Chapter 3 describes the physical, biological, social, and economic environment and the potential effects on the human environment of the Proposed Action and other alternatives described in Chapter 2. This format eliminates the redundancy created when the affected environment and the environmental consequences are discussed in separate chapters. Chapter 3 is organized by resource, allowing the reader to better review and understand the existing situation and the potential environment impacts of all the alternatives by resource.

Except for BLM-administered lands that are under wilderness review, the proposed regulations apply to all operations authorized by the mining laws on public lands administered by BLM, including Stock Raising Homestead lands where the mineral interest is reserved to the United States. Mineral activity on BLM-administered lands under wilderness review are subject to the requirements at 43 CFR 3802. In addition, public lands open to mineral entry under the mining laws but not administered by BLM (national park, national forest, and national wildlife refuge lands) are not covered by the proposed regulations. Mineral disturbances on these lands are regulated by the relevant federal land managing agency, i.e. National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Most public lands open to activities under the mining laws are in the 11 contiguous western states, plus Alaska. (See Table 3-1.) Within the study area, BLM administers a surface and mineral estate of about 260 million acres. In addition to this surface/mineral estate, BLM also administers 300 million more acres of mineral estate underlying other lands. The surface of 70 million acres of these mineral estate lands were patented under the Stock Raising Homestead Act. By statute these patents had the mineral estate retained by the Federal Government and kept the lands open to mineral entry under the mining laws.

The study area accounts for about half of the total acreage within the United States, but 99% of all public lands administered by BLM are within the 12-state study area. BLM-administered public land acreage as a percentage of the total acreage within each state within the study area ranges from less than 1% in Washington to more than 68% in Nevada. In addition, 95% of the lands patented under the Stock Raising Homestead Act, where the mineral estate was retained by the Federal Government, are also within the study area. Almost half of these split-estate lands are located in New Mexico and Wyoming.

Public lands in the 12-state study area have a wide range of climates, landforms, vegetation types, and social and economic settings. Physical characteristics such as climate and soil types and biological parameters such as vegetation productivity and the presence of special status species differ markedly. The physical and biological attributes described in this chapter highlight these differences only where needed to describe the affected environment in relation to the regulatory alternatives.

The Proposed Action and alternatives analyzed in this chapter consist of potential changes in the regulations that are set forth to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands by operations authorized under the mining laws. Environmental consequences that would result from these potential regulatory changes can be categorized and presented in many ways. Some impacts are the direct effect of implementing the action, whereas others are more indirect, occurring later or further away. The impacts may last for only a short time or may affect the environment for a long period. The environmental consequences may be adverse, beneficial, or both. Many of the potential regulatory changes would be largely administrative and would have little direct effect on the environment. These administrative changes are aimed at improving agency efficiency and effectiveness, increasing consistency, or meeting other nonenvironmental objectives or public policies.

The administrative changes would, however, result in indirect or secondary effects on physical, biological, social, or economic aspects of the environment. Chapter 3 discusses all aspects of the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and other alternatives. But the environmental impacts of future on-the-ground disturbances, requiring National Environmental Policy Act compliance, will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

As this EIS was prepared to evaluate the environmental consequences of regulation alternatives, it was not practical to document the affected environment or environmental consequences at the level of detail generally found in site-specific EISs. The regulatory alternatives will affect the nature, extent, and environmental consequences of future mineral activity on public lands administered by BLM. The uncertainties of where, when, and how this future mining will occur make accurate long-term forecasts impossible and even short-term projections tenuous. But to aid in the analysis, reasonably foreseeable assumptions on future activity were prepared (Appendix E). These assumptions became the basis for much of the environmental consequences discussed in this chapter. The approach used to document the reasonably foreseeable significant effects conforms to the requirements at 40 CFR 1502.22 when dealing with situations where information is incomplete or unavailable. Approval of future mineral activity, subject to National Environmental Policy Act, will be documented and analyzed at a level of detail commensurate with the proposed on-the-ground disturbance.

ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYSIS

The analysis of the environmental effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives is based on the following assumptions.

Full Implementation. To clearly give a scientific and analytic basis for comparing the regulatory alternatives, we assume full implementation of each regulatory alternative. This assumption allows us to more sharply define the environmental consequences of the regulatory options to aid in decision making. Full implementation requires adequate agency funding and staffing to ensure that all the provisions of the proposed regulations and alternatives are fully implemented.

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) assumes that the existing regulations continue unchanged. Although it assumes no change in the existing regulations, this alternative still may have environmental consequences. Future mineral activity under the No Action Alternative is presented as a set of assumptions. These assumptions are fairly general, given the diversity of mining on public lands, variety of mining and exploration methods, commodities extracted, geographic scope, and inherent uncertainty of the commodities markets. These assumptions concerning the future under the No Action Alternative are discussed in Appendix E.

Changes in Mineral Activity. Estimates of mineral activity for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 are presented as changes from the baseline (No Action Alternative). As with the assumptions for future mineral activity, it is neither practical nor even possible to develop complete information on future changes in mineral activity resulting from the implementing of regulatory alternatives. Appendix E discusses the approach used to document the reasonably foreseeable significant effects. This approach conforms to the requirements at 40 CFR Part 1502.22 for situations where information is incomplete or unavailable. 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 decision makers information on the potential direction and magnitude of change. These estimates of the expected changes in mineral activity should not be considered factual data or accurate or precise estimates of change. Because of the uncertainties in forecasting and the many comments received on the estimates presented in the draft EIS, the team opted to present the estimates of changes in mineral activity as ranges.

Past, Present, and Future Actions and Events. The cumulative effects of past actions and events are reflected in the Affected Environment. These past actions and events include existing legal requirements and past and present public land uses and land use decisions. The existing legal federal requirements that are relevant to mineral exploration and mining are discussed in Appendix C. Appendix D presents a summary of the key state mining regulations. Where recent actions and events have taken place, we discuss the potential consequences to the affected environment. We note pending or future actions and events but do not attempt to speculate on the potential effects of these actions.

Discretionary Regulatory Provisions. Many of the provisions in the proposed regulations give BLM discretion on how, when, and where to implement the provision. Two provisions in the proposed regulations are of particular importance because of the potential magnitude of the impact on the industry and the environment. The backfilling requirement in the proposed regulations provides that BLM will determine the amount of pit backfilling required, if any, taking into consideration economic, environmental, and safety factors. In addition, the proposed definition of unnecessary or undue degradation has been expanded to include preventing ...conditions, activities, or practices that... result in substantial irreparable harm to significant scientific, cultural, or environmental resource values of the public lands that cannot be effectively mitigated.

The proposed backfilling provision is similar to the existing State of Nevada requirements. A recent BLM study of the pit backfilling in Nevada reported that no major mine pits have been completely backfilled (BLM 1998d). About 25% of recently approved Plan-level operations with pits have been or are proposed to be partially backfilled. As such, for our analysis we assume that pit backfilling will generally be limited to situations that allow for concurrent pit reclamation, such as operations with multiple pits.

The proposed addition of the substantial irreparable harm to the unnecessary or undue degradation definition would apply to all operations under the proposed regulations, including casual use and Notice- and Plans-level operations. BLM will need to consider this provision when it approves or reviews a proposed action. The Preamble for the proposed regulations states that the intent is for this provision to be used to deny a Plan of Operations or reject a Notice only in exceptional circumstances. In addition, Section 3809.411(d)(3)(iii) provides that if BLM disapproves a Plan of Operations on the basis of this provision, it must include written findings supported by a record that clearly shows each element of the provision. The proposed regulations require that any decision to deny a Plan of Operations be based on this provision. Any decision to deny a Plan of Operations must be supported by documentation showing how the following four criteria have been met.

• Approval of the Plan of Operations would create irreparable harm.
• The irreparable harm is substantial in extent, duration, or magnitude.
• The resources undergoing substantial irreparable harm constitute significant scientific, cultural, or environmental resources.
• Mitigation would not be effective in reducing the level of harm below the substantial or irreparable threshold.

Consistent with this intent, we assume that BLM would rarely deny a Plan of Operations or reject a Notice on the basis of this substantial irreparable harm provision for most resources. But we also recognize that the determination of what constitutes substantial irreparable harm, significant resources, and effective mitigation is not always straightforward to BLM or the public. Of specific concern are activities that will potentially affect Native American sacred or religious values. One can argue that religious significance, substantial irreparable harm, and effective mitigation are determined by those that hold those beliefs, not by BLM. Analyzing the implementing and impact of this provision as it applies to sacred and religious values is further complicated by the fact that most the Native American religions are based on or incorporate the concept that each individual determines what is significant for herself/himself. Because of these concerns, we assume that this provision as it relates to sacred and religious values will be extensively applied.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require federal agencies to analyze and disclose cumulative effects--effects that result from the incremental impact of an action "when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." (40 CFR 1508.7)

The Proposed Action and alternatives involve changes in the regulations and as such are broad in scope. As a result, this EIS is programmatic, addressing environmental consequences that are correspondingly broad in scope. Furthermore, neither the Proposed Action nor the alternatives would be implemented in a vacuum. Implementation would be interwoven with many other actions, events, and trends taking place at local, regional, national, and international levels. For example, actions on federally administered lands may have beneficial or harmful impacts to systems on private lands. The analysis in this chapter strives to consider these changes.

For example, mineral activity is not the only factor that affects the public lands. Climate, recreation, livestock grazing and wildlife use, management practices on adjoining lands, and the introduction and spread of alien weeds are also key considerations. The future of the public lands cannot be predicted by considering changes in mineral activity and the 3809 regulations alone. Similarly, BLM regulations, management practices, and policies are not the only factors that affect the mining industry and western rural communities. Of major importance are currently undiscovered mineral deposits; local, national, and international supply and demand for mineral commodities; regional population growth; changing demographics, lifestyles, and values; economic competition and restructuring; and changing laws, policies, and practices being implemented by other federal and state agencies.

Population growth and demographic changes in the West and in many western rural communities will continue to transform rural economies. Population growth in many rural communities, while contributing to economic growth and diversification, will continue to diminish the relative importance of mining in those communities. Communities that continue to lose population and whose economies are in decline may be further strained by any decrease in mineral activity. Demographic and land use changes might increase or decrease a community's tax base. Where economies are stable or growing, the tax base would likely be stable. Where populations continue to decline or mineral production significantly declines, the state and local tax revenues might decline.

The protection and recovery of federally listed species and their habitats--for example, desert tortoises in the desert Southwest--are also likely to change the way mining activity is conducted on federal lands. Future activities designed to avert habitat loss and endangered species listings will be implemented under any of the regulatory alternatives considered in this EIS.

A fundamental assumption of this analysis is that, with or without changes to the 3809 regulations, the human environment within the study area will continue to change. The 3809 regulations are but one small factor in defining the future conditions of the human environment. The potential environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives, including the cumulative effects, are documented by resource in this chapter.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

A resource is irreversibly committed when an action alters the resource so that it cannot be restored or returned to its original or predisturbance condition. A resource is irretrievably committed when a resource is removed or consumed.

For example, in the extraction of gold, the mining of waste rock and ore would be an irreversible commitment of resources. Although the gold in ore would be irreversibly committed from geologic formations, the precious metal would be retrieved and placed in long-term economic circulation.

Another example of irreversible losses involves soil erosion. Soil losses from handling, erosion losses from topsoil stockpiles, and other unavoidable erosion losses would be irreversible. The net evaporative losses of water from a pit lake would be an example of a long-term irretrievable commitment of resources. Consumptive use of process water would be an example of a temporary irretrievable commitment of resources, occurring only during mining.

The level of future mineral activity under the Proposed Action or alternatives would directly affect the magnitude of the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. But provisions of the alternatives would also define the nature and extent of these commitments. These types of irreversible and irretrievable effects are discussed as part of the environmental consequences of the alternatives for each resource in this chapter.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Federal agencies are required to address "disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations" (Executive Order 12898). During this analysis BLM considered all public input from persons or groups, regardless of age, race, income status, or other social and economic characteristics.

This document is a broad assessment of proposed regulations. Environmental Justice issues are meant to be addressed at the local level. As CEQ's Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act states, "Agencies should recognize that the question of whether agency action raises environmental justice issues is highly sensitive to the history or circumstances of a particular community or population, the particular type of environmental or human health impact, and the nature of the proposed action itself."

MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Affected Environment

Geology

The public lands have a rich geologic history and an abundance of mineral resources. The geology on public lands is highly complex and difficult to summarize. The regions have been subdivided into geologic physiographic provinces such as the Basin and Range, Colorado Plateau, Snake River Plain, Rocky Mountain, and the Columbia Plateau, to name a few. The public lands includes geologic formations dating from the Archean (early part of Precambrian era) to the Quaternary period.

Gold is extensively produced in Nevada, copper in Arizona, placer gold in Alaska, and gypsum in California. Minerals extracted from the public land include copper, gold, silver, lead, mercury, uranium, perlite, bentonite, and limestone. The potential for continued mineral production on public lands is high, and the mineral industry continues to develop these lands for a variety of mineral products.

Understanding ore deposits is a complex and difficult task. But basic understanding of ore deposits is needed to understand the complex nature of the mining types and their impacts . The following passage is reprinted with permission from Appendix A of the National Research Council (NRC) study Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands (NRC 1999).

Ore deposits form as variants of such geologic processes as volcanism, weathering, and sedimentation operating with an extraordinary intensity. Ore deposits typically are parts of large-scale (several miles across and perhaps just as deep) ore-forming systems in which many elements, not just those of economic interest, have been enriched. For example, arsenic, antimony, thallium, and mercury are commonly enriched in or near Carlin-type gold deposits. Explorationists continually seek to discern trace chemical haloes or geophysical patterns to combine with geological observations and concepts to recognize faint clues to the location of the ore deposit. Known ores constitute less than one part in 10,000 of the metal endowment of the upper 1 km of continental crust; thus, by far the largest portion of metals resides in ordinary rocks as a low-level background geochemical signature in amounts to meager for economic mining.

Many hardrock commodities are associated with magmatic and hydrothermal processes (Guilbert and Park, 1986). These processes, in turn, are associated with modern or ancient mountain belts. Mountainous or sparsely vegetated terrains, such as those in the western states, expose possibly productive rocks much more fully than do, for example, mid-continent prairies. In addition, the West is blessed with geologic conditions, including abundant igneous rocks and associated hydrothermal systems, that have led to the formation of ore deposits. Thus, the prime prospecting ground is in land that many people regard as valuable for aesthetic reasons, which creates potential for conflict among uses of the land.

Development of Mineral Properties

To understand how the 3809 regulations apply to mineral activities on public lands, one should review the steps or phases used to locate and develop mineral properties. The following is a description of the process the mining industry uses to develop mineral properties and the types of mining methods used to extract minerals.

All mining operations begin with exploration activities that require large dollar investments coupled with a high risk of failure. Success of mining depends on the success of exploration. Exploration may discover a mineral occurrence and may even outline its size and mineral character. The ore deposit is "found" or "developed" only through the combined efforts of the many geologists, geophysicists, geochemists, metallurgists, mining engineers, lawyers, and managers who believe that a mine can be profitably developed. Deposits go through many cycles of evaluation and rejection. Before they are brought into production, geologic understanding improves, and worldwide economic and political conditions change. The location of a mining claim or group of claims follows the prospecting or exploration program and is essential to the next phase of developing a mineral deposit into a mine.

The development of a mine from grassroots exploration to production can be roughly divided into three stages. Each stage requires applying more discriminating (and expensive) techniques over successively smaller areas to find, develop, and produce economic mineral deposits. These stages can be grouped into the following activity categories: reconnaissance, exploration/prospecting, and mine development.

The lag time between the first discovery of a mineral occurrence and the opening of a mine may be 10 years or more. Some gold properties are opened within 3 years, whereas copper deposits may require more than 10 years. During this time operators do the following:

• Analyze all available and reasonable geologic information.
• Make engineering decisions for the design of the mine.
• Acquire equipment and workers.
• Prepare mine closure and reclamation plans.
• Obtain financial capital.

Reconnaissance. The first phase of exploration involves researching the geologic literature; reviewing the geologic models for the minerals of interest; and interviewing local, knowledgeable, experienced people and companies working in the area of interest. Once reconnaissance has found a favorable area, usually occupying tens of square miles, it may use airborne and satellite remote sensing surveys and limited ground surveys to examine the general characteristics of the area's geology and mineralization and then select smaller targets of interest for more detailed study. Such study may involve detailed surface geologic mapping, geophysical surveying, and geochemical sampling programs, none of which disturb the land's surface. Academic and government entities or major corporations usually carry out these studies.

Reconnaissance-level mineral inventories normally cause no more surface disturbance than an occasional sampling of soil, rocks, or stream sediment. These inventories may require minor off-road vehicle use. To protect its interests, the company will begin staking and recording mining claims. These actions do not disturb the surface or require surface reclamation and would be considered casual use.

Prospecting and Exploration. Americans generally use the terms prospecting and exploration interchangeably. Prospecting normally denotes activities of a single person, whereas a company engages in exploration using a variety of techniques to evaluate both the surface and subsurface geologic characteristics of a mineral occurrence (Hartman 1992).

When a sufficiently anomalous mineral occurrence or favorable occurrence indicator is found, a mineral prospect is established and is subjected to more intense evaluation through exploration. This area may range from a single square mile to an entire mountain range of several hundred square miles.

Mineral exploration has had many cyclic developments in the last half century. Early efforts concentrated on comparing new areas with existing mines and mineralization. The introduction of airborne and satellite remote sensing, computer models, and a better understanding of geologic processes led to the discovery of porphyry copper deposits, Mississippi Valley lead-zinc deposits, and volcano genic massive sulfide deposits. In the past 15 years exploration has mainly targeted disseminated gold and stratiform precious metal deposits. In the future major exploration targets will focus on the following:

• World-class deposits of all kinds of minerals.
• Small high-grade deposits with low capital costs that will be profitable under any market condition.
• Polymetallic deposits that can be mined by surface methods (Hartman 1992).

Efforts to locate a mineral prospect include detailed mapping, sampling, and geochemical and geophysical study programs. At this time the mining company usually begins to acquire property, and most mining claims are located to secure ground while trying to make a mineral discovery. Surface-disturbing activities in prospecting involve more intense soil and rock chip sampling using mostly hand tools, frequent off-road vehicle use, and the placing and maintaining mining claim monuments. This activity is normally considered "casual use" (43 CFR 3809.1-2) and does not require BLM notification or approval. Operations under casual use require no mechanized equipment or explosives but must reclaim disturbed areas.

Exploration involves prospecting at a more intense level and in a smaller area. In addition, roads are built, trenches dug, and exploration holes drilled. In later stages of exploration an exploratory adit or shaft may be driven. If the prospect already has underground workings, these may be sampled, drilled, or extended. Subsurface exploration by shafts and large-diameter (more than 18 inches) drill holes are normally used for finding mineral targets or the development phase of mining and not initial exploration.

Exploration may involve mechanized earth moving equipment and drill rigs and explosives. A typical exploration project requires building about 5,000 feet of access road, setting up a dozen drill sites with each site having several holes drilled to less than 500 feet, and possibly digging several trenches 200 feet long by 8 feet wide by 6 to 8 feet deep. The number of pits and trenches depends on the expected size of the mineralized area as determined by surface mapping and sampling. Test pits are usually less than 20 feet deep and 10 feet in diameter. Trenches are normally less than 10 feet wide, 20 feet deep, and 100 feet long. The area for a drill rig is about 50 feet square. Most surface disturbed for exploration amounts to less than 5 acres. Exploration is normally conducted under a Notice in the existing 3809 regulations, which require the operator to notify BLM 15 days before beginning activity. If exploration is conducted in sensitive areas or exceeds the 5-acre threshold, an approved Plan of Operations is required.

Mine Development. If exploration results show that an economically viable mineral deposit is present, on-the-ground activity will intensify to obtain detailed knowledge on reserves, possible mining methods, and mineral processing requirements. This effort will involve more intensely applying all the previously used exploration tools. After acquiring enough information, the operator will conduct a feasibility study to decide whether to proceed with mine development and what mining and ore processing methods to use.

When an operator decides to develop a property, the mine permitting process begins. Once BLM approves the Plan of Operations, work begins on developing the mine infrastructure:

• Building the mill, offices, and laboratory.
• Driving development workings for an underground mine or prestripping for an open pit mine.
• Building access roads or haulage routes.
• Placing utility services.

During this development, exploration continues in order to define other areas to be mined.

Mine development involves the following activities: mining, ore processing, tailings disposal, waste rock placement, solution processing, and metal refining. Such activities require the use of

• Heavy earth moving equipment.
• Explosives for mining.
• Materials handling.
• Exploration equipment for refining the ore reserve base.
• Hazardous or dangerous reagents for processing requirements.
• General construction.

Once enough facilities are in place, mine production begins. Often concurrent with production are "satellite" exploration efforts to expand the mine's reserve base and extend the project life. Upon completion of or concurrent with mining the property is reclaimed.

The sizes of mines vary greatly. Not all mines require all the previously mentioned facilities and equipment. Acreages involved can range from several single acres to several hundred acres. Most projects disturb more than 5 acres and require an approved Plan of Operations.

Mining Methods

The impact of mining and the effects of regulations on the mining industry depend on the mining methods used and the mineral deposits mined. Mining methods have been classified to help select extraction methods for deposit types and for other factors. In addition, this classification helps evaluate the impacts of the chosen method. Mineral deposits have been geometrically described by an idealized shape, inclination, size, and depth. Complex or composite bodies consist of more than a single deposit type (Hartman 1992).

The ideal shapes are either tabular or massive with narrow bodies or pipes being subordinate. Tabular bodies of minerals usually extend hundreds of feet horizontally and only a few tens of feet vertically. Ore from tabular bodies is generally extracted by strip mining, of which placer mining is a subcategory. Massive ore bodies are approximately equip-dimensional (laid out for easy equipment use) and are usually a few hundred feet in each dimension. Ore from massive bodies is generally extracted by open pit mining (Hartman 1992).

In surface mining the horizontal angle of the deposit (usually a bedded deposit with overburden less than 100 feet thick) and the deposit's relative width determine whether the minerals are mined by strip or pit methods. For example, flat-lying deposits are opened up by making narrow mining cuts into the deposit and then casting or hauling the next cut's waste into the previously mined area. Placer mining methods are used for deposits that are under water or have a large amount of ground water because of the need to handle large amounts of water. For deposits lying at a steeper angle or with thick overburden, open pit methods are used. The stability of the unmined rock determines the pit's depth.

Strip Mining. Strip mines have the following characteristics:

• Usually designed for rectangular tabular deposits that are longer than they are wide.
• Found in areas of rugged topography where the deposit may be bisected by narrow gullies.
• Located where the overburden is relatively shallow (low stripping ratios) and the deposit itself is not at a great depth below the land surface.
• Used where the deposit is interbedded between uneconomic rock units or located in topographic low areas (valleys).

In strip mining the topsoil and overburden are removed from the ore deposit and stockpiled separately, usually a short distance from the initial mine cut. The deposit is mined in a linear fashion until the end of the ore deposit or the property limits are reached. A second identical pass is then made next to the first except that the overburden is placed into the previous mined out area. After the third cut is made, the original stockpiled overburden is graded into and over the first two cuts. Topsoil is then respread over the site, and vegetation is reestablished. The remaining deposit is mined in a similar fashion until the deposit is exhausted. The strip mine is reclaimed at the same time that ore is mined, except for the last one or two mine cuts, which are reclaimed after the mine is closed.

In strip mining little more area is disturbed for waste rock or tailings dumps because these materials are returned to the mined area as soon as there is space. Access roads, mill and office buildings, and water treatment facilities usually occupy the only other areas needed for this type of mining.

Placer Mining. Suction or mechanical dredge mining techniques are commonly employed to extract minerals lying in loosely consolidated deposits with large amounts of ground water or in rivers or lakes. Intake nozzles for suction dredges vary from 2 to 10 inches in diameter. The most common sizes range from 4 to 6 inches. Generally the processing system is relatively simple with a grizzly (screen) separating off the oversized rocks. Screens classify the smaller material and a sluice box, with regular or modified iron angle-iron riffles, concentrates the valuable minerals. The recovery system is usually supported on floats above the intake nozzle in the pond that is created when excavating the overburden. A gasoline-powered high-pressure water pump supplies water to the intake for suction to extract the mineral-bearing material from the pay streaks or bedrock areas.

In the past, mechanical bucket-line dredges were used to mine deeply buried placer minerals. These dredges moved great amounts of material while floating in a pond created by the excavation of the barren gravels. Material was excavated and processed on and tailings were disposed from the floating platform. The moving chain of buckets excavated the gravel. Gravels were emptied into revolving screen classifiers, which separated the undersized material from the oversized. The oversized material was transported by conveyors behind and away from the dredge.

The processing plant for the recovery of the gold consisted of either jigs or sluice boxes onboard the dredge. Most of these dredges are no longer operating on public lands. Smaller cutter-head dredges can be used. But because of high mechanical wear and many breakdowns, other mining methods are more commonly used to mine alluvial deposits.

Placer deposits are mined either by strip or pit methods with the addition of water control structures such as bypasses or drains to dewater the gravel deposits. Once the water has either been removed or reduced to an amount manageable through the use of pumps, the topsoil is removed and saved for future respreading over the mined areas. The overburden is removed and stockpiled or placed in previously excavated areas as part of the reclamation sequence of the mine. The mineral-bearing gravels are hauled to the processing or washplant, where gravity separation methods are used to recover valuable minerals in the sluice box or jig unit. The washed gravels are placed in the previously mined areas, usually on top or intermixed with the overburden. The tailings are then reshaped, covered with the original topsoil, and reseeded to prevent erosion and finish the reclamation of the mined site.

Open Pit Mining. Open pit mines have the following characteristics:

• Usually designed for massive or steeply inclined (dipping) deposits.
• Dimensional or narrow in extent and size.
• Found in areas of rugged topography.
• Located where the overburden is relatively thick (high stripping ratios).
• Located where the deposit is relatively deep below the land surface.
• Used where the deposit is interbedded between uneconomic rock units or where the rock strength is weak and not suitable for underground methods.

The topsoil and overburden are removed from the ore deposit, and the deposit is mined in a downward fashion until the limits of the deposit are reached. The limits of the mine pit are not solely related to the grade of the ore but also to the engineering of the pit slopes and the economics of removing overburden and ore from the pit.

The stockpiled overburden is placed in valleys near the mine site or on the surface of adjacent land and then graded into a stable shape. The waste rock from the mill is deposited in large settling ponds or may be placed on the surface of the land and reshaped. Ponds are located where they are most cost effective and the topography is most stable. The land beneath the ponds and waste piles is permanently lost to any other uses. Topsoil is placed over the overburden or waste piles and the pond areas when they are reclaimed, and vegetation is established at the sites.

Reclamation is generally not concurrent with mining and is not usually begun until the mine is closed. If the mine is deep, the cut is generally not filled. In open pit mining other areas are disturbed for waste rock and tailings dumps, access roads, mill and office buildings, and water treatment facilities.

Underground Mining. Underground mining generally involves the removal of the mineralized vein or lode from the surrounding country rock. Minable widths vary from less than 4 feet to more than 20 feet. Ore is usually extracted from highly competent rock or rock that is reinforced with bolts or anchors so that surface subsidence is negligible. Massive block caving techniques may create localized subsidence of the surface. The mined-out underground workings are usually backfilled with the waste rock from mining or the mill tailings. Backfilling maintains the competency of the surrounding rock and prevents subsidence.

In all underground mining some of the waste must be placed on the surface temporarily or until there are enough underground openings to hold the replaced waste rock. Some waste rock may be placed on the surface permanently because there is not enough room to replace the waste or the mining method is not amenable to replacing the waste.

Most surface impacts from underground mining involve mining-related surface uses such as milling, office functions, storage, waste and tailings disposal, and water treatment. All of these activities are similar if not the same as the surface-disturbing activities of surface mines and mill sites.

In Situ Mining. A mining method that is considered neither surface nor underground is "in situ" extraction of valuable minerals by remobilizing or leaching minerals where they occur. This method drills holes on a grid pattern into the ore deposit. A dissolving or leaching solution is then injected through these holes into the ore deposit, where the chemicals extract the desired minerals. The pregnant liquid is then removed from a different well or series of wells and piped to a recovery plant or mill. There the minerals are recovered and the barren solution returned to the injection wells and the cycle begins again. In situ mining appears to be more like a milling operation and less like most extraction methods. Except for the access roads and pipelines leading to the recovery facility, the surface is only slightly disturbed.

Mill Sites and Tailings Sites. Mill and tailings sites are usually found with one of the other types of mining methods, depending on the characteristics of the ore. At mills, minerals can be extracted either by chemical or physical methods. Mill sites can also be established apart from any specific mine and operate as a small custom mill for small operators.

Storage facilities and mills for processing mined rock and treating tailings have traditionally been placed on areas that have no mineral value. These sites may be next to the mine or removed some distance from the mine site.

Mill sites are used for locating offices, warehouses, repair shops, crushing and grinding systems, chemical and physical separation and concentration systems, leach pads, and other facilities that support the mine. Mill processing plants may be as simple as a sluice box next to a water source and the alluvial material trucked to the site. Or they may consist of a group of structures, each housing a part of the processing machinery that recovers the commodities in a series of steps. Milling of certain ores ranges from simple gravity and water washing systems to chemical and flotation treatments to mechanical crushing and sorting processes that form the finished product. Mill facilities may cover an area from less than 1 acre to 10 or more acres.

Since the 1980s tailings impoundments have become a small part of the mill site operations, as more mines used cyanide heap leaching techniques to recover the minerals and only small treatment and concentration buildings are needed for mills. Some heap leach pads are massive-2,000 feet wide by 2 miles long-and are in continuous use for up to 5 years.

Tailings disposal is a major if not sole purpose of some mill site claims. Tailings is the general term for all waste rock and processed rock that remains on the surface after the valuable minerals have been extracted. Some waste rock is barren of mineralization and may cause no problems being left on the surface after reshaping and the establishing of vegetation cover. But other waste rock has minerals with the potential to generate acid or alkaline leachate and may affect the environment for many years.

Tailings have undergone physical and in some cases chemical changes and may have been ground so fine that they are more susceptible to erosion or chemical changes than in their original state. Or residual traces of treatment chemicals may be trapped in the rock. In general, tailings and waste areas occupy about 10% of the total area disturbed by mining.

Mill sites may require either a Notice or a Plan of Operations, depending on whether they are in designated special status areas or if they exceed 5 acres.

Types of Operators

A wide variety of mineral exploration and extraction occur on public land. Operations range from the lone prospector to corporate-driven enterprises. Operators have varied range of financing, expertise, resources, and abilities to develop mineral deposits. On the average all types of mineral operators have strong land stewardship and understand the need for a good environment.

The lone prospector is working on locating that mother lode deposit that they can sell or lease to bigger operation to continue exploration or development of the mine. Small independent geologist and exploration companies are also trying to locate and define potential ore deposits that they can sell to even larger operations in order to develop. These types of operations are stacking capital, time, and labor into these projects in the hopes that in selling them they make a profit.

Mining also has small operators. These operators consist of small families who work mining operations and whose wages consist of profits above the capital costs from their operations. Small operators work in the belief that time will make their efforts highly profitable.

In addition, some people explore and mine for the enjoyment of the activity. These people and groups are engaging in a recreational past time. Developing minerals and earning profits from the activity are only secondary to the activity itself.

And there are some operators whose intent is not to develop minerals. They derive their profits from investments received from others. They develop operations and sell shares of it, hoping to make a profit on the operations. Though few, these operations do occur on public lands.

Operations backed by corporate resources has extensive abilities to explore and develop mineral properties. These companies usually have strong environmental policies and the ability to accomplish the needed tasks. Their overriding goal, however, is to make a profit.

Past Activity Under the 43 CFR 3809 Regulations

BLM issued the 3809 regulations in 1981. The following information on past mining on the public lands was developed from Public Land Statistics (BLM various years) and internal BLM surveys.

Between 1981 and 1997 a total of 20,700 Notices and 3,400 Plans of Operations were submitted to BLM. An average of 1,200 Notices and 200 Plans of Operations have been submitted each year. But the number of operations has been decreasing over the last several years. In 1999 BLM received 155 Plans and 640 Notices. As of 1997, a total of 6,216 Notices and 932 Plans of Operations were considered active (see Tables 3-2 and 3-3), meaning that operations under the Notices or Plans were ongoing. The remainder had been reclaimed, and BLM had determined that they were closed. A total of 177 and 155 Plans of Operations and 588 and 640 Notices were submitted in 1998 and 1999 respectively according to Public Land Statistics (BLM 1999a, 2000a). The number of operations that have closed in the past 2 years is unavailable.

Tables 3-4 and 3-5 show the distribution of current mineral activity by state and the types of activity currently occurring on public lands in the study area.

The surface disturbance varies for each type of operation from an average of 300 acres of disturbance for open pit mines to 7.4 acres for placer mines. Disturbance for Notice-level exploration operations ranges from 0.5 to 4 acres. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 show the estimated average number of acres disturbed by Notice- and Plan-level operations on public lands. The Notices and Plans closed means that reclamation has been completed and accepted by BLM. Current active operation may have the operation and reclamation completed but are still waiting for final reclamation clearance.

Table 3-6 shows the number of notices of noncompliance that have been issued on public lands and the reasons they were issued.

Table 3-6. Notices of Noncompliance
Type of Activity	Notice-Level Operations		Plan-Level Operations
	# Issued Since 1981	# Currently Outstanding	# Issued Since 1981	# Currently Outstanding
Exploration	384	138	79	14
Strip Mining	7	0	4	2
Open Pit Mining	88	9	66	10
Placer Mining	145	24	70	9
Independent Mill Site	26	6	26	8
Underground Mining	40	4	13	3
TOTAL	690	181	258	46
Currently Outstanding Notices of Noncompliance
Reason for Issuance			Notice Level	Plan Level
Failure to file a Notice or Plan			13%	19%
Issued during operational phase of project			15%	35%
Failure to reclaim			72%	46%
Total			100%	100%

BLM issues notices of noncompliance only when operators fail to correct or discuss concerns. BLM will work with operators during compliance inspections and meetings before issuing notices of noncompliance. Under the current policy BLM will meet or inform the operator of a concern and work with the operator to remedy the concern to both BLM and the operator's satisfaction. Only when the operator refuses to address the concern with BLM do the noncompliance procedures begin with the issuing of a notice of noncompliance.

The existing regulations call for three levels or procedures for incidents of noncompliance. At the first level, BLM issues a notice of noncompliance requiring operators to correct problems by a certain date. At the second level, if operators do not correct the noncompliance, BLM issues a record of noncompliance, and operators must post bond for their entire operations at 100% of reclamation costs. And at the third level, if operators take no further action, BLM sends their cases to the U.S. Attorney's Office to be resolved. Of the total incidents of noncompliance 76% have been resolved by notices of noncompliance, 15% by records of noncompliance, and 9% by the U.S. Attorney.

Historically, the number of noncompliance issues have been small, amounting to about 4%, of the number of Notices and Plans submitted. These noncompliance issues have involved unnecessary or undue degradation to public lands, mainly reclamation not being completed. Conditions in these unreclaimed areas have degraded public lands and to various degrees are continuing to degrade public lands.

Of the 254 active notices of noncompliance, 208 are for Notice-level operations, and 46 are for Plan-level operations. BLM has issued notices of noncompliance to 3% of Notice-level operations and 4% of Plan-level operations; 73% of all notices of noncompliance issued have been resolved.

Environmental Consequences

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives compliance with environmental regulations represents a cost to the mining industry and affects the level of mineral exploration and mining. Included are the following costs:

• Costs of delays resulting from longer processing times.
• Direct costs of conducting environmental studies.
• Costs of having to use certain technology.

Delays could result from an operation's not being able to mobilize on schedule because of weather and other restrictions. Delays could mean that a deposit would not be developed, production would not begin on schedule, and the operation would lose revenue. Environmental standards also increase the cost of doing business.

These regulations and the expanded regulatory environment have had a cumulative effect on the mining industry's cost of doing business. The new state and federal regulations are requiring more time and monitoring from the operator to meet these new requirements. These types of activities relate to operations in cost. These costs range from less than 1% of the total cost of the operations to as high as 20% of the overall operating budget. These cost vary greatly depending on an operation's site-specific resource concerns.

The mining industry will continue to experience increased regulations and restrictions from state and federal agencies. Mandates such as the toxic release inventory will continue to require more reporting and monitoring of operations. Several sweeping regulatory changes to the Clean Water Act (CWA) programs are pending, and proposed and final test method changes show the breadth of changes to the CWA programs. The Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and Energy; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Tennessee Valley Authority; and the Army Corps of Engineers have also just developed a federal lands policy drafted to purportedly enhance implementing the Clean Water Act and the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan. Land use restrictions from zoning and mineral withdrawals will continue to restrict access to areas for mineral development. The changing agency policies, responding to environmental degradation, political pressures, and court cases, will change how the mining industry operates on public lands.

Alternative 1: No Action

Administration of Surface Management Regulations. Under the No Action Alternative the mining industry would continue to operate under the existing 3809 regulations and would continue to assimilate the cost of the regulations. Operations would continue to be processed, and compliance would be completed. These regulations would result in no added cost to industry.

Casual Use. Casual use should only negligibly disturb the environment. But major problems could arise when groups get together to recreate, explore for minerals, or placer mine for gold. Under these situations the cumulative impacts could exceed negligible levels, resources would be damaged, and the disturbance would generally not be reclaimed.

For example, several dozen to more than 100 people equipped with shovels and gold pans in a small area or section of stream can denude the vegetation, compact the soil, and result in a loss of deeper rooted vegetation. This disturbance could lead to streambank destabilization, resulting in a series of channel adjustments over a broader area. Such changes in turn this could lead to the loss of riparian areas.

Notices. The existing regulations for Notices would require BLM to process actions in a short time period and allow operators to continue operations without delay. An interdisciplinary team would review Notices, but the review would be limited to 15 days. In some situations the review specialist could not review the document, and the project would proceed without this specialist's input. Under these conditions resource damage could result.

A Notice could be used to operate in an environmentally sensitive area because the existing regulations list only a few areas that are environmentally sensitive and thus require a Plan of Operations. Any operations that are in sensitive areas but do not require Plans of Operations would increase the potential for degradation without the intense review provided for Plans.

Notice provisions could be difficult to enforce because no reclamation bond is required for Notice-level activity. The lack of a bond and enforcement process could result in areas not being reclaimed when operators leave, although this is not a common practice. BLM issued about 500 notices of noncompliance (out of about 29,400 Notices filed since 1981) for failure to reclaim, representing 2% of all Notices submitted.

Plans of Operations. Under No Action, BLM would continue to review in detail Plans of Operations, and these Plans would undergo environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA's analysis would allow for a more detailed review of operations and would ensure against unnecessary or undue degradation.

Policy would require reclamation bonding for all chemical processing areas, but only a portion of the reclamation cost would be bonded for other facilities. BLM field offices might not uniformly implement bonds and other performance measures that BLM has developed by policy and experience.

The current gold prices have affected the industry, and mining companies are going into bankruptcy and increasing BLM workloads. Workloads have increased as BLM tries to use the bond monies available and to acquire public monies to clean up these operations. On the basis of past bonding practices, the bond amounts are not adequate to completely reclaim the operations. In Nevada alone, 29 operations are in bankruptcy.

Inspection and Enforcement. The existing regulations make timely resolving of noncompliance difficult and do not outline the need for consistent review of operations. As a result, BLM might not inspect operations in a timely manner, and resource degradation could result.

Under the current process if an operation is in noncompliance, BLM would need more time for coordination with the operator and other organizations to resolve the noncompliance. If the operation does not conform to the Plan or Notice, BLM would issue a notice of noncompliance and request compliance within a certain time. If the operator still does not comply, the operation's file would be sent to the BLM state office for transmittal to the U.S. Attorney's Office. Because of the U.S. Attorney's workload and priorities, years could pass before the case could be settled and the environmental problem corrected.

If the operation is abandoned and the case is not settled in the courts, there might be no bond to reclaim the operation and resolve all environmental concerns. The site would either not be reclaimed, or public monies would be used to reclaim it. In 1999 BLM surveyed its field offices, asking them to list all operations under the existing 3809 regulations that had been abandoned by their operators, and where BLM had spent, or was likely going to have to spend, funds to reclaim the land. The combined field office response listed some 530 such operations. The actual number of abandonments is even greater since not all abandoned operations will require remediation. Most of these are abandoned Notice-level operations. The amount of public monies needed to reclaim these sites is unknown at this time.

Data from the recent past suggests that if the current rate of noncompliance persists, within the next 20 years BLM would issue 360 notices of noncompliance for Notice-level activity and 120 for Plan-level activity.

Administrative Practices. Under the existing regulations, mines proposed either for areas withdrawn from mineral entry or for extracting suspected common variety minerals under the Mineral Materials Act of 1947 and the 1955 Surface Resources Act would be processed under a Notice or a Plan of Operations. The operator would not have to demonstrate a valid claim before disturbing the surface. Potential environmental harm could result, and the Federal Government could lose revenue.

Mineral Development. The overall number of Notices and Plans of Operations submitted under No Action is expected to decrease to the current 3-year trend and remain constant or decrease slightly. This trend is based on the existing regulations and the current regulatory environment for operations on public lands. Individual states might vary from the general trend in the number of Notices and Plans submitted. For this analysis, 600 Notices and 150 Plans of Operations would be submitted each year. Over a 20-year period 12,000 Notices and 3,000 Plans of Operations would be submitted. Table 3-7 shows the acreage that would be disturbed per operation and total acres that would be disturbed in 20 years under the No Action Alternative.

Table 3-7. Acres Disturbed under Alternative 1
	Acres Disturbed
	Per Operation	Per Year	In 20 Years
Notice Level	2 acres	1,200	24,000
Plan Level	50 acres	7,500	150,000

Table 3-8 shows the possible number of operations at the Notice and Plan levels by operation type during the next 20 years.

Exploration. Exploration activities would continue to be processed on the basis of the type of operation and the amount of surface disturbance. There would continue to be a short turnaround for operations working under Notices, and the industry should incur no more cost. Small independent geologists and prospectors would continue to pursue mineral deposits as allowed under the existing regulations. Most small operations and individuals mining for recreation would be considered casual use.

Mining. Mining operations would continue under the existing regulations and policies, which include the cyanide management and acid rock drainage policies. Future policies could be developed to define environmental protection requirements under the existing regulations.

Alternative 2: State Management

Administration of Surface Management Regulations. State mining regulations are relatively new and still evolving. The main regulatory provisions in most cases are less than 8 years old, and many are newer (McElfish and others 1996). State programs are based either on requiring reclamation or preventing water pollution (or both). (See Appendix D.)

Casual Use. Under the State Management Alternative state government would not review proposed mineral activities classified as casual use. Depending on the state requirements and minimum surface disturbance criteria, the mineral activity might not be reviewed. States would not require casual use operations to complete reclamation, and public lands could undergo unnecessary or undue degradation. BLM would have difficulty directly preventing degradation except through negotiations with state organizations.

Notices. For Notice-level operations, depending on state requirements, operators may not be required to submit any documentation for review by a state organization. In some states, operations smaller than 5 acres are not required to be reclaimed. Such operations would still be required to meet state environmental protection and performance standards.

Plans of Operations. Under State Management, depending on state criteria for surface disturbance or production, operations would be required to submit some form of a Plan of Operations to a state regulatory agency. The operation would have to meet performance standards and requirements of the state in which it is operating. Western states have environmental regulations that require some of the reviews outlined in BLM's existing regulations. Some states would require environmental reviews. Others would not. Operations would have to comply with water regulations and standards and monitoring outlined by the states. Bonding would also be required. Depending on the state program, bond monies may or may not be sufficient to reclaim the operations.

Inspection and Enforcement. Operations would have to undergo compliance inspections, but depending on the state organizations, standards or schedules might not be established. BLM would not issue notices of noncompliance under Alternative 2 and would not take be directly involved in enforcement actions. States would continue to enforce their own programs. (See Appendix D.)

Mineral Development. According to the mineral activity projections in Appendix E, the overall range of change under State Management would be from a 0% to 5% increase in exploration and mining activity. (See Appendix E.) These changes, by activity type, are shown in Table 3-9.

Table 3-9. Changes in Mineral Activity under Alternative 2
Casual Use/ Suction Dredging	Small Explor-ation	Large Explor-ation	Small Placer	Large Placer	Small Open Pit	Large Open Pit	Small Under-ground	Large Under-ground	Indus-trial Minerals
0 - +5%	0 -+5%	0 - +5%	0 - +5%	0 - +5%	0 - +5%	0 - +5%	0 - +5%	0 - +5%	0 - +5%

Table 3-10 outlines the possible number of operations by type under the State Management Alternative for the next 20 years.

Under these assumptions, on the high end, 630 operations would disturb less than 5 acres a year, and 160 operations that would disturb more than 5 acres a year. Over a 20-year period, from 12,000 to 12,600 operations would disturb less than 5 acres each, and from 3,000 to 3,160 operations would disturb more than 5 acres each. Table 3-11 shows estimated acreage that would be disturbed under Alternative 2.

Exploration. Depending on a state's regulations, potential exploration would increase because operations may not have to submit notifications to either BLM or some state agencies. The higher end of the range would be in states that do not require notification or the operator to spend extra capital and operational cost to cover exploration permitting. The smaller exploration companies, independent geologists, and prospectors could earn more profits in future property sales. The percentage of increase would depend on the state regulations that would need to be followed. Operations at the lower end of the range would be regulated by states with more restrictive regulations. Operations of all sizes should see a decrease in permitting costs.

Mining. The range of change would be small for mines operating in states that have mining and reclamation regulations. The major change would be the amount of environmental work required from each state. Mines in states requiring environmental analysis documents similar to EAs and EISs, and plans with bonds would not experience any change. States not requiring environmental documents would see an increase in mining in response to a decrease in the cost of exploration in these areas. Operations of all sizes would see some decrease in the amount of permitting required to open a mine.

Alternative 3: Proposed Action

Administration of Surface Management Regulations. The proposed regulations would increase costs to the mining industry.

Casual Use. Casual use would continue to consist of operations that cause negligible disturbance. People and organizations that are now conducting operations as casual use would continue to engage in exploration and mining for recreation and mineral development but could not cause surface disturbance above the definition of casual use without a Notice or Plan. The resulting decrease in cumulative impacts of casual use would improve environmental protection.

BLM would be able to determine if many operations whose cumulative effects are causing degradation beyond casual use would require a Notice or a Plan of Operations. Preparing Plans or Notices would delay activities and affect small recreational activities. In responding to the submittal of Plans and Notices and providing timely response to recreational activities, BLM's workload would increase.

Notices. Under the Proposed Action exploration involving less than 5 acres could operated occur under a Notice. Any mining in special category lands would require Plans of Operations. Under Notices, operators would be subject to performance standards that would minimize impacts to ensure against unnecessary or undue surface degradation. These standards would require the operator to design activities and take more time in developing operations. More time by BLM and the operator would be required to address the performance standards and determine the site-specific needs for the projects. This would increase costs for industry and the workload for BLM.

The Proposed Action would require bonding for Notice-level operations. Reviewing and accepting a bond would require more work for BLM but would provide a way to enforce reclamation and mitigation. The cost of obtaining a bond, where one was not previously required, would be a considerable added expense to exploration operators.

Plans of Operations. Plans of Operations would be expanded to include all types and sizes of mining operations. Exploration projects that disturb more than 5 acres or are in special category areas would also require Plans of Operations. BLM's workload would increase with all mining operations being required to submit Plans of Operations.

BLM workload would increase with the need to review or coordinate several activities before approving a Plan. These activities would includes a 30-day public comment period in conjunction with the environmental analysis and consultation with other interested parties and agencies.

Environmental performance standards under the Proposed Action are similar to current BLM polices and guidelines in various states. BLM has developed policies on certain issues, such as cyanide management, through experience in working with the mining industry and the public. BLM has also applied its understanding of what actions or data are needed to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. The Proposed Action has incorporated these policy standards into the regulations. No other impacts to industry or natural resources are expected from these standards other than greater consistency among BLM offices.

Plans of Operations would require bonding for 100% of the estimated reclamation cost, increasing workloads by requiring BLM to review in more detail the reclamation plan and cost estimating. Bonding would result in a more a complete interdisciplinary review of the reclamation plan and assure the reclamation of disturbed land if the operator cannot meet their reclamation responsibilities. Mining companies would face more delays in starting or modifying their projects. Funds for reclamation in the event of operator bankruptcy should be adequate to reclaim the operations.

BLM might disapprove a plan if it does not meet the requirements of the regulations, the exploration or mining site lies within an area withdrawn from mineral entry, or the activity would result in unnecessary or undue degradation. This would be a significant impact on the operator and mineral resource development.

Inspection and Enforcement. The Proposed Action would require a mandatory number of inspections for certain types of operations. The specific inspection frequency is already included in BLM policies and is not expected to increase BLM workloads.

Enforcement provisions of the Proposed Action would include the use of suspension orders and discretionary penalties, which BLM could assign for noncompliance. These orders and penalties would slightly increase the workload to develop the case and defend the orders and penalties. But BLM would have greater legal recourse to use against operators who refuse to comply.

Under the Proposed Action during a 20-year period 200 to 180 notices of noncompliance and suspension orders could be expected for Notice-level activity, and 260 to 230 could be expected for Plan-level activity.

Administration Practices. The Proposed Action would change the regulations to include Stock Raising Homestead Act lands whose surface is privately owned but whose mineral estate has been retained by the Federal Government. These new regulations would allow access to those lands for mineral resources but would apply only if the land owner and the mineral operator cannot agree on the development of the minerals. BLM's workload would increase with the development of Plans of Operations, but the number of Plans that would be submitted is uncertain. BLM's workload, however, would increase under all alternatives because recent amendments to the Stock Raising Homestead Act mandate BLM's involvement whenever the surface owner does not consent to mineral development.

The Proposed Action would require a mineral validity exam for any operation in an area under mineral withdrawal. Before BLM can allow operations to start, the exam must show that the operator has the right under the Mining Law to disturb surface resources. By not being allowed to begin operations until the exam has been completed, an operator could lose revenue due to time delays. Conversely, if the operator does not have the right to develop the minerals, then the environmental resources would be protected. BLM's workload would increase because of the exam requirement. The validity exam is an extensive process that BLM-certified mineral examiners can complete.

Under the Proposed Action, if a mineral is suspected of being of common variety, the operator might receive an interim authorization until a validity exam is conducted with a common variety determination. During the interim authorization, operators could continue to sample their site and conduct yearly assessment work to meet Mining Law requirements and hold their claims. Or they could develop an escrow account in a form acceptable to BLM.

Developing an escrow account and depositing the fair market value of the material mined would allow operators to continue mining until the common variety determination has been completed. If the mineral is determined to be uncommon, the money would be refunded to the operator, who could proceed under the Mining Law. If the mineral is determined to be common and salable under 43 CFR 3600, the money would be paid to the U.S. Treasury.

would increase BLM's workload by requiring BLM to review the proposals and determine if impacts have been minimized. BLM would also have to review operations to ensure that they have met the standards outlined in the regulations and determine if the impacts would be at the lowest practicable level. Under its current funding and staffing levels, BLM's increased workload would delay projects, and BLM might not be able to meet the 30 working day response time for Plans of Operations.

Mineral Development. Implementing the Proposed Action is projected to decrease mineral activity across the study area. These changes by operation type for the Proposed Action are shown in Table 3-12.

The largest potential decrease in mining could result because Plans of Operations would be required for many operations that under the existing regulations would need only a Notice. For all operations the requirement to avoid "significant irreparable harm" might delay or preclude operations. Although BLM is expected to invoke this standard rarely, the waiting and uncertainties of the requirement would reduce mineral activities.

Table 3-13 estimates the number of Notices and Plans that could be submitted over a 20-year period for different types of mining operations under the Proposed Action.

Table 3-13. Number of Mineral Operations under Alternative 3 over a 20-Year Period
Type of Operation	Notice-Level		Plan-Level
Exploration	6,050	6,800	700	740
Placer	0	0	2,650	2,980
Strip	0	0	250	280
Open Pit	0	0	1,500	1,900
Underground	0	0	220	250
Mill Site	0	0	490	550
Total	6,050	6,800	5,810	6,700

From 300 to 340 Notices for exploration and from 290 to 330 Plans of Operations would be filed each year under the Proposed Action. Over a 20-year period, from 6,050 to 6,800 Notices and from 5,810 to 6,700 Plans of Operations would be filed.

Table 3-14 shows the average acreage that would be disturbed by Notice- and Plan-level operations under the Proposed Action. Disturbance for operations that the Proposed Action would upgrade from the Notice to the Plan level was calculated at 2 acres per operation.

Casual Use/Suction Dredging. Use of suction dredges would require planning further in advance before engaging in the activity. This requirement could reduce the number of suction dredging operations or result in more unauthorized activity on public lands from these operators.

Exploration. Under the Proposed Action, exploration projects disturbing less than 5 acres would continue to submit a Notice to BLM. But Notice-level operations would require reclamation bonding at 100% of the cost of reclamation. This requirement would increase the costs of operations and could economically harm small independent geologists and prospectors, who might also have difficulty obtaining these bonds. The uncertainty of obtaining a bond would affect the entire range of mineral activity.

Mining. All mining would require Plans of Operations. Therefore, mining operations that previously had only to submit Notices would have to submit Plans of Operations. All small operations (only 5 to 10 persons) would now be required to prepare Plans of Operations and environmental documentation. The environmental requirements and the level of detail for any operation would be based on site-specific locations and the type of operation proposed. Many of the small operators could be hard pressed to post the bond for Plan-level operations and meet environmental requirements. The range of decrease in mineral activity (0 to -30%) would result from the uncertainty of obtaining the required data, the amount of data, and the detail of the data and the difficulty of obtaining a bond either through bonding companies or other methods.

Operators would have to post bond at 100% of the reclamation cost of operations. And bonds would be more difficult to obtain because corporate guarantees would not be allowed in future operations.

The requirement to avoid unnecessary or undue degradation could cause operators to question whether a mine can be developed. The potential use of the "significant irreparable harm" standard could significantly discourage the development of mineral properties. BLM is expected to use this standard only minimally to deny operations. But that all activity would have to meet the requirement could greatly increase mitigation costs and operator expenses to the point where some operations would no longer be economically feasible. In addition, applying (or not applying the significant irreparable harm standard is expected to be extensively litigated in the administrative and judicial systems. The uncertainty of development of mineral properties could make industry unwilling to take the financial risk, even for exploration. The uncertainty of the proposal is shown in the range of decrease in mineral activity

Alternative 4: Maximum Protection

Administration of Surface Management Regulations. The use of technical design standards might reduce the flexibility that operations have under the existing regulations and could reduce the level of exploration and mining. BLM would outline to the operator which technical standards to use. If the standards fail to protect the environment, the industry could argue that it would not have to take remedial actions because it has followed the standards and completed the process exactly as outlined. The mining industry could further argue that it is not liable for the damage because of the failure or inadequacies of the technical standard.

Casual Use. Casual use could continue once BLM has reviewed a proposal and determined that an action is casual use or that a Plan of Operations must be submitted. Operators would either have to write or visit BLM to determine if the operation consists of causal use. Having to review proposals and make these determinations would increase BLM's workload.

Notices. Alternative 4 would discontinue Notices, which would significantly affect exploration operators.

Plans of Operations. All actions that do not meet the casual use definition would require Plans of Operations. Operators would have to plan more time to develop mining actions so that BLM could process them. Exploration would have more scheduling problems because it is based on current information that is being developed for a potential target. During exploration, information could change and require operators to change their exploration plans. These changes could delay drilling and the overall operation because of the wait for additional approval. These delays could be costly in time and money. Developing Plans of Operations would be a complicated and time-consuming p