butler
Jim Butler
Sharon Byram
Timothy Byron
Paul Cadruvi
Denise Cady-smith
Greg Caffrey
John Callahan
Brent Callen
Edwin Calloway, Jr.
L. Campbell
Mike Campbell
Douglas Campbell
Casey Campbell
Jeff Campbell
Christine Canaly
Roald Cann
Linda Cannell
Irene Cannon-geary
Kevin Cardin
Joseph Cardoza
Ron Carey
Barry Carlson
Cathy Carlson
Alan Carlton
Greg Carmichael
Ann Carpenter
Steven Carpenter
Jay Carr
Ruth Carraher
Frank Carrico
Fernando Carrillo
Lynn Carrington
Robert Carrington
John Carrol
Roy Carter
James Carver
Jeff Cary
C. Casburn
James Case
Larry Cassidy
Joseph Cavanaugh
Benjamin Cayetano
Abeyta Cecilia
Bill Center
John Chambelin
Sonia & Estelle Chamberlain
Robert Chamberlin
David Chambers
Dennis Chambers
Danny Charlie
Jeffery Chase
Rocky Chase
Leon Chavet
Victor Chayet
Tom Chermin
Vic Chevillon
J. Chisum
Elton Chorney
Ron Christensen
Pam Christensen
Jerry Christie
Diane Christman
Lynn Christofferson
Richard Cimino
Donna Clancy
Robert Clancy
James Clark
Jack Clark
William Clark
Dave Clark
Don Clark
George Clark, Jr.
Shea Clark-Smith
James Clarke
Bill Clarno
Chip Clawson
Thomas Clayton
Nancy Clopton
Rich Clough
Wendell Coats
Mike Cochran
Doug Coe
H. Coggin
William Cohrt
Constance Cole
George Cole
Timothy Coleman
Jim Collard
Will Collette
William Collins
Thomas Collins
Shan Collins
Clark Collins
Glendon Collins
Rick Collins
R. Collins
R. Collins, Jr.
Robert Combs, Sr.
Bill Condit
David Coney
George Conger
Jan Conley
James Conley
Henry Conner
Teresa Conner
Margaret Conradsen
Dick Conti
Jose Contreras
Lin Cook
Michael Cook
Rick Cook
James Cooksley
Merril Coomes
Kartina Cord
Rob Corkran
Russell Corn
James Cornelius
Shawn & Dale Cosper
Kevin Costello
Tony Cotner
Ray Coulinke
Emily Cousins
Luis Covarrubias
Bill Crabtree
Delwin Craig
Kim Craig
Leroy Cramer
Gary Crauberger
Bruce Crawford
Fred Crisp
Dennis Criswell
Buford Crites
Eddie Cross
Trent Crotteau
Bob Croucher
Richard Crowley
Thomas Crowley
David Cruse
Falma Cullinane
Dean Culwell
Gary Cummings
Kirk Cunningham
Vesta Curry
Alan Curtis
Ellen Cypher
Stephen D'Esposito
Jaak Daemen
Don Dahlgren
Paul Dahlgren
Rick Dale
Tad Dale
Paul Dale
Dan Dalgarno
Stuart Dalheim
Mary Dalmer
Leland Dammerich
William Danley
Judy Danner
John Darke
Wilma Darnell
Fred Darvill
Fernanda Dau-Fisher
Mike Davenport
Ian Davidson
Charles Davis
Richard Davis
Robert Davis
Larry Davis
Lorraine Davis
James Davis
Jeremiah Davis
Don Davis
Andrew De Garmo
Franklin Deaver
Paul Deboo
Jackie Deer
Donald Deines
Bradley Delaney
Bruce Delaney
Megan Delany
Mark Delaplaine
David Delasanta
Nickie Dellacioppa
Duane Delphy
David Delsordo
Stanley Dempsey
Lynn Demuth
William Deneef
Thomas Deneef
Scott Denney
Marty Dennis
Ernest Dernberg
Domenico Detorres
Carl Detweiler
Tom Deutsch
Carl Dewitt
Gordon Dick
James Dickson
Ed Diekman
Mike Digiordano
Larry Dillard, Jr.
M. Dillon
John Dippold
Phillip Dirks
Mabel Dobbs
David Domgaard
Jim Donnelly
Mary Beth Donnelly
Dan Dorfschmidt
Andre Douchane
William Doughty
Neil Douglas
Luana Dowling
William down
Harold Downey
Pat Downey
Michael Doyle
Roy Drake
Vivian Drake
Terry Drever-Gee
Larry Drew
Kim Drossulis
Leo Drozdoff
Steve Drummond
Genevieve Dubois
Carolyn Duckworth
Julie Dudley
Doren Dudley
Susan Dudley
Marianne Dugan
Sara Duhamel
Susan Duncan
Richard Dunsterville
Gale Dupree
Bill Durbin
Harry Durham
Carlos Durosa
Myron Durtsche
Sally Dwyer
Darrell Dyer
Walter Eason
Joy Edgar
Mary Edgin
Roger Edwards
Alan Edwards
Skip Edwards
Kelly Edwards
Donald Egenberger
John Eggleston
Greg Ekins
Lance Eklund
Charles Eldodt
Bo Elgby
Jim Elkins
Sherry Ellebracht
Catherine Ellefson
Mark Ellis
James Elsbernd
Larry Ely
Robert Emerson
David Emery
Kevin Emmerich
Scott Endicott
Thomas Engstrom
George Enneking
Peter Enticknap
Donald Equeberger
Rolin Erickson
Teresa Erickson
Lyle Ernst
Nick Ervin
Alan Erwin
Heather Estes
Antoinette Estrada
Glenn Eurick
Neil Eurick
Willis Evans
M. Evans
Patricia Evans
J. Evans
Frank Evans
John Evans
Deborah Evison
Rita Ewing
Ivan Ewing
D. Exline
Ted Eyde
Damian Fagan
Charlie Fahlgren
Jerome Fair
Linda Fanning
Bruce Farling
Dave Farnworth
Donald Farquhar
Mike Farrow
Gary Farso, Sr.
Sarah Faulconer
Tom Faulkner
Lynell Fay
James Fellin
Jami Fernette
Russ Field
Wade Fifield
Phil Fikkan
Jay Fischer
Jerry Fish
Sara Fishkin
Cindy Fisk
Tom Fitzgerald
John Fitzpatrick
William Flanigan
Michael Flannigan
Gus Fleischli
Ernest Fleming
F. Fletcher
Roger Flynn
Valerie Flynn-Wallace
Mark Folks
Charlie Foote
Joshua Footer
Brian Ford
Lindsay Ford
Jeff Fornear
Erin Forrest
Keith Fougitt
Fred Fox
Kenneth Frailey
Tom France
Glen Franklin
Tom Fransway
Stan Frasier
Julie Frazie
Krista Frazier
David Frederick
Harvey Fredericksen
Sam Frederickson
W. Frederking
Curtis Freeman
Rick Freis
Raymond French
Mert Freyholtz
H. Friesema
Bob Fulkerson
R. Fullenwider
Stuart Fuller
David Funk
Duane Furman
Joan Gabelman
Celestino Gachupin
Ernest Galbraith
Tom Galloway
Vince Garcia
Mike Garfield
Kathleen Garland
Patrick Garretson
Tim Garrod
Bob Gartner
Dave Gaskin
Michael Geary
John Gebhardt
Al Gedicks
Cindy Gee
Del Gehrett
Dean Gehring
Robert Gelsky
William George
Ronald Gerdes
Ronnie Gerdes
Jim Geringer
Jean Gerth
Tom Gesick
Michael Giannotto
Sally Gibert
Terry Gibson
Stanley Gigson
Alan Gilda
Robert Gilder
Robert Gile
Dori Gilels
Jerry Gill
John Gilmore
Steve Glass
Mike Glasson
Donald Glen
Glidden
Cindy Glock
R. Glynn
Maxine Goad
Lee Gochnour
Jonathan Goddard
David Godlewski
Thomas Godzicki
Henry Goetz
Pete Goichoechea
Michael Golden
Walter Goldstein
Manuel Gomez
Margaret Gomez
Pablo Gonzalez
Rodolfo Gonzalez
Shawn Gooch
Gary Goodrich
Arnold Gore
Helen Gormley
Mark Gornick
Bob Gosik
Charles Gould
Ted Graf
Sam Graham
Mel Graham
Reba Grandrud
Bruce Grange
Christie Granquist
Michael Grant
Bill Gray
Gary Gray
Russell Green
James Green
Ed Green
Gregory Green
Alan Gregory
Franceen Gregovich
Melanie Gretch
Jeffrey Griffin
Mike Griffith
Ruben Griffith
Karen Gross
Thomas Gross, Jr.
Timothy Grover
Bill Grover
Benjamin Guenther
Herman Guerrero
Rick Guillemin
Tracy Guinand
Kenny Guinn
Kathleen Gundy
William Gunter
B. Gurley
Gary Gustafson
Joseph Gutkoski
Carl Gutlerrez
Terri Haag
Jake Haas
M. Haase
Donald Hacker
James Hadley
Jim Hagen
Jerry Haggard
Peter Hahn
Greg Hahn
Thomas Hains
Lyn Hairy
Denis Hall
John Hall
C. Hall-cottrill
Sue Hallett
David Halligan
Catherine Haluei
William Halver
Daniel Hambilton
Stanley Hamilton
Julie Hamilton
Dick Hammond
Ruben Hancock
Robert Handelsman
Christina Hanis
Jerry Hanley
Karl Hanneman
Jay Hansen
John Hanson
Michael Hanson
E. Haraughty
Byron Hardie
Adella Harding
Anna Harlowe
B. Harms
Howard Harmston
Diane Harrigan
Jerry Harrington
Tom Harris
Dave Harris
Chris Harris
Cheryl Harris
Jeffrey Harris
Steve Hartman
Mary Hartung
Gary Harvey
Richard Hasler
Bill Hatch
Steve Hatfield
Jim Hatt
E. Haub
Jim Havlena
Kerry Hawkins
Tom Hawkins
Denny Hawley
Stan Haye
Chris Hayes
Michael Hayward
Hal Hazan
Elsa Head
Derek Heafey
Craig Hebberd
Kenneth Hecker
Vincent Hecker
William Hedglin
Kevin Hegerle
Spence Hegstad
Bonnie Heidel
James Heimler
Dan Heinz
Fred Heivilin
Harold Helgeson
Kenneth Hell
Steve Hellem
Gary Hellier
Ame Hellman
Gerald Henderson
John Hendricks
John Hengen
Randy Henkle
Michael Henkoski
Scott Hennessy
Quinton Hennigh
Mae Henning
Donald Henrick
Joan Henroid
Ryan Henson
John Hensyel
Christopher Herald
John Herberg
Charles Heringer
Jason Herrin
Steve Herron
Ron Hess
Mary Hess
Pat Hettinger
Bernard Hiatt
Ron Hibbert
Steve Hicks
Mike Higgins
Nancy Hilding
John Hillenbrand
Cloyce Hilsinger
Conrad Hinshaw, Jr.
John Hirsh
Ron Hoagland
Phil Hocker
Cathy Hocker
Harold Hoesberg
Rich Hoffman
Stephen Hoffman
John Hohstadt
Victor Holanda
Sue Holbert
Edward Holcomb
George Holcomb
J. Holfit
Dee Holladay
John Holleman
Kay Holmes
George Holton
John Holzheimer
Raena Honan
Lee Hopkins
Norman Hopland
Harry Horak
Tanya Horn
Paul Horton
Kazuhiko Hotani
Alicia Hough
John Householder
Van Housman
Bill Houston
Phillenore Howard
Dan Howard
Bruce Howard
Mike Howard
Lynn Howe
Kay Howe
Harold Howell
David Howell
Foster Howland
Randy Hubbard
Rod Hubbard
Carolyn Hubble
Eleanor Huffines
Nancy Huffman
Jon Hughes
Daniel Huisentruit
Patricia Hulce
Jane Hull
Jeanne Hum
William Hunkaby
J. Hunnicutt
Richard Hunt
Norlan Hunt
Doug Hunt
Blake Huntley
Tahir Husain
Brian Huse
Bonnie Hutchings
John Hutchins
Lorena Hyde
Christopher Hyle
Alan Ice
Hugh Ingle, Jr.
Heath Inskip
Manford Insley
Mark Ioli
Wayne Ion
Marianne Isbister
Nellie Israel
Brian Iverson
J. Jacks
Lisa Jackson
Stewart Jackson
Edward Jackson
Abe Jacobson
M. Jagoe
Laurence Jahn
Patricia James
Norman Jangen
Henricus Jansen
Peter Janss
Norman Janzen
Stephen Jarvis
Chuck Jeannes
David Jenkins
Dave Jenkins
Don Jennings
Terry Jennings
James Jensen
Bill Jensen
Thomas Jensen
Bart Jenson
Shane Jimerfield
Tom John
Alan Johns
Martin Johnson
Clive Johnson
Gary Johnson
Tammy Johnson
Curt Johnson
Erin Johnson
Bradley Johnson
Bruce Johnson
Donald Johnson
Henry Johnson
David Johnson
Brian Johnson
Robert Johnson
Raleigh Johnson
Britt Johnson
Steve Johnson
Jim Johnson
Xa Dwight Johnson IV
Lahsha Johnston
Dennis Johnston
Norman Jones
Nathan Jones
Harry Jones
Denise Jones
Paul Jones
Martin Jones
Clifford Jones
Cedron Jones
Harold Jones
R. Jones
Dave Jones
Dave Jonson
Rick Jordan
Lynn Jorgensen
Darryl Jozwik
Beth Judy
Kent Just
Michelle Kaelke
Mike Kahoe
Raymond Kamps, Clu
Edward Kane
Terrence Kardong
W. Kari
Carol Kasza
Tracy Katelman
Paul Kath
Jim Katzke
Erol Kaya
Raymond Keenan
Robert Kegley
Bill Keiry
Tom Kell
Jim Kelly
William Kemp
Dirk Kempthorne
Houston Kempton
Kenneth Kempton
Sara Kendall
Anna Kendrick
Terry Kendrick
Brian Kennedy
Bruce Kennedy
William Kennedy
Lawrence Kennedy
Peter Keppler
Dan Kerback
Steven Kerns
Jerry Kidd
Carol Kienenberger
Carl Kilefner
Dana Kilgore
Don Killgore
David Kimball
Shepard Kimbrell
Linn Kincannon
Stanley Kinder
Warren King
Jean King
Lyle King
Tracey King
M. King, Jr.
John Kinkelaar
Kevin Kinsall
Kevin Kirkeby
John Kirkham
William Kirkpatrick
Edward Kirwan
Tom Kitchar
John Kitzhabar
Joseph Kizis
Richard Klein
Eric Klein
John Klick
Edwin Kliegman
Nick Kloepping
Charles Knepper
Laura Knight
Matt Knight
Ted Knight
Keith Knoblock
Arlo Knoll
Tony Knowles
Paul Knox
Janissa Koelsch
Mike Konen
Larry Kornze
Mary Korpi
Terri Koscinski
Debbie Kovar
William Kraemer
Kenneth Krahulec
Larry Krals
Caroline Krater
Kevin Krauklis
Joseph Kraus
Marilyn Krause
Ray Krauss
Jon Krecker
Judy Kreps
Gene Kulessa
Dan Kump
Russell Kunick
Gary Kuroski
William La Bouff
Milton La Due
Doug La Follette
Gayle La Pointe
Rene Laberge
Kimberly Lacey
Lacy
Denise Laes
Brian Laflamme
Larry Lafrentz
Rick Lambert
Stephen Lance
Rod Landblom
Andy Lande
Raymond Landry
Guy Lane
Joe Lane
Stewart Lange
Clifford Larsen
Douglas Larson
Patrick Lassiter
Rick Laudenslager
Jean Lauren
Tracy Lavarnway
Jeffrey Lavender
N. Law
Eric Lawrence
Brad Lawrence
Richard Lawson
Scott Lawson
Mel Lawson
Kerry Lawson
Sam Layne
Tom Lazelle
Bernard Lea
Douglas Lear
Marcy Leavitt
Duane Leavitt
Michael Leavitt
Phillip Lebednik
James Lebret
Steven Lechner
Ellyn Lee
Bryan Lees
Robert Lefaivre
Diana Lefler
Rebecca Leingang
Albert Leniz
Hank Lesinski
James Lessard
Lainie Levick
Mark Levin
Mary Levoir
Lane Lewis
Ethel Lewis
Todd Lewis
Malin Lewis
Frank Lewis
Kim Lexa
Mike Leyva
Ole Lievestad
Bill Lind
Michael Lindholm
Laura Lindley
Henry Lischer, Jr.
Thomas Lisek
Chet Littledyke
David Litvin
Sid Lloyd
Ben Locatelli
Gary Locke
Mike Logan
Sheila Longnecker
Tom Loomis
Marion Loomis
Maxine Lopez
Dan Lopez
Chris Lord
J. Louthan
Jerold Lovich
Patricia Lucas
Eric Lucas
Dan Lucas
John Lutley
Bill Lyle
Jack Lyman
John Lyman
Willy Lynch
Gary Lynch
R. Lyngby
Gillian Lyons
David Lytle
Anita Macfarlane
Dianna Macleod
Rod Macleod
Frank Macmurray
Bernice Maertz
Janette Magee
Doug Magee
Rick Magstadt
Joe Maher
Jeff Malmen
Jessi Maloney
J. Maneth
V. Mangus
Scott Manske
Christopher Mapes
Lori Maranto
Steve Marell
Steve Marks
Kelly Maroti
Jason Marsden
Gwen Marshall
Douglas Martin
Anne Martin
Walt Martin
R. Martineau
Susie Mason
Herbert Mason
John Mason
Bob Mason
Rex Massey
Jason Mastrine
Michael Mathews
Erin Mathews
Kay Mathews
Harold Mathews
Ernest Matson
Terry Mattson
Dean Matzat
Steve Mauney
Pamela Mausner
Jacqueline May
Jay Mayhew
Lillian Maynard
Lisa Mayo
Bill Maze
C. Mcarthur
Jim Mccarthy
Daniel Mccarty
William Mccarvill
Gene Mcclelland
Dave Mcclure
Donald Mccmillan
O. Mccook
Phyllis Mccormack
Gordon Mccoy
Steve Mccoy
Tim Mccrum
Betty Mccue
Carroll Mcculloch
Larry Mcdaniel
James Mcdermand
Brad Mcfadden
Michael Mcfarland
Joyce Mcgarry
Kenneth Mcgarva
Sam Mcgeorge
Doug Mcgibbon
Timothy Mcgowan
Robert Mcgowan
Mike Mcgrath
Madelen Mcgregor
Steve Mcguire
Joseph Mcgurrin
Andrew Mckean
Jeromy Mckinnon
Wayne Mclain
David Mclean
Gary Mclearn
Sally Mcleod
Don Mcleod
Vance Mcmahan
Annie Mcmanus
Don Mcmillan
Page Mcneill
Teresa Mcpherson
Keith Mcphilimy
Douglas Mead
Dan Mead
Robert Meckley
Jodi Medlar
Brad Meiklejohn
James Melchior
Karen Melfi
Jay Melnyk
Mary Menetrey
Dean Menge
Jo Anna Meninick
Scott Mernitz
John Merz
Robert Messinger
Susan Messler
Terry Metz
Catherine Meuller
Stanley Meyer
David Meyers
Marcus Middleton
Maureen Miemi
Richard Milanovich
Joe Miller
Barbara Miller
Mark Miller
Sheldon Miller
David Miller
Richard Miller
Jim Milligan
Ernest Milligan
Star Mills
Dewayne Mills
Lonnie Mills
Bill Milton
Mark Minter
Hank Miser
Michael Miskowski
Mike Misner
T. Mitchell
Jim Mitchell
Miles Mitchell
Dal Moellenberg
Cherlynn Moes
Richard Mohr
Tom Monforton
Kelly Monier
Melissa Monk
Sam Monteleone
Mel Montgomery
Russell Moore
Haynes Moore
Scott Moore
Loren Moos
Freddie Moraga
Robert Moran
Steve Morehouse
Roy Morgan
Huel Morphis
Steve Morrell
Lee Morrison
Robert Morse
Mark Morse
Harry Mosby
Stephen Moser
Roger Motten
Michael Mower
Jim Muck
John Mudge
Joyce Muir
Tom Mulgren
Jim Mulhall
Sean Mullen
Earle Mullen
Guadalupe Munoz
Terry Munson
Mary Munson
Susan Murphy
Floyd Murray
Sharon Murray
Shirley Muse
Brian Musser
Tom Myers
Richard Nanna
Rachel Nava
Chuck Neal
Melva Neal
John Neal
Brian Neilson
Glenn Neilson
Mark Nelson
Eloise Nelson
Charles Nelson
Tom Nelson
Larry Nelson
Launa Nessl
Don Newhouse
Earl Newland
Gail Newton
Norman Nicholls
Harold Nichols
Larry Nichols
Kent Nicholson
Dianne Nielson, Ph.D.
Preston Nieson
Rob Nigg
Scott Norby
Bob Nordstrum
A. Norris
Dick Notmeyer
Lee Nugent
Marshall Nunn
Burl Nunn
Peter O'Conner
David O'Donnell
Oscar Ochoa
Robert Odell
Al Odermann
Dimitri Oganessianfs
Laura Ohanian
Steve Olafson
Timothy Oliver
Thomas Olsen
R. Olson
William Orchow
Juan Ornelas
Marcus Osborn
Jeanne Osborn
Tad Osmun
Edmond Osteen
Goldie Otters
O. Owens
Bill Owens
Eladio Pacheco, Jr.
Walt Pachucki
Julia Page
Steve Page
Jerry Palmer
Susan Pancare
Dave Paquin
David Parker
Robert Parker
Doug Parker
Craig Parkinson
Richard Parks
Bruce Parks
John Parks
Delbert Parr
Ronald Parratt
Conrad Parrish
Jeff Parshley
Perry Parsons
John Paterfield
Will Patric
Thomas Patrick
Allen Pauer
Chris Paulsen
Val Payne
Jim Peaco
Gordon Peake
Jimmie Peal
Donald Peay
Henry Peck
James Peek
John Pekrul
Raymond Pendergast
William Pennant, Jr.
R. Pennington
W. Penny
Curtis Pepper
Ina Perce
Bradley Perkins
Terry Perkins
Joe Pescio
Gene Peters
Mike Petersen
Kent Petersen
Ellis Peterson
Mike Peterson
Ron Peterson
Daniel Pettengill
George Pettyjohn
Jack Phillips
William Phillips
Charles Phillips
Robert Phipps
Gary Picker
Jennifer & Linda Pierce
Edward Pike
Larry Pilster
Douglas Pineo
Ralph Pingrossi
David Piquet
Tom Pitney
William Platts
Harold Plum, Jr.
Darla Poag
Don Poggi
Alan Politte
Robert Pollock
Robert Popp
Donald Potts
Shiloh Poulter
Dan Powell
Sharon Prager
Roy Preator
Michael Pressman
Linda Priest
Richard Prior
Victor Pritchard
Todd Process
Louis Profit
Steven Proscia
Harold Provonsha
Leo Pruitt
Robert Pruitt, Jr.
Shali Puls
Douglas Putman
Steven Quarles
Ella Quay
Lorraine Quinn
Joseph Quintana
Brett Rabe
Peter Rabin
Marc Racicot
Denyse Racine
Bruce Raden
Mike Raffath
Mike Rains
Doug Rand
William Raner
Ronald Rapher
Derek Rapier
Mark Rapkoch
Ronny Rardin
Richard Rasmussen
Sarath Ratnayake
Geoff Rauch
Jane Ray
Larry Raymond
Chuck Rech
Charles "Hardy" Redd
Jim Reddy
Jill Reed
Leroy Reed
Lynn Reed
Linda Reed-Jerofke
Elaine Rees
Leatha Reeves
John Reginato
Linda Regnier
Woody Rehanek
Doug Reichenbaren
Christine Reilly
Bernard Reilly
Fritz Rennebaum
Bob Ressler
Fred Retzlaff
Norma Reynolds
Jerry Reynoldson
Richard Rhoads
Freddy Rhodes
James Rhyne
James Rice
Scott Rice
Eldon Rice
Mayfield Richard
Scott Richey
Theona Richie
Merle Richmond
Kathy Richmond
Virginia Ricketts
Ron Ricketts
Dave Riddle
Theron Riley
June Ringer
David Ringquist
John Rishel
John Ritchey
Scott Ritchie
Dan Ritzman
Robert Rivera
Daniel Rix
Julie Rizzo
David Robbins
John Roberts
Craig Roberts
Ernie Robinson
Roger Robinson
Helen Robinson
Otis Robinson
Raymond Robinson
George Robinson
Kevin Robinson
Terri Rodefer
Howard Rodgers
A. Rogers
Clayton Rogers
Joseph Rogi
Emil Romagadi
Joe Romero
Christa Romppanen
James Roots
Donna Rosborough
Olga Rosche
Patti Rose
Barry Rose
Elyssa Rosen
Helene Rosenberg
Nathalie Rosin
G. Ross
Keith Rousch
A. Rovig
Terry Rubin
I. Rudy
Hugh Ruebush
Hector Ruedas
David Ruiz
Richard Rukavina
Walter Rule, Jr.
Joseph Rumberg
Samuel Rushforth
Luke Russell
Don Russell
George Rutter
Kevin Ryan
Pat Rylance
Jennifer Salisbury
David Salisbury
Diana Salisbury
Robin Salthouse
Terry Sampson
Walter Sampson
Amy Sanchez
Castulo Sanchez
Michael Sanders
Richard Sanderson
Stuart Sanderson
Alice Sandoval
Andrew Sandoval
Robert Sanregret
Jay Santos
Richard Sargent
Sili Sataua
John Savarete
Gultekin Savci
Stephen Saway
Wayne Sayer
Ronald Sbrighia
Tom Scartaccini
Robert Schaale
Edward Schafer
T. Schaffer
Darrell Scharf
Jack Scheall
Sanford Schemnitz
Mike Schern
Craig Schiffries
Ron Schindler
Charles Schlicht
Craig Schlittler
George Schmidt
Ron Schmiermund
Daniel Schneider
Ben Schole
Steve Schombel
Elaine Schrader
Reid Schuller
Michele Schummer
Lenard Schwab
Alan Schwartz
William Schwarzkoph
A. Schweizer
Ruth Ann Scola
Michael Scott
Warren Scott
Verna Scratch
Tim Scullen
Kurtis Sears
Paul Seccomb
Darryl Seeley
Bjorn Selinder
Chris Sellstone
Billie Senik
Michelle Senne
Gene Sentz
Suzanne Sessine
Lesa Sevin
Mary Sexton
Pete Shabeshari
James Shannon
James Shannon Jr.
Richard Shannon, Jr.
Sam Sharp
Chris Shaw
Buddy Shaw
Katy Sheehan
Marcie Sheehan-Kerner
Wesley Shelberg
Richard Shepard
Austin Shepherd
Holland Shepherd
Byron Sher
Chuck Shipley
Glen Shipp
Lucy Shipp
Thor Shirley
Frank Sholey
Kon Shonk
Robert Shook
Richard Shores
Leonard Shrewsbury
Duane Shroufe
Chuck Shultz
Florence Signaless
Jack Sikorski
G. Silliman
Arnold Silverman
Edward Simi
Richard Simon
Grant Simonds
Gregg Simonds
Herva Simpson
Tom Simpson
Dave Simpson
Laura Sims
L. Sims
Ronald Singer
Paul Sisson
Daniel Sivertson
Laura Skaer
Larry Skaggs
Robert Skinner
Michael Skowera
Walter Slack
Dennis Slates
Jerry Smalling
William Smart
Steve Smerud
Sally Smith
Judith Smith
Willis Smith
Gregory Smith
Vance Smith
Edgar Smith
Craig Smith
Dorothy Smith
Jeff Smith
Kelly Smith
Nathan Smith
Dan Smith
E. Smith
Billy Smith
Troy Smith
Laura Smith
Connie Smith
Geoffrey Smith
Jim Smithson
Timothy Snider
Bill Snoddy
Scott Soderstrom
Thomas Sonandres
Aubert Sonheim
Glen Sonnabend
Ford Sorenson
Sam Sorich
James Southworth
Bob Speaker
Jay Spehar
Roger Spencer
Susan Spencer
Tim Speyer
Richard Spotts
Nancy Spraggins
Henrietta Squirewell
Jeff Stabnow
Donald Stacey
Alan Stahler
Mykie Stanford
Ronald Stanford
R. Stanley
John Stansberry
Dee Stapp
Gordon Steele
Robert Steele
Mark Steen
Mary Stellerini
Don Steuten
Don Steuter
Bud Stevenson
John Stewart
Donald Stewart
Bruce Stewart
Roy Stienmier
Don Stillwell
Jim Stinnett
Allen Stinson
Patricia Stockdill
Rob Stokes
Will Stokes
Jon Stone
Ray Storey
Steve Stratton
Dan Streeter
Edmund Strickland
Eric Struhsacker
Debra Struhsacker
Mark Stuart
Mark Sturek
Sean Sullivan
Jeanne Sullivan
Giri Sumen
Steve Sutherland
Russell Swan
Gregory Sweeney
Tim Swendseid
Raymond Swenson
Larry Swett
Harry Switzer, Sr.
Fife Symington
Bill Szymanski
Ken Tabon
Steve Tabor
Van Talley
Paul Tallman
Mary Tamplin
John Tanaka
Dale Tash
John Taule
R. Taylor
Jane Taylor
Jack Taylor
Paul Tedesco
Derrick Teel
James Teeter
James Tenney
Wolfe Terry
Candace Thomas
Robert Thomason
Robert Thompson
Allene Thompson
Ronald Thompson
Mr.& Mrs.Tthompson
Don Thompson
Leslie Thompson
Amy Thompson
Jack Thornborrow
Stephanie Tidwell
Charles Tiernan
Kerri Timmer
Ed Tobin
Chris Tollefson
Selma Tomich
Tom Tomlinson
Alfred Tomlinson
Noel Tomlinson Iii
Robert Toporowski
Phyllis Torson
Istvan Toth
Patrick Traphagen
Joan Travostino
Richard Trenholme
Larry Trent
Marc Trimmer
Ruth Troetschler
Ross Trujillo
Bob Tucker
Hugo Tureck
Charles Turner
Jay Tutchton
William Tweedell
Carl Twissleman
Robin Tyner
Duane Tyree
Chris Udall
Barbara Ulliam
Brian Ulm
John Unger
Robert Uram
Trudy Valles
James Van Arsdale
Nancy Van De Linde
David Van Den Berg
Thomas Van Norman
Rob Vankirk
Michael Varvis
Wallace Vaux
Lisa Vehman
Albert Velasco
Gil Venable
Jack Venezio
Stefan Verchinski
John Vezina
Joel Vignere
Peter Vikre
Robert Villalobos
Joseph Villescas
Dennis Visher
Andrew Visocan
George Volker
Greg Von Savyoe
Linda Vonflatern
Robert Vrooman
Allen Waggoner
Darrell Wagner
Lew Wagoner
Donald Wagstaff
Nancy Wainwright
Robert Walish
Robert Walk
David Walker
Stephen Wallace
Rob Walline
Stuart Wallis
A. Walsh
Gary Walter
Donald Walter
Marnie Walters
Jim Walton
Phillip Waner
Sylvia Ward
H. Ware, III
Kenneth Warren
Chuck Washburn
Rebecca Watson
Kent Watson
Vicki Watson
David Watson
Frances Watson-Werner
George Watt
Marvin Watts
Edgar Wayburn
M. Weaver
Dan Weaver
W. Weber
Rebecca Wechsler
George Weeks
Hal Weeks
Don Weilmunster
Randy Weimer
Bonita Weimer
Warren Weinel
M. Weiskopf
Reba Wells-Grandrud
Frank Welsh
John Welsh
Scott Wentz
John Werden
Frances Werner-Watson
Thomas West
Larry West
Gary Westerlund
Frank Wheat
Pat Wheeler
Richard Wheeler
Howard Whitaker
R. White
Jeffrey White
Dale White
Dick White
W. Whitford, C.E.M.
Kathy Whitman
James Whittaker
Loren Whittermore
Mike Whittington
Bill Wichers
Barbara Wiggins
Brad Wigglesworth
Mike Wignot
John Wild
Ruth Wiley
Paul Wilkerson
Ford Wilkinson
Ron Willden
Ann Willerton
Linda Williams
Dennis Williams
Steve Williams
Kirk Williams
Dan Williams
Maurice Williamson
Jeff Williamson
Clyde Williamson
Frederick Willis
Robert Wills
D. Wilmarth
Cy Wilsey
Nicole Wilsey
Howard Wilshire
H. Wilshire
R. Wilson
Richard Wilson
Jim Wilson
William Wilson
Walter Wilson
Ken Wilson
Eric Wingerter
Fraxanne Winkie
Jay Winrod
Nancy Winslow
Thomas Wirtz
Holly Wise Pam Witted
Ted Witton
Robert Witzeman, M.D.
Patricia Wolf
Steve Wolff
Eric Wollard
John Wood
Joel Wood
Arloa Woolford
Charles Wooten
Shannon Work
Jill Workman
Chuck Worley
Nancy Wotruba
William Wray
Larry Wright
Andrew Wright
Brett Wright
Jeff Wright
Mary Wright
John Wynn
Lih-An Yang
Duane Yantorno
Michael Yochim
Bill Yoder
Robert Yohe
Russell Yonkers
Allen Young
John Young
Roland Young
Doug Young
Tom Youngren
Berta Youtie
Diane Yupe
Kiley Zacharias
Peter Zagar
Donald Zastrow
Janice Zilko
Bob Zimmerman
Janet Zimmerman
John Zimmermann
James Zink
Ruth Zirkle
Fred Zumwalt
Jose Zuniga

 
This page was created by the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management,
Office of Public Affairs
1849 C Street, Room 406-LS
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: (202) 452-5125
Fax: (202) 452-5124
This is a U.S. Government Computer System.
Before continuing, please read this disclaimer