FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
FEDERAL COAL
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
Bureau of Land Management
Library , _, .
Bidg. 50, Denver Federal jtentor
Denver, CO 80225
IN REPLY REFER TO:
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, D,C. 20240
1972 (142)
Enclosed with this letter of introduction is the final environmental
statement (FES) for the new Federal Coal Management Program.
This programmatic statement is based on information development by
the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior.
Information and data were supplied by Federal, State and local govern-
mental departments and agencies, and non-governmental entities such as
conservation and environmental groups, industrial organizations,
mining companies, libraries, and others.
On December 15, 1978, Secretary Cecil D. Andrus released the draft
version of this statement (DES) and urged the widest possible public
participation in the review of the document. During January and
February of 1979, the Department conducted special public informa-
tional meetings in 12 separate cities, followed by 10 formal public,
hearings to receive comments on the DES. During the extended, 60-day
review period (a 45-day period is mandatory) , the Department
received and evaluated over 1600 separate comments on the DES.
The purpose of the statement is to address various alternatives for
a Federal Coal Management Program, including a preferred program
alternative, and to assess the possible impacts from the various
alternatives. The statement is programmatic in scope and discusses
the national and interregional impacts associated with the Federal
Coal Management Program. Impact assessment includes coverage of 12
coal supply regions, 3 production levels (low, medium, and high), 7
alternative management strategies, 2 projection periods (1985 and 1990),
5 phases of the coal production and use cycle, and 27 impact categories.
The statement also includes a set of proposed regulations which could be
used to implement all or portions of each alternative management program.
Availability of those regulations was announced in the March 19, 1979,
edition of the Federal Register .
This statement will assist the Secretary in earring out
President Carter's directive to manage Federal coal lands in an
environmentally acceptable manner.
Sincerely yours,
Director
\
Bureau of Land Management
ggV Denver Federal Center
DenVr. CO 30225 ^
jaafflMaaBMMWMBWWMtMMBM
I - ■■''■{}*■■
■
~?m
au of land Management \
Ko.De.wHW>- center
Burr
Denver,
CO 80225
BLM Library
D-553A, Building 50
Denver Federal Canter
P.O. Box 26047
Denver, GO G0S25-0O47
i9 7 1
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
FEDERAL COAL
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
APRIL 1979
PREPARED BY THE
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
!yO?
w-
DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
For suk' by tin! Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Ciovernmont Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
Stock Number 024-011-00099-2
-:■-:■■■■■■■ •-■ -" ■ "W^^H^^B
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Guidance in the preparation of this statement was provided by the
following offices of the U.S. Department of the Interior:
• Office of Coal Management; Bureau of Land Management
• Office of Coal Leasing, Planning, and Coordination; Assistant
Secretary - Land and Water Resources
• Office of Policy Analysis; Assistant Secretary - Policy, Budget,
and Administration
Assistance in the preparation of certain portions of this Final
Environmental Statement was provided by the MITRE Corporation,
McLean, Virginia.
1X1
g fiffig!asaKHB | aa ^ B ^ BEBiaBHagw||)alBI|BjBHHKHtB | BHHHH |^ HB ^^ H9aluBiaHfi ( 1B
SUMMARY
Draft( )
Final(X)
Environmental Statement
1 . Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( )
2. grief Description of Action : This final programmatic environmental statement considers the environmental impacts of seven
alternatives for a Federal coal management program to be adopted by the Department of the Interior. The proposed action is the adoption
of the preferred Federal coal management program. In addition to providing for the administration of existing leases (lease readjustments,
assignments, relinguishments, etc.), the processing of preference right lease applications, the review of Federal lands to determine
unsuitability for all or certain types of mining, and other coal management activities, the program would establish standards and
procedures for determining when, where, and in what manner the right to mine coal owned by the United States government should,
through competitive sales, be leased to parties who would cause the coal to be mined. As a part of the program, before competitive lease
sales would be held, the Secretary of the Interior would determine whether there is a need for such sales in order to make federally-owned
coal available for production. Determination of the need for leasing would be based mainly on analyses of expected coal production in
relation to projected demand for coal.
Identification of Federal coal that can be considered for leasing would be done through the land use planning process of the Bureau of
Land Management, Department of the Interior, under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, and the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, under the Multiple-Use Sustained- Yield Act of 1960
and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. Selection of specific tracts of coal to be offered for lease and the administration of the
lease sales would be managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Specific standards would be used to identify lands where mining
Federal coal would cause unacceptable damage to lands or resources. Areas not found unsuitable for mining would be further evaluated
and the value of potential coal development considered in comparison to other values, such as wildlife management, recreation, watershed
protection, or stock grazing, which might be foreclosed or diminished if the coal were to be developed. From areas found to be acceptable
for further consideration for coal leasing in the land use plans of the Federal land management agencies, tracts would be delineated. All
tracts delineated in the planning units in each of eight Federal coal regions would be selected for possible leasing by ranking them region-
wide on the basis of coal quantity and quality, cost of extraction, and social, economic, and environmental impacts of mining. Priority in
selecting tracts to be offered for lease sales in each region would be assigned to those tracts which could be most productively developed
with the least social, economic, and environmental damage.
A central feature of the preferred Federal coal management program would be emphasis on participation by the public and by state and
local governments in all aspects of the program. Information, advice, and opinion would be sought from all parties interested in decisions
about Federal coal management. Assessment of the need for leasing, establishment of coal production goals and leasing targets,
application of standards for determining lands unsuitable for leasing, planning to decide which of those areas that could be leased should
be leased rather than be put to other uses, and ranking and selection of tracts to be offered for lease sale would be conducted in an open,
accountable way, in a process designed to make decisions as responsive as possible to suggestions from those interests most affected by the
decisions. Consideration of social and economic consequences as evaluated by state governments would be given special weight when
decisions about Federal coal management are made through participation of regional coal management teams.
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts : This is a programmatic environmental statement. The Federal coal management program
would be established in June 1979. As a result of the operation of the program, decisions could be made that would result in competitive
coal lease sales in some areas, deferral of decisions about whether leasing should take place in other areas, and the elimination of still other
areas from further consideration as potential sites for leasing and mining of Federal coal.
The environmental impacts which are expected to result from implementation of the Federal coal management program will vary among
regions and over time. In the short term, many regions will experience substantial increases in coal production for several years, with or
without additional leasing. Demand for coal in those regions will lead producers to develop available reserves. Leasing under such
circumstances would not add significantly to cumulative social, economic, and environmental impacts within the region, but could cause
intra-regional shifts in specific production sites if producers responded to more attractive development opportunities created by the
availability of new Federal leases. A decision not to lease in the next several years could also diminish or foreclose production
opportunities in an area, causing producers to turn their attention to other reserves, within or outside of a given area, which could be
developed without Federal leasing. Whether the environmental consequences of production shifts caused by a Federal coal management
program, and the decision which would be made under the program to lease or not to lease in the next several years, would be generally
more or less damaging to the environment could only be determined through analysis of specific management decisions. As described in
this statement, such specific management decisions would be made only after land use planning and environmental analyses designed to
minimize environmental damage have been conducted.
Over time, production from additional Federal leasing could account for a larger share of total national production, and so would be
responsible for a larger percentage of the environmental consequences of production.
Decisions not to lease could severely limit the production of coal in the western United States. The social, economic, and environmental
consequences of program decisions under such circumstances would depend on the type and location of energy sources that would be used
as alternatives to coal from the western United States.
In this statement, the environmental consequences of implementation of a Federal coal management program are described on a
national and inter-regional basis. While many impacts, both beneficial and damaging, can be directly attributed to coal production that
would result from decisions made under such a program, a wide range of impacts would result from decisions about the transportation,
conversion and use of coal. Furthermore, certain intra-regional impacts are too site-specific, or require management decisions not yet made
which are too detailed or incapable of discernment, to be considered in a programmatic environmental impact statement. Thus, a tiered
IV
■ ■ ■ ■;;;■.' : ■ ■- ' : ■
^^^^^^^m
structure of increasingly site-specific environmental analysis is proposed. The unavoidable national and inter-regional impacts of coal
production that could be affected by decisions made under the program include:
• Subsidence of land could result from underground mining activities.
• Existing vegetation would be destroyed on sites cleared for development and surface mining, and wildlife habitat would be lost or
temporarily displaced.
• Present agricultural use in some areas would be converted to residential, commercial or industrial uses.
• Industrial and municipal demand for water would increase; generally, water would be available for these uses but in some western
states the new demands may compete with present water uses, and the competition will cause price increases that may cause
economic problems for agricultural water users.
• Water quality may be lowered and totally dissolved and suspended solids would increase due to industrial return flows and
construction activities.
• Aquifers may be disrupted and their long-term productivity could be reduced.
• Increases in emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, trace elements, and
particulates would occur with some degradation of local and regional air quality and possible long-term climatic effects.
• Topographical features would be altered during construction and mining activities.
• There could be some loss of archaeological and historical sites.
• The present visual quality of the landscape would be changed as a result of new coal mining and cleaning facilities, transportation
networks, coal conversion plants, transmission lines, and urban expansion.
• Population would increase in some areas and decrease in others.
• Educational, police and fire protection, sewage and water, recreational, and other public facilities and services would not keep pace
with population increases in some regions, straining personnel and budget levels of local and state governments and lowering the
local quality of life for some.
• Communities could lose their small town atmosphere and residents of rural areas would experience a change in their traditional life-
styles.
• Transportation arteries, including rail lines, would experience heavier average daily traffic with significant impact at rail grade
crossings.
• Employment increases would occur from coal development, and increased construction wages and investment in the impacted
regions would lead to higher personal income, retail sales, and property values. This could also result in tight housing markets and
inflation adversely affecting those persons on fixed incomes.
• Fatal accidents and disabling injuries would undoubtedly occur as a result of coal development activities.
4 Alternatives Considered : Considered in this environmental impact statement are seven alternatives: the preferred program, no new
Federal leasing, issue preference right lease applications (PRLA'S) only, emergency leasing only, lease to meet industry indications of
needs, lease to meet the United States Department of Energy production goals, and state determination of leasing levels. Numerous policy
alternatives are capable of incorporation in various of the alternatives. Twelve coal regions are specified: Northern Appalachian Coal
Region (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, West Virginia); Central Appalachian Coal Region (Virginia, Kentucky); Southern Appalachian
Coal Region (Tennessee, Alabama); Eastern Interior Coal Region Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky), Western Interior Coal Region (Iowa,
Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Oklahoma); Texas Coal Region (Texas, Louisiana); Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Region (Colorado,
New Mexico); San Juan River Coal Region (Colorado, New Mexico); Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region (Colorado, Utah); Green
River - Hams Fork Coal Region (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming); Powder River Coal Region (Montana, Wyoming); and Fort Union Coal
Region (Montana, North Dakota).
5. Comments on the draft environmental slaiement: Comments have been received from various individuals, organizations and
governmental agencies indicated in Chapter 8.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF
FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1.1 Purpose of Final Environmental Impact
Statement 1-2
1.1.2 Summary of Program Alternatives 1-2
1.1.3 Approach to Environmental Impact Statement ... . 1-3
1.1.4 Relationship to Ongoing Regional Environmental
Statements and Studies 1-5
1.1.5 General Purpose of Coal Management Policy 1-8
1.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1-8
1.2.1 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 1-9
1.2.2 1971 Leasing Moratorium 1-9
1.2.3 Short-Term Leasing Since 1973 1-9
1 .2.4 1975 Federal Coal Leasing Environmental Impact
Statement 1-10
1.2.5 Sierra Club v. Kleppe 1-12
1.2.6 NRDC v.Hughes 1-12
1.2.7 NRDCv. Berklund 1-15
1 .3 FEDERAL CONSTRAINTS ON AND AUTHORITIES FOR
COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1-15
1.3.1 Laws Governing Development of Federal
Coal 1-15
1 .3.2 Interagency Relationships in Federal Coal
Management 1-18
1.4 EXISTING FEDERAL ENERGY POLICIES 1-37
1.4.1 Role of Coal in National Energy Policy 1-37
1 .4.2 Congressional Action 1-37
1.5 STATE POLICIES AND CONSTRAINTS 1-39
1.6 REFERENCES 1-55
CHAPTER 2 - THE NATIONAL ENERGY ROLE OF WESTERN
AND FEDERAL COAL 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.2 COAL RESERVES AND CHARACTERISTICS 2-1
2.3 HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL COAL USE 2-5
2.4 THE GROWTH IN WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
PRODUCTION 2-11
2.5 TRENDS IN OTHER SOURCES OF ENERGY 2-17
2.5.1 Oil Production Trends 2-17
2.5.2 Natural Gas Production Trends 2-21
2.5.3 Nuclear Power Trends 2-21
2.5.4 Hydroelectric Power Trends 2-25
2.5.5 Nontraditional Energy Sources 2-25
2.5.6 Energy Conservation 2-27
2.6 EXPECTED FUTURE COAL USE 2-27
2.6.1 Coal in the National Energy Plan 2-27
PAGE
2.6.2 Department of Energy Coal Projections 2-27
2.7 WESTERN COAL SUPPLY SOURCES 2-35
2.7.1 Production Potential of Federal Coal 2-35
2.7.2 Coal Owned by Indian Tribes 2-40
2.7.3 Non-Federal, Non-Indian Coal 2-43
2.8 THE NEED FOR NEW FEDERAL COAL LEASING 2-48
2.8.1 Leasing to Meet National Energy Objectives 2-50
2.8.2 Leasing to Promote Motre Desirable Patterns of
Coal Development 2-58
2.8.3 Leasing for Legal and Administrative Purposes ..2-60
2.8.4 Leasing to Increase Competition in the Coal
Industry 2-61
2.9 OVERVIEW OF THE NEED FOR A FEDERAL COAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2-61
2.10 REFERENCES 2-65
CHAPTER 3 - THE PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES 3-1
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 3-2
3.1.1 The Preferred Program 3-2
3.1.2 No Federal Leasing 3-10
3.1.3 Processes Outstanding Preference Right Lease
Applications 3-10
3. 1 .4 Emergency Leasing 3-11
3.1.5 Lease to Satisfy Industry's Indications of
Need 3-12
3.1.6 State Determination of Leasing Levels 3-12
3.1.7 Lease to Meet DOE Production Goals 3-12
3.1.8 Other Alternatives Not Considered 3-13
3.2 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN COMPONENTS
OF THE PREFERRED PROGRAM AND ITS
DEVELOPMENT 3-13
3.2.1 Development of the Preferred Program 3-13
3.2.2 Land Use Planning 3-17
3.2.3 Activity Planning 3-54
3.2.4 Setting Regional Production Goals and Leasing
Targets 3-57
3.2.5 Pre-Sale and Sale Procedures 3-60
3.2.6 State, Local, and Industry Participation 3-65
3.2.7 Special Leasing Opportunities 3-67
3.2.8 Emergency Leasing System 3-67
3.2.9 Post Programmatic Environmental Analysis 3-68
3.2.10 Administration of Existing Leases and PRLAs ... 3-68
3.2.1 1 Special Start-Up Considerations 3-72
3.2.12 Other Aspects of the Preferred Program 3-73
3.3 REFERENCES 3-74
CHAPTER 4 - DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL
ENVIRONMENTS 4-1
4. 1 THE APPALACHIAN COAL REGION 4-1
4.1.1 The Environment 4-1
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
4.1.2 The Environment and Man 4-4
4.2 EASTERN INTERIOR COAL REGION 4-9
4.2. 1 The Environment 4-9
4.2.2 The Environment and Man 4-11
4.3 WESTERN INTERIOR COAL REGION 4-12
4.3.1 The Environment 4-12
4.3.2 The Environment and Man 4-16
4.4 TEXAS COAL REGION 4-18
4.4.1 The Environment 4-18
4.4.2 The Environment and Man 4-21
4.5 POWDER RIVER COAL REGION 4-24
4.5.1 The Environment 4-24
4.5.2 The Environment and Man 4-27
4.6 GREEN RIVER-HAMS FORK COAL REGION 4-31
4.6.1 The Environment 4-31
4.6.2 The Environment and Man 4-35
4.7 FORT UNION COAL REGION 4-37
4.7.1 The Environment 4-37
4.7.2 The Environment and Man 4-40
4.8 SAN JUAN RIVER COAL REGION 4-41
4.8.1 The Environment 4-41
4.8.2 The Environment and Man 4-45
4.9 U1NTA-SOTHWESTERN UTAH COAL REGION 4-47
4.9. 1 The Environment 4-47
4.9.2 The Environment and Man 4-50
4.10 DENVER-RATON MESA COAL REGION 4-53
4.10.1 The Environment 4-53
4.10.1 The Environment and Man 4-56
4.11 REFERENCES 4-59
CHAPTER 5 - REGIONAL IMPACTS OF FEDERAL COAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ALTERNATIVES 5-1
5.1 IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES 5-1
5.1.1 Coal Development Cycle Activities 5-1
5.1.2 Assumptions and Analysis Guidelines 5-4
5.1 .3 Impact Estimation 5-4
5.1.4 Other Impacts 5-11
5.2 REGIONAL IMPACTS SUMMARIES 5-11
5.2.1 The Appalachian Coal Region 5-12
5.2.2 The Eastern Interior Coal Region 5-16
5.2.3 Western Interior Coal Region 5-16
5.2.4 The Texas Coal Region 5-18
5.2.5 The Powder River Coal Region 5-18
5.2.6 The Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region 5-21
5.2.7 The Fort Union Coal Region 5-24
5.2.8 The San Juan River Coal Region 5-26
5.2.9 The Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region 5-28
5.2.10 The Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Region 5-28
5.3 PROGRAM IMPACTS 5.30
5.3.1 Coal Production and Consumption 5-36
5.3.2 Physical Impacts 5.45
5.3.3 Ecological Impacts 5-107
5.3.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 5-123
5.3.5 Transportation System Impacts 5-156
5.3.6 Operating Energy 5-171
5.4 IMPACTS RESULTING FROM SUBALTERNATIVES
AMONG OTHER POLICY ISSUES 5-175
5.4.1 Introduction 5-175
5.4.2 Require Underground Mining 5-175
5.4.3 End Use Considerations 5-180
5.4.4 Concentration of Federal Leases 5184
5.4.5 Due Diligence 5-185
5.4.6 Land Ownership Patterns 5-187
5.4.7 Maximum Economic Recovery 5-192
5.4.8 Unsuitability Criteria 5-194
5.4.9 Role of Industry Nominations 5-204
5.4.10 Land Use Planning Alternatives 5-206
5.5 REFERENCES 5-210
CHAPTER 6 - MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS
OF A FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM 6-1
6.1 INTRODUCTION 6-1
6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION STRUCTURE OF THE
PREFERRED PROGRAM AND CERTAIN OF THE ALTER-
NATIVES 6-2
6.3 MITIGATION OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS 6-5
6.3.1 General Socioeconomic Impact Mitigation 6-5
6.3.2 Program Socioeconomic Impact Mitigation 6-7
6.4 REFERENCES 6-11
CHAPTER 7 - LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSE-
QUENCES OF FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES 7-1
7.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 7-1
7.1.1 Physical Environment 7-1
7.1.2 Ecological Resources 7-3
7.1.3 Community Resources 7-4
7.2 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF PUBLIC RESOURCES 7-5
7.3 LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES VERSUS SHORT-
TERM USE OF LANDS 7-5
7.3.1 Trade-Off Analysis of Multiple Uses of Public
Lands 7-5
7.3.2 Time Frame of Coal Leasing 7-8
7.3.3 Productivity 7-8
Vll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Concluded)
7.3.4 Wildlife 7-10
7.4 REFERENCES 7-10
CHAPTER 8 -CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ... 8-1
8.1 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION 8-1
8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PUBLICATION 8 " 2
8.2. 1 Preparation of Draft Environmental Statement
(DES) 8-2
8.2.2 Publication and Distribution of the Draft
Environmental Statement 8-3
8.3 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 8-3
8.3.1 Public Meetings 8-3
8.3.2 Public Hearings 8-4
8.3.3 Public Comments 8-4
8.3.4 Review Procedures for Handling Public
Comments
8.3.5 Letters Received with Substantive Comments 8-5
8.3.6 Individuals Presenting Relevant Testimony at the
Hearings 8-6
8.3.7 Substantive Comments and Departmental
Responses 8-7
8.3.8 List of All Written Comments 8-176
8.4 REFERENCES 8-179
APPENDIX A -EXAMPLE REGULATIONS A-l
APPENDIX B- MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING .... B-l
1. Memorandum of Understanding between the Depart-
ment of the Interior and the Department of Energy
Concerning the Establishment and Use of the Produc-
tion Goals for Energy Resources on Federal
Lands B-l
2. Memorandum of Understanding between the Bureau of
Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service on
Coal B-4
APPENDIX C - COAL TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
INFORMATION C-l
C.l IMPORTANT COAL CHARACTERISTICS C-l
C.2 MINING TECHNOLOGY C-l
C.2.1 Exploration C-l
C.2. 2 Mine Development C-3
C.2. 3 Coal Production C-3
C.2. 4 Land Reclamation C-13
C.3 FUTURE USES OF COAL C-15
C.3.1 Coal Gasification C-15
C.3. 2 Coal Liquefaction C-15
C.3. 3 Direct Combustion C-15
C.4 REFERENCES C-19
APPENDIX D - ECOLOGICAL DATA D-l
APPENDIX E - WATER RESOURCES DATA E-l
APPENDIX F - REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE
SUMMARIES F-l
APPENDIX G - CHANGE IN COAL-RELATED SOCIO-
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR COAL
PRODUCING REGIONS G-l
APPENDIX H - IMPACT ESTIMATION METH-
ODOLOGY
H.l INTRODUCTION H-l
H.2 COAL PRODUCTION AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS . H-l
H.2.1 DOE Projections (Demand Assumptions) H-l
H.2. 2 Department of the Interior Production
Projections H-7
H.2. 3 Allocation Algorithm and Constraints H-l 1
H.2. 4 Transportation Assumptions (Modal Split) H-24
H.3 COAL IMPACT ESTIMATION PROGRAM H-30
H.3.1 Main Impact Estimation Module H-30
H.3. 2 Socioeconomic Impact Estimation Subroutine .. H-34
H.3. 3 Ecological Impact Estimation Subroutine H-34
H.4 ENVIRONMENTAL LOADING FACTORS H-34
H.4.1 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) H-37
H.4. 2 Direct Construction Workers H-37
H.4. 3 Direct Operation Workers H-37
H.4. 4 Acreage Disturbed H-91
H.5 DERIVATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LOADING
FACTORS H-98
H.5.1 Air Emissions H-98
H.5. 2 Water Use H-109
H.5. 3 Acreage Disturbed H-l 1 1
H.5. 4 Solid Wastes H-l 11
H.5. 5 Fatalities H-120
H.5. 6 Disabling Accidents H-120
H.5. 7 Man-Days Lost H-120
H.5. 8 Operating Energy H-121
H.5. 9 Operation and Construction Employment H-121
H.6 AGRICULTURAL OPPORTUNITY COST DERIVATION
METHODOLOGY H-l 23
H.7 REFERENCES * ... . H-127
APPENDIX I - EXISTING LEASES AND PRLAs DISCUSSION
PAPER 1-1
APPENDIX J - FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION REGIONS BY
COUNTY J-l
APPENDIX K - LETTERS OF COMMENT Kl
Vlll
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page
1-1 Site-Specific Proposed Actions in the Ongoing
Regional Environmental Statements 1-7
1-2 Leases Issued between 1974 and 1978 1-11
1-3 Federal Laws Affecting Coal Development and
Energy Conversion 1-19
1-4 Division of Functions and Responsibilities
Concerning Management of Federal Coal between
the Office of Surface Mining, the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey and the Bureau of Land
Management 1-26
1-5 Principal Departments and Agencies
Involved in Activities Affecting the Production,
Transportation, and Utilization of Coal 1-31
1-6 State Legislation 1-41
2-1 Regional and U.S. Demonstrated Coal Reserve
Base and Production Level 2-3
2-2 Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coals in the
U.S. on January 1, 1976 Potentially Minable
by Underground and Surface Methods 2-4
2-3 The Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coals
of the Western United States on January 1 , 1 974,
by Mining Method and Sulfur Content 2-6
2-4 The Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coals
of the Eastern United States on January 1 ,
1974, by Mining Method and Sulfur Content 2-7
2-5 KRCRA Coal and Surface Ownership 2-9
2-6 Consumption and Exports of Bituminous Coal and
Lignite by Consumer Class in Selected Years
1933-1977 2-12
2-7 Coal Production from Federal Lands in
the Six Major Coal-Producing States of the
West in Selected Years, 1957-1977, and
Comparisons with Total U.S. and Total
State Production 2-13
2-8 Coal Production from All Lands in
Selected Years 1957-1977 by States 2-15
2-9 Coal Production from Federal Lands in
Selected Years 1957-1977 by States 2-16
2-10 Coal Shipments from Selected Western and Eastern
States in 1976 by Consumer Classifications 2-18
2-11 U.S. Petroleum Supply and Demand 2-19
2-12 U.S. Proven Reserves of Crude Oil 2-20
2-13 Value of Crude Oil/Petroleum
Product Imports, 1965 to 1977 2-22
2-14 U.S. Proven Reserves of Natural Gas 2-23
2-15 Status of Nuclear Powerplants,
End of 1 977 2-24
2-16 DOE National Coal Consumption 2-29
2-17 DOE Detailed Regional Coal Production
Forecasts 2-30
2-18 DOE Production Projections for Western
Coal Regions 2-32
2-19 Eastern and Western Consumption of
Western Coal 2-33
2-20 1990 DOE Mid-Level Regional Coal Flows
Production and Consumption 2-34
Table No. Page
2-2 1 Recoverable Coal Reserves in Existing
Federal Leases 2-36
2-22 Planned 1985 Production from Approved
and Pending Mine Plans Containing Federal
Leases 2-37
2-23 Likely 1985 Production from Existing
Federal Leases without Mine Plans 2-39
2-24 Outstanding Preference Right Lease
Applications 2-41
2-25 Production Potential from Outstanding
Preference Right Lease Applications 2-42
2-26 Indian Coal Reserves and Production
Plans, Six Western Federal Coal States 2-44
2-27 Estimated Non-Federal Reserves 2-45
2-28 State Coal Leases 2-46
2-29 Estimated Distribution of Non-Federal Reserves
by Ownership Categories 2-47
2-30 1985 Planned Production from Existing
and Planned Mining Operations Involving only
Non-Federal, Non-Indian Coal 2-49
2-31 Summary of Planned and Projected
Production, 1985 2-52
2-32 Summary of Planned, Potential, and
Projected Production, 1990 2-54
3-1 Issue Option Papers Prepared to Identify
Preferred Program Alternative 3-18
3-2 Policy Options— Secretary's
Preference 3- 19
3-3 Proposed Criteria for Assessing and Designating
Federal Lands Unsuitable for All or
Certain Types of Coal Mining Operations 3-33
3-4 Proposed Unsuitability Standards: Their
Sources and Limitations 3-43
4-1 Population and Economic Characteristics in the
Northern Appalachian Region 4-6
4-2 Population and Economic Characteristics in
the Central Appalachian Region 4-7
4-3 Population and Economic Characteristics in
the Southern Appalachian Region 4-8
4-4 Population and Economic Characteristics in
the Eastern Interior Region 4-13
4-5 Population and Economic Characteristics in
the Western Interior Region 4-19
4-6 Population and Economic Characteristics in
the Texas Region 4-23
4-7 Population and Economic Characteristics in
the Powder River Region 4-30
4-8 Population and Economic Characteristics in
the Green River-Hams Fork Region 4-36
4-9 Population and Economic Characteristics in
the Fort Union Region 4-42
4-10 Population and Economic Characteristics in
the San Juan River Region 4-46
4-1 1 Population and Economic Characteristics in
the Uinta-Soulhewestern Utah Region 4-52
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
4-12 Population and Economic Characteristics in
the Denver-Raton Mesa Region 4-57
5-1 Coal Impact Estimation Program 5-9
5-2 Regional Impact Summary, Northern
Appalachian Coal Region 5-13
5-3 Regional Impact Summary, Central
Appalachian Coal Region 5-14
5-4 Regional Impact Summary, Southern
Appalachian Coal Region 5-15
5-5 Regional Impact Summary, Eastern Interior
Coal Region 5-17
5-6 Regional Impact Summary, Western
Interior Coal Region 5-19
5-7 Regional Impact Summary, Texas
Coal Region 5-20
5-8 Regional Impact Summary, Powder River
Coal Region 5-21
5-9 Regional Impact Summary, Green River -
Hams Fork Coal Region 5-23
5-10 Regional Impact Summary, Fort Union
Coal Region 5-25
5-1 1 Regional Impact Summary, San Juan River
Coal Region 5-27
5-12 Regional Impact Summary, Uinta-Southwestern
Utah Coal Region 5-29
5-13 Regional Impact Summary, Denver-Raton
Mesa Coal Region 5-31
5-14 Summary of Percent of Change by
Alternative from No New Leasing Medium
Production Projection, Eastern Coal
Regions, 1985 5-32
5-15 Summary of Percent of Change by Alterntive
from No New Leasing Medium Production
Projection, Western Coal-Regions,
1985 5-33
5-16 Summary of Percent of Change by
Alternative from No New Leasing Medium
Production Projection, Eastern Coal
Regions, 1980 5-34
5-17 Summary of Percent of Change
by Alternative From No New Leasing
Medium Production Projection, Western
Coal Regions, 1990 5-35
5-18 Coal Production Summary 5-37
5-19 Coal Consumption Summary 5-39
5-20 Federal Coal Management Program Alternatives
Comparison of 1985 and 1990
Regional Coal Production Levels 5-41
5-21 Land Requirements: Comparison
of Alternatives 5-43
5-22 Acres of Land Required by Coal
Region for the Preferred Program Medium
Coal Projection between 1976 and 1990 5-47
5-23 Estimates of Land Disturbed by Mining
Activities, Coal Cleaning and Consumption,
and Coal-Related Population Increases in
1990 under the Preferred Alternative,
Medium Coal Production Projections 5-48
5-24 Estimated Time Required to Reclaim
Mined Land (Western Regions) 5-52
5-25 No New Leasing Alternative Water Makeup
(Withdrawal) Requirements (Eastern
Coal Regions) 5-58
5-26 No New Leasing Alternative Water Makeup
(Withdrawal) Requirements (Western
Coal Regions) 5-58
5-27 Coal Regions and Corresponding
Aggregated Subregions 5-60
5-28 No New Leasing Alternative Consumptive
Water Requirements by Coal Region 5-61
5-29 No New Leasing Alternative Consumptive
Water Requirements by Watershed 5-64
5-30 Water Resources Council Projected Consumptive
Water Requirements in 1985 5-66
5-3 1 Predicted Water Flow in the Upper Ohio and
Upper Tennessee River Basins, Containing the
Northern, Central and Southern Appalachian
Coal Regions, 1985 5-67
5-32 Predicted Water Flow in the Upper
Mississippi and Ohio River Basins,
Containing the Eastern Interior and
Appalachian Coal Regions, 1985 5-68
5-33 Predicted Water Flow in the Missiouri and
Arkansas River Basins, Containing the
Western Interior, Powder River, and
Fort Union Coal Regions, 1985 5-69
5-34 Predicted Water Flow in the Lower Red,
Sabine, Neches, Trinity, Brazos,
Colorado and Nueces River Basins,
Containing the Texas Coal Region, 1985 5-70
5-35 Predicted Water Flow in the Yellowstone River
Basins, Containing the Powder River Coal
Region, 1985 5-71
5-36 Predicted Water Flow in the Upper Missouri
River Basin, Containing the Powder
River and Fort Union Coal Regions,
1985 5-72
5-37 Predicted Water Flow in the Upper Colorado
River Basin, Containing the Green
River-Hams Fork, Uinta-Southwestern
Utah, and San Juan River Coal
Region, 1 985 5-73
5-38 Predicted Water Flow in the Green
River Basin, Containing the Green
River-Hams Fork Coal Region, 1985 5-74
5-39 Predicted Water Flow in the Upper
Colorado Mainstream and Green River
Basins, Containing the Green River-
Hams Fork and Uinta-Southwestern
Utah Coal Region, 1985 5-75
5-40 Predicted Water Flow in the Upper
Arkansas and Upper Platte River Basins,
Containing the Denver-Raton Mesa
Coal Region, 1985 5-76
5-41 Water Consumption (Evaporative) Impacts,
Comparison of Alternatives 5-83
5-42 Expected Visibility at Four Different
Total Suspended Particulate Concentrations 5-87
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
5-43 Trace Elements and Emissions from
Fossil Fuels 5-89
5-44 Selected New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for Air Pollutant
Sources 5-91
5-45 State New Source Performance Standards
for Coal Combustion 5-92
5-46 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Recommended Federal Episode
Criteria 5-93
5-47 Status of Attainment for Coal
Region Air Quality Control Regions 5-95
5-48 Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Increments ( 5-96
5-49 National Emissions Estimates for 1975 5-98
5-50 No New Leasing Alternative, Sulfur
Oxides Air Emissions 5-99
5-51 No New Leasing Alternative, Particulate
Air Emissions 5-100
5-52 No New Leasing Alternative, Carbon
Monoxide Air Emissions 5-101
5-53 No New Leasing Alternative, Nitrogen
Oxides Air Missions 5-102
5-54 No New Leasing Alternative, Hydrocarbon
Air Emissions 5-103
5-55 No New Leasing Alternative, Carbon
Dioxide Air Emissions 5-104
5-56 Sulfur Oxide Emissions 5-105
5-57 Total Suspended Particulates Emissions 5-106
5-58 Carbon Monoxide Emissions 5-107
5-59 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions 5-108
5-60 Hydrocarbon Emissions 5-110
5-61 Carbon Dioxide Emissions 5-111
5-62 Comparisons of Potential Primary
Productivity Loss 5-114
5-63 Comparison of Game Animal Losses 5-117
5-64 Potential Threats to Endangered Species
on Coal Region 5-118
5-65 Coal Related Population Associated
with No New Leasing Alternative 5-128
5-66 Coal Related Population, Comparison of
Coal Management Alternatives 5-130
5-67 No New Leasing Alternative, Coal Mining
and Beneficiation Employment-Construction
Workers 5-133
5-68 Comparative Projections Coal Mining and
Beneficiation-Construction Employment 5-134
5-69 No New Leasing Alternative Coal Mining
and Beneficiation Employment-Operational
Workers 5-135
5-70 Comparative Projections Coal Mining and
Beneficiation-Operational Employment 5-136
5-71 No New Leasing Alternative Coal Conversion
and Utilization Employment-Construction
Workers 5-137
5-72 No New Leasing Alternative Coal Conversion
and Utilization Employment-Operational
Workers 5-137
5-73 Agricultural Productivity Values,
Comparison of Alternatives 5-140
5-74 Net Impact on State and Local Goverment
Expenditures in Coal Producing States
No New Leasing Alternative
1985 and 1990 5-142
5-75 Net Impact on State and Local
Government Expenditures in Coal Producing
States Preferred Program 1985
and 1990 5-143
5-76 Impact on State and Local
Government Expenditures in Non-Coal
Producing States by Consuming Region,
1985 and 1990 5-144
5-77 Severance Taxes— Coal Producing States 5-146
5-78 Projected 1985 and 1990 Coal Royalties
and Severance Taxes 5-150
5-79 Comparison of Fatalities from
Coal Mining, Beneficiation, and
Conversion under the No New Leasing
and Preferred Program Alternatives
(Medium Production Level) 5-151
5-80 Disabling Accidents Coal Mining
(Surface and Underground) 5-1 52
5-81 Projected Man Day Losses 5-154
5-82 Potentially Constrained Rail Links 5-162
5-83 Freight Car Requirements 5-164
5-84 Major Rail Transportation Environmental
Residuals Medium Coal Production
Level 5-167
5-85 No New Leasing Alternative, Operating
Energy Impacts 5-173
5-86 Operating Energy, Comparison of Alternatives 5-174
5-87 Percentages of Underground and
Surface Mining for 1976, 1985, and
1990 Preferred Program, Medium Production
Projections 5-176
5-88 Relation between the Average Seam
Thickness and the Acres Disturbed by
Region 5-178
5-89 Annual Environmental Factors Associated
with 10 Million Tons of Coal Surface
Mined or Underground Mined in the
Uinta-Southwestern Utah Region 5-179
5-90 Draft Unsuitability Criteria Field
Tested in 1978 5-196
5-91 Summary of Results of 1978 Field
Test of Draft Unsuitability Criteria 5-202
5-92 Comparison of Subalternatives Discussed in
Section 5.4.9 5-207
7-1 Coal Production Summary 7-6
7-2 Estimates of Long Term/Short Term
Losses of Total Land Required
between 1 976 and 1 990 under the
XI
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Preferred Coal Leasing Alternative,
Medium Level Production 7-9
8-1 Organizations Consulted during Preparation
of This Statement 8 -180
8-2 Federal Agencies Requested to
Comment on the Draft Environmental
Statement 8-184
8-3 Public Hearings 8-185
C-l Relationship of Coal Thickness to
Production C-12
D-l Estimated Regional Carrying Capacities
and Primary Productivities D-l
D-2 Federally Protected Species of
the Federal Coal Regions D-5
D-3 Number of Species (by Category)
Considered by States as Endangered,
Threatened, or Worthy of Special
Consideration D-8
D-4 Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on No New
Federal Leasing — Low Level Production,
1976-1985 D-9
D-5 Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on No New
Federal Leasing — Low-Level Production,
1986-1990 D-9
D-6 Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on No New
Federal Leasing — Mid-Level Production,
1976-1985 D-10
D-7 Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on No New
Federal Leasing— Mid-Level Production,
1986-1990 D-10
D-8 Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on No New
Federal Leasing— High-Level Production,
1976-1985 D-l 1
D-9 Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on No New
Federal Leasing— High-Level
Production, 1986-1990 D-l 1
D- 1 Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on the
Preferred Program Alternative Low-
Level Coal Production, 1976-1985 D-12
D-l 1 Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on the
Preferred Program Alternative Low-
Level Production, 1986-1990 D-12
D-12 Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on the
Preferred Program Alternative Mid-
Level Production, 1976-1985
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-17
D-18
D-19
D-20
D-21
D-22
D-23
Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on the
Preferred Program Alternative Mid-
Level Production 1986-1990
Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on the
Preferred Program Alternative High-
Level Coal Production, 1976-1985
Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on the
Preferred Program Alternative High-
Level Coal Production, 1986-1990
Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on
Preference Right Leasing Applications
Only Leasing Mid-Level Coal
Production, 1976-1985
D-13
D-13
D-14
D-14
D4-15
Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on Preference
Right Leasing Applications Only
Leasing, Mid-Level Coal Production,
1986-1990
Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on Short
Term Leasing, Mid-Level Coal
Production, 1976-1985
Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on Short
Term Leasing, Mid-Level Coal
Production, 1986-1990
Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on Leasing
to Meet Industry Needs, Mid-
Level Production, 1976-1985
Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on Leasing
to Meet Industry Needs, Mid-Level
Production, 1986-1990
Potential Losses to Natural and
Agricultural Production and to Wildlife
Due to Habitat Loss Based on
Department of Energy Goals Mid-
Level Coal Production, 1976-1985
Potential Losses to Natural
and Agricultural Production and to
Wildlife Due to Habitat Loss Based
on Department of Energy Goals
1986-1990
D-15
D-16
D-16
D-17
D-17
D-18
D-18
XIX
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
F-3 Regional Coal Production and
Use Summaries Preferred Program
Alternative, 1990 Medium Production
Level F-7
F-4 Regional Coal Production and
Use Summary No New Leasing
Alternative, 1985 Medium Production
Level F-10
F-5 Regional Coal Production and
Use Summary No New Leasing
Alternative, 1990 Medium Production
Level F- 1 3
F-6 Regional Coal Production and Use
Summaries PLRAs Only Alternative,
1985 Medium Production Level F-16
F-7 Regional Coal Production and Use
Summaries PRLAs Only Alternative,
1990 Medium Production Level F-19
F-8 Regional Coal Production and Use
Summaries Energy Leasing Alternative,
1985 Medium Production Level F-22
F-9 Regional Coal Production and Use
Summaries Emergency Leasing Alternative,
1990 Medium Production Level F-25
F-10 Regional Coal Production and Use
Summaries Meet Industry Needs Alternative,
1985 Medium Production Level F-28
F-l I Coal Production and Use Summaries Meet
Industry Needs Alternative, 1990
Medium Production Level F-3 1
F-l 2 Regional Coal Production and Use
Summaries DOE Goals Alternative,
1985 Medium Production Level F-34
F-13 Regional Coal Production and Use
Summaries DOE Goal Alternative,
1990 Medium Production Level F-37
F-14 Regional Coal Production and Use
Summaries State Determination Alternative,
1985 Medium Production Level F-40
F-l 5 Regional Coal Production and Use
Summaries State Determination Alternative,
1990 Medium Production Level F-43
G-l Coal Producing Regions — Socio-
economic Characteristics for the No New
Leasing Alternative 1985 Low Level G-l
G-2 Coal Producing Regions — Socio-
economic Characteristics for the No New
Leasing Alternative 1990 Low Level G-2
G-3 Coal Producing Regions — Socio-
economic Characteristics for the No New
Leasing Alternative 1985 Medium Level G-3
G-4 Coal Producing Regions — Socio-
economic Characteristics for the No New
Leasing Alternative 1990 Medium Level G-4
G-5 Coal Producing Regions — Socio-
economic Characteristics for the No New
Leasing Alternative 1985 High Level G-5
G-6 Coal Producing Regions — Socio-
economic Characteristics for the No New
Leasing Alternative 1990 High Level G-6
G-7 Coal Producing Regions— Socio-
economic Characteristics for the Preferred
Program Alternative 1985 Low Level G-7
G-8 Coal Producing Regions— Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
Preferred Program Alternative 1990
Low Level G-8
G-9 Coal Producing Regions— Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
Preferred Program Alternative 1985
Medium Level G-9
G-10 Coal Producing Regions — Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
Preferred Program Alternative 1990
Medium Level G-10
G-ll Coal Producing Regions— Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
Preferred Program Alternative 1985
High Level G-l 1
G-12 Coal Producing Regions— Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
Preferred Program Alternative 1990
High Level G-12
G-13 Coal Producing Regions— Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
Preference Right Program Alternative
— 1985 Medium Level G-13
G-14 Coal Producing Regions— Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
Preference Right Program Alternative—
1990 Medium Level G-14
G-l 5 Coal Producing Regions— Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
Emergency Program Alternative
1985 Medium Level G-15
G-16 Coal Producing Regions— Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
Emergency Program Alternative 1990
Medium Level Q-16
G-l 7 Coal Producing Regions— Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
Meet Industry Needs Alternative
1985 Medium Level G-17
G-18 Coal Producing Regions— Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
Meet Industry Needs Alternative
1990 Medium Level G-18
G-I9 Coal Producing Regions — Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
DOE Production Projections Alternative
1985 Medium Level G-19
G-20 Coal Producing Regions — Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
DOE Production Projections Alternative —
1990 Medium Level G-20
Xlli
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
G-21 Coal Producing Regions— Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
State Determination Alternative—
1985 Medium Level G-21
G-22 Coal Producing Regions— Socio-
economic Characteristics for the
State Determination Alternative—
1990 Medium Level G-22
H-l Assumptions for DOE's 1985
Regional Coal Production Levels H-2
H-2 Assumptions for DOE's 1990
Regional Coal Production Levels H-4
H-3 PIES and Corresponding NCM Demand
Regions H-8
H-4 Western Projected Production Levels,
Preferred Program and No New
Leasing Alternatives (1985 and 1990) H-9
H-5 Western Production Levels, Mid-
Level Alternatives 1985 and
1990 ' ■ H-10
Counties Utilized in FES H-l 2
National Coal Model Supply and
Demand Regions H-22
Department of the Interior
Supply and Demand Regions H-23
Weighted Average MBtus/Ton
1985 DOE Mid-Level Production H-25
Example of Weighted MBtu/
Ton Calculation H-27
Sumary of Transportation Statistics
1985 DOE Mid-Level Percent of
Distribution by Mode H-28
H-12 Summary of Transportation Statistics,
1985 DOE Mid-Level Scenario H-3 1
H-l 3 Ratios Used in Transportation H-32
H-14 Environmental Loadings from Alabama H-38
H-15 Environmental Loadings from Arizona-
Black Mesa H-39
H-16 Environmental Loadings from Arkansas-
Western Interior H-40
H-17 Environmental Loadings from Arkansas-
Texas H-41
H-18 Environmental Loadings from California H-42
H-19 Environmental Loadings from Colorado-
Green River-Hams Fork H-43
H-20 Environmental Loadings from Colorado-
San Juan River H-44
H-21 Environmental Loadings from Colorado-
Denver-Raton Mesa H-45
H-22 Environmental Loadings from Colorado-
Uinta-Southwestern Utah H-46
H-23 Environmental Loadings from Connecticut-
Massachusetts— Rhode Island H-47
H-24 Environmental Loadings from Delaware-
New Jersey H-48
H-25 Environmental Loadings from Florida H-49
H-6
H-7
H-8
H-9
H-10
H-l 1
H-26 Environmental Loadings from Georgia H-50
H-27 Environmental Loadings from Idaho H-51
H-28 Environmental Loadings from Illinois H-52
H-29 Environmental Loadings from Indiana H-53
H-30 Environmental Loadings from Iowa-
Eastern Interior H-54
H-3 1 Environmental Loadings from Iowa-
Western Interior H-55
H-32 Environmental Loadings from Kansas H-56
H-33 Environmental Loadings from Kentucky-
Central Appalachian H-57
H-34 Environmental Loadings from Kentucky-
Eastern Interior H-58
H-35 Environmental Loadings from Louisiana H-59
H-36 Environmental Loadings from Maine/
New Hampshire/Vermont H-60
H-37 Environmental Loadings from Maryland H-61
H-38 Environmental Loadings from Michigan H-62
H-39 Environmental Loadings from Minnesota-
Wisconsin H-63
H-40 Environmental Loadings from Mississippi H-64
H-41 Environmental Loadings from Missouri H-65
H-42 Environmental Loadings from Montana-
Powder River H-66
H-43 Environmental Loadings from Montana-
Fort Union H-67
H-44 Environmental Loadings from Nebraska H-68
H-45 Environmental Loadings from Nevada H-69
H-46 Environmental Loadings from New
Mexico/San Juan River H-70
H-47 Environmental Loadings from New
Mexico/Denver-Raton Mesa H-71
H-48 Environmental Loadings from New York H-72
H-49 Environmental Loadings from North
Carolina-South Carolina H-73
H-50 Environmental Loadings from North
Dakota H-74
H-5 1 Environmental Loadings from Ohio H-75
H-52 Environmental Loadings from Oklahoma H-76
H-53 Environmental Loadings from Oregon-
Washington H-77
H-54 Environmental Loadings from
Pennsylvania H-78
H-55 Environmental Loadings from South
Dakota H-79
H-56 Environmental Loadings from Tennessee-
Central Applachian H-80
H-57 Environmental Loadings from Tennessee-
Southern Appalachian H-81
H-58 Environmental Loadings from Texas H-82
H-59 Environmental Loadings from Utah-
Green River-Hams Fork H-83
H-60 Environmental Loadings from Utah-
San Juan River H-84
Xiv
LIST OF TABLES
(Concluded)
H-61 Environmental Loadings from Utah-
Uinta-Southwestern Utah H-85
H-62 Environmental Loadings from Virginia H-86
H-63 Environmental Loadings from West
Virginia-Northern Appalachian H-87
H-64 Environmental Loadings from West
Virginia-Central Appalachian H-88
H-65 Environmental Loadings from Wyoming-
Green River-Hams Fork H-89
H-66 Environmental Loadings from Wyoming-
Powder River H-90
H-67 Socioeconomic Characteristics H-92
H-68 Percentage of the Total Land
Disturbed Allocated to Various
Land-Use Categories within Each
Region H-93
H-69 Estimated Productivity per Acre for
Natural and Agricultural Crop H-94
H-70 Estimated Densities of Wildlife per
Acre in the Various Regions H-95
H-71 Acres Required to Support One
Large Game Mammal or One Animal
Unit H-96
H-72 Percentage of Cropland Acres
Allocated to the Various Crops
within Each Region H-97
H-73 Poductivity Losses for Natural
Ecosystems H-99
H-74 Potential Loss of Wildlife Due
to Habitat Loss H-99
H-75 Air Emissions from Surface
Mining H-100
H-76 Air Emissions from Modes of
Transportation H-101
H-77 Emissions Factors for Bituminous
Coal Combustion without Control
Equipment H-103
H-78
H-79
H-80
H-81
H-82
H-83
H-84
H-85
H-86
H-87
H-88
H-89
H-90
H-91
H-92
H-93
H-94
J-l
Air Emissions from Coal
Combustion H-104
Coal Characteristics by Region H-105
Air Emissions from Coal Liquefaction
PIams H-106
Emission Factors from Metallurgical
Coke Manufacture with Controls H-107
Air Emissions for Coke Production H-108
Water Loading Factors for Extraction
Phase of Coal Cycle H-l 10
Coal Cleaning Data H-l 13
Ash: Sulfur Ratios H-l 14
Inert and Active Wastes Produced by
Steam-Electric Plans H-l 15
Projected Inert Solid Waste per High Btu
Gasification Plan jj-1 16
Projected Inert and Active Waste per Low
Btu Gasification Plant H-l 17
Average Inert and Active Waste per
Gasification Plant H-l 18
Inert and Active Waste for Synthetic
Liquefaction Plants H-l 19
Maximum Agricultural Opportunity Costs of
Mining. Showing Capitalized Value of
All Agricultural Products Sold per
Acre of All Land H-125
Maximum Direct and Indirect Agricultural
Opportunity Costs of Mining H-126
Estimated Agricultural Opportunity
Costs of Mining H-128
Value of All Agricultural Products
Sold Per Acre of All Land H-129
Federal Coal Production Regions
by County j.j
XV
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page
1-1 Twelve Coal Supply Regions of
the United States 1-4
1-2 Regional Areas Covered by
Environmental Impact Statements or
Studies 1-6
2-1 Known Recoverable Coal Resources
Areas 2-8
2-2 Distribution of the Coal Reserve
Base and of 1976 Production 2-14
2-3 Summary of Planned and Projected
Production, 1985 2-53
2-4 Summary of Planned, Potential,
and Projected Production, 1990 2-55
3-1 Summary of the Preferred Program 3-4
3-2 Preferred Program: BLM Land
Use Planning Process 3-14
3-3 Preferred Program: Activity
Planning Process 3-15
3-4 Preferred Program: Sales
Procedures 3-16
5-1 The Coal Development Cycle 5-3
5-2 Stream Flow Monitoring Points 5-61
5-3 1974 Major Interstate Coal
Flows by Railroad 5-156
5-4 Regional Coal Production and Consumption
Flows 1985 5-157
5-5 Regional Coal Production and
Consumption Flows 1990 5-158
5-6 Operating Energy Impacts on the
Coal Cycle 5-172
5-7 Reserves Classed by Surface
Ownership Status and Maximum Annual
Production Potential 5-189
5-8 Federal Strippable Coal Deposits:
Decker Birney Planning Unit, All
Tested Suitability Criteria In-
cluding Surface Ownership 5-190
5-9 Federal Strippable Coal Deposits: Decker
Birney Planning Unit, All Tested
Suitability Except Surface
Ownership 5-191
C-l Coal Classification by Rank C-2
C-2 The Three Types of Access Used
in Underground Coal Mines C-4
C-3 Room-and-Pillar Mining Techniques C-5
C-4 Longwall Mining C-7
C-5 Area Stripping with Draglines —
Hypothetical Pit Arrangement C-8
C-6 Contour Mining— Hypothetical Pit
Arrangement C-9
C-7 Cross-Section and Plan View of a
Portion of a Strip Coal Mine C-10
C-8 High-Btu Gasification: Carbon
Dioxide Acceptor C-16
C-9 Fluidized-Bed Gasification BCR
Three-Stage Pressurized Proces C-l 7
C-10 Liquefaction-Direct Hydrogenation H-Coal
Process C-18
C-l 1 Advanced Steam Cycle Atmospheric
Fluidized Bed Combustion (FBC) C-20
H-l Transportation Matrix-Methodology
(Modal Splits) H-28
H-2 Main Impact Estimation Module
(Impact Factor Estimator) H-33
H-3 Socioeconomic Estimation Module H-35
H-4 Ecological Estimation Module H-36
XVI
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF FEDERAL
COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
|
1
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF
FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1.1 Purpose of Final Environmental Impact
Statement 1-2
1.1.2 Summary of Program Alternatives 1-2
1.1.3 Approach to Environmental Impact Statement ... . 1-3
1.1.4 Relationship to Ongoing Regional Environmental
Statements and Studies 1-5
1.1.5 General Purpose of Coal Management Policy 1-8
1.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1-8
1.2.1 Mineral Leasing Act of'1920 1-9
1.2.2 1971 Leasing Moratorium 1-9
1.2.3 Short-Term Leasing Since 1973 1-9
1 .2.4 1975 Federal Coal Leasing Environmental Impact
Statement 1-10
1.2.5 Sierra Club v.Kleppe 1-12
1.2.6 NRDC v. Hughes 1-12
1.2.7 NRDC v. Berklund 1-15
1.3 FEDERAL CONSTRAINTS ON AND AUTHORITIES FOR
COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1-15
1.3.1 Laws Governing Development of Federal
Coal 1-15
1 .3.2 Interagency Relationships in Federal Coal
Management 1-18
1 .4 EXISTING FEDERAL ENERGY POLICIES 1-37
1.4.1 Role of Coal in National Energy Policy 1-37
1.4.2 Congressional Action 1-37
1.5 STATE POLICIES AND CONSTRAINTS 1-39
1.6 REFERENCES 1-55
-
J
• ■
B^^a^H^HMnsHHae^&B
--—:-..-■,
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF FEDERAL
COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This environmental impact statement comes at
a critical juncture in a long history of starts and
stops for a Federal coal management program
administered by the Department of the Interior.
The purpose of this impact statement is to meet the
Department's responsibilities under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83
Stat. 852, and to help the Department address four
major questions: (1) Should a new Federal coal
management program be adopted by the Depart-
ment of the Interior; (2) How should the program
be designed; (3) Is Federal coal leasing necessary
to meet the Nation's future energy needs; and (4)
What environmental impacts might result from the
adoption of alternative new Federal coal manage-
ment programs?
Why these questions need resolution at this
time can be placed in a proper perspective through
a brief review of the history of Federal coal policies
and activities. From the beginning of Federal land
ownership, a policy of disposal of public domain
lands was followed. In the century and a half
during which this policy held sway, 1.1 billion
acres, or more than half of the public domain, was
sold or granted to states and private owners. Until
the early 1900's, the policy of disposal of Federal
lands included the practice of transferring coal and
other mineral resources to private owners. How-
ever, with the passage of various mineral reserva-
tion statutes and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920,
41 Stat. 438, it became Federal policy to retain and
lease rather than to sell Federally-owned coal.
Under a leasing system, only the leased mineral,
and not the land itself or other associated re-
sources, becomes the property of the lessee. Even
that property right is conditioned on lessee
compliance with stipulations to protect the mined
land, and requirements that the mineral be
diligently developed. Particularly between 1955
and 1970, large amounts of Federal coal were
leased under the Mineral Leasing Act with little
regard to the need for leasing, or when (or if) the
leases would be developed. There was no enforce-
ment of the Mineral Leasing Act's requirement
that leases be diligently developed.
A Bureau of Land Management (BLM) study
[1] issued in 1970 reported that, while the amount
of Federal coal under lease was rapidly increasing,
production was declining. As a result of that study,
the Department of the Interior, in May 1971,
imposed an informal leasing moratorium in order
to reassess its leasing policy. In February 1973, the
Secretary of the Interior instituted a formal leasing
moratorium and announced his intention to
establish a new coal leasing policy. In the short
term, the Department would issue leases only to
avoid losing coal where it would be bypassed, to
maintain existing coal operations, or to provide
reserves for production needed in the near future.
The newly designed long-term leasing program
was presented in the Department of the Interior's
May 1974 draft environmental impact statement
on its proposed coal leasing program [2]. The heart
of the program was the Energy Minerals Alloca-
tion Recommendation System (EMARS I), under
which the Department of the Interior would
specify leasing needs on the basis of estimates of
national energy requirements. The final environ-
mental impact statement issued in September 1975
modified the system to the Energy Minerals
Activity Recommendation System (EMARS II)[3].
Under the revised program, the Department
adopted procedures which made greater use of
industry nominations of leasing tracts and placed a
much stronger emphasis on market determination
of the amounts and location of future Federal coal
to be leased.
The new Federal coal leasing program was
short-lived. It was altered by statute and halted by
litigation. From 1975 on, the development of a
Federal coal management program has been
significantly influenced by actions of each branch
of government. Congress enacted four major
1-1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
statutes with important consequences for Federal
coal management. The first, the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (FCLAA), 90
Stat. 1088, passed in August 1976 over President
Ford's veto, is designed to correct the leasing
problems that had been experienced under the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. The Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 90
Stat. 2743, passed in October 1976, provides the
Bureau of Land Management with a modern
management mandate, including requirements for
land use planning. The third major statute was the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (SMCRA), 91 Stat. 445, passed in August
1977. SMCRA, a result of Congressional concern
over the adverse environmental effects associated
with the significant shift in technology from
underground to surface coal mining methods,
requires control over these effects by the Federal
and state governments. Finally, the Department of
Energy Organization Act (DOE Act), 91 Stat. 565,
also passed in August 1977, transferred from the
Department of the Interior to the Department of
Energy several important coal-related responsibili-
ties, including issuance of regulations governing
diligent development and bidding systems.
The Judiciary has provided guidance for the
preparation of a new Federal coal management
program, particularly in two recent decisions. The
Supreme Court's 1976 decision, Sierra Club v.
Kleppe, 427 U.S. 390, provided judicial instruction
concerning what kind of environmental review
must accompany major coal management deci-
sions. Of more direct importance, however, is the
decision in NRDC v. Hughes, 437 F.Supp. 981
(D.D.C. 1977), amended, 454 F. Supp. 148 (D.D.C.
1978), appeal pending. The court's order enjoined
most Federal coal leasing activity until the Depart-
ment of the Interior issues supplemental draft and
final environmental impact statements on its coal
management program. The Department has pre-
pared this statement to comply with the environ-
mental impact requirements of Section 102 (2)(C)
of NEPA and that court order.
This discussion provides a brief overview of the
recent history of Federal coal management activi-
ties. The background of Federal leasing, beginning
with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, is presented
in more detail in subsequent sections of this
chapter.
1.1.1 Purpose of Final Environmental Impact
Statement
This statement addresses the overall national
and inter-regional environmental impacts of a
Federal coal management program administered
by the Department of the Interior.
1.1.2 Summary of Program Alternatives
Seven broad Federal coal management pro-
gram alternatives, including a preferred program,
are analyzed in this statement. Unlike most impact
statements prepared by the Department and other
Federal agencies, a proposed "action" and its
alternatives are not treated in separate chapters.
Rather, the statement presents a series of alterna-
tives, one of which is tentatively "preferred" by the
Department. Major subalternatives are also de-
scribed and analyzed. This is consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's desire that the Depart-
ment critically evaluate its entire coal management
process. An integral part of this evaluation is and
will continue to be comments from interested
parties, including other Federal agencies, state and
local governments, private and public organiza-
tions, and concerned individuals. Furthermore,
additional public comments will be invited and
considered during the program decision-making
process which will follow issuance of this final
statement.
A brief overview of the program alternatives
follows. A more detailed description is contained
in Chapter 3.
« Preferred Alternative. Decisions to lease
Federal coal would be made as an integral
part of the Federal land planning process.
Federal lands would be considered for
leasing which have not been found unsuit-
able for coal mining or more valuable for
resource protection or other development
activities in the land use planning process of
the Federal land management agencies. In
the activity planning process, tracts would
be delineated, ranked on the basis of coal
quality, cost, and environmental, social,
and economic effects and selected for sale
by regional coal teams. Regional leasing
targets, derived from production goals
submitted biennially by the Department of
Energy and comments received from the
states, industry, and the public, would be
applied during the activity planning process
1-2
,,::■'- . ■ ... ■■.:/ ;„
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
to ensure that sufficient tracts would be
ranked and selected to meet national
energy needs. The preferred alternative is
similar to EMARS I as proposed in the
Department's 1974 draft programmatic
environmental impact statement on the
Federal coal leasing program (see Section
1.2.4) [2] in that both rely on national
energy projections to establish how much
coal is to be leased. The preferred alterna-
tive, however, differs markedly from
EMARS I by, among other things, placing
greater emphasis on land-use planning and
consultation with the states than did the
earlier proposal.
• No new Federal Leasing. No new Federal
coal would be leased until at least 1985,
including coal needed for by-pass situations
or to maintain existing operations (see
Section 1.2.6 for description of terms).
Preference right lease applications (PRLAs)
would be either rejected, not processed,
exchanged for other mineral leases, or
purchased.
• Process Outstanding Noncompetitive Coal
Lease Applications (PRLAs). Leasing until
at least 1985 would be limited to PRLAs
which meet the commercial quantities test.
• Emergency Leasing. There would be limited
competitive leasing and issuing of PRLAs
to prevent coal from being bypassed and to
maintain existing coal mining operations.
The need for new competitive leasing would
be reviewed in 1985. This option is a
continuation of the status quo and would
be similar to the type of leasing permitted
under NRDC v. Hughes. (See Section 1 .2.6
for a further explanation of this policy.)
• Satisfy Industry Indications of Need. This
alternative is effectively the Energy Miner-
als Activity Recommendation System
(EMARS II), as proposed in the Depart-
ment's 1975 final programmatic environ-
mental impact statement on the Federal
coal leasing program (see Section 1.2.4) [3],
and as adopted in regulations published in
the Federal Register (42 Federal Register
4422, corrected 42 Federal Register 12546
(1977)).
• State Determination of Leasing Levels. The
states would have the responsibility to
determine the timing and extent of new
leasing.
© Lease to meet Department of Energy (DOE)
Production Goals. Under this alternative, no
adjustments (as envisioned in the preferred
alternative) would be made to the DOE
production goals to reflect the Depart-
ment's diverse responsibilities or the views
received from consulting with the states,
industry, and the public. Leasing decisions
would be required to meet the DOE goals.
In the implementation of any of these alterna-
tives, the Department would assure compliance
with all new statutory requirements including
those for land use planning, lease terms, reclama-
tion of mined lands, and payment of fair market
value for competitive leases.
1.13 Approach to Environmental Impact Statement
This is a programmatic statement which
assesses the national impacts of a Federal coal
management program and related Federal coal
policies. The statement covers all major national
aspects of a preferred Federal coal management
program and alternatives, and assesses the effects
of the alternatives in twelve specific coal regions
(see Figure 1-1). Thus, the issues analyzed are quite
different from those discussed for a particular lease
area. A broad statement of overall impacts of the
program will allow the Department to make
decisions concerning national and multiregional
questions.
The statement uses a general predictive ap-
proach based on national and regional data and
makes necessary assumptions where firm data are
not available. Reasonable forecasting is implicit in
NEPA. With 27 coal states and 12 regions which
could be directly affected by coal extraction, and
other states indirectly affected by the consumptive
use of coal, data used in this statement must be
generic and cannot be site specific; however,
impacts are quantified, wherever possible, to
display the differences between the various alter-
natives. Nonquantifiable aspects (such as aesthet-
ics, lifestyle changes, and cultural values) are also
addressed.
The impact analysis uses two principal models.
One is the Department of Energy's National Coal
Model, which predicts the high, moderate, and low
coal demands for coal regions, in 1985 and 1990,
under various demand scenarios and constraints.
1-3
I
-e-
Note: Shaded areas indicate
coal regions described in this
statement. The official Federal
coal production regions follow
county lines and are shown in
Appendix H (Table H-6) .
FIGURE 1-1
TWELVE COAL SUPPLY REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
■BSiMBBMHBi
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The second model used is the Department's Coal
Impact Estimation Program which relates quantifi-
able "environmental loading factors" to predicted
coal production and use levels by region. This
model was developed by the MITRE Corporation
for the Department and is more fully explained in
Chapter 5.
This statement addresses the total national
demand for coal, and impacts associated with
Federal and non-Federal coal development. Con-
sideration of non-Federal coal resources is neces-
sary, first, to place impacts of the Federal coal
management program in a broader perspective;
and second, because Federal actions have the
potential to shift production between private and
public coal. Presentation of total coal demand
establishes a base-line from which environmental
analysis may proceed.
The content and format of this statement, as
outlined in the table of contents, represents a
combination of approaches. It contains a modified
standard format as required in the BLM Manual,
Section 1792, revised to incorporate some of the
principles of the Council on Environmental Quali-
ty's (CEQ) recent NEPA regulations [4], with
emphasis on the requirements of the NRDC v.
Hughes court order. This chapter provides the
background to this statement. Included is a
discussion of prior and current coal policy direc-
tives and applicable laws and regulations. The
importance of coal as an energy resource is
discussed in Chapter 2. Chapter 2 also describes
the characteristics of coal development activities as
well as how coal development might be affected by
the development of other energy sources. Past and
projected coal production levels and the need for
additional Federal coal leasing are then addressed.
Chapter 3 presents the issues and options
identified during the course of the Department's
review of its coal management responsibilities, the
Secretary of the Interior's preferences among the
options, and alternatives to that program. Chapter
4 provides an overview of the existing environmen-
tal conditions in each of the twelve regions.
Chapter 5 assesses the environmental impacts
related to the preferred and alternative coal
management programs, including a comparative
analysis of policy subalternatives. Chapters 6 and 7
contain the summary analyses required by Section
102(2)(C)(ii-v) of NEPA. Finally, the coordination
activities involved in preparation of this statement
are summarized in Chapter 8, including the
Department's responses to comments on the draft
environmental impact statement.
1.1.4 Relationship to Ongoing Regional
Environmental Statements and Studies
The Department is currently preparing com-
prehensive coal environmental impact statements
on activities occurring in eight geographic areas.
Under a policy formally adopted in 1976, this type
of comprehensive analysis is called for whenever
the Department is faced with multiple coal-related
actions in a broad geographic area.
The areas covered by these statements were
chosen after consideration of coal basin bound-
aries, drainage areas, areas of common reclama-
tion characteristics, administrative boundaries,
areas of economic interdependence, and other
relevant factors. The regional statements include a
broad, overview analysis of environmental impacts
associated with current and potential coal develop-
ment activities, as well as site-specific analyses of
mine plans, and right-of-way permits for which
administrative action is proposed. These state-
ments also address related coal development
activities not requiring specific Departmental
approval, such as mine-mouth electrical generating
or energy conversion facilities, and the expansion
of existing or construction of new communities to
accommodate coal-induced population increases.
The eight areas covered by these statements are
depicted in Figure 1-2. These areas are smaller
than the twelve regions assessed in this statement.
Table 1-1 summarizes pertinent coal development
activities analyzed in the ongoing statements.
The Department will complete these ongoing
statements; initiation of new statements of this
type is contingent on program decisions which
may be made after this final programmatic
statement is published.
Additionally, for each individual coal lease and
mining plan an environmental analysis is prepared
to determine whether a detailed environmental
impact statement is required. If associated impacts
are significant within the meaning of NEPA, a site-
specific statement is prepared, either separately or
as part of a regional analysis.
Current Departmental policy for preparing
environmental assessments and impact statements
thus covers generic (programmatic), regional, and
site-specific considerations. Proposals to modify
1-5
NOTE: "BLM Lead" signifies that the Bureau of Land Management has
lead agency responsibility for preparing the document.
"GS Lead" signifies that the U.S. Geological Survey has lead
agency responsibility for preparing the document.
FIGURE 1-2
REGIONAL AREAS COVERED BY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS OR STUDIES
1-6
MM— ■■lililHMIII n
TABLE 1-1
SITE-SPECIFIC PROPOSED ACTIONS
IN THE ONGOING REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS
PROPOSED
SITE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS
MINING AND
RIGHTS-
REGIONAL STATEMENT
RECLAMATION
OF WAY
PLANS
APPLICATIONS
Southwest Wyoming
5
13
South Central Wyoming
3
9
Eastern Powder River,
Wyoming, Supplement
1
Southern Utah
3
Central Utah
7
15
West Central Colorado
6
Star Lake-Bisti New
Mexico
2
Northern Powder River,
Montana
_2
_J_
TOTAL
27
40
N0TE:Two additional Environmental Planning Studies, the Northwest
Colorado Environment Planning Study and the West Central
North Dakota Environmental Planning Study, are also underway.
1-7
BHBBBHSirai^U^^BBaHH
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
this approach as part of a new coal management
program are discussed in Chapter 3.
1.1.5 General Purpose of CoaS Management Policy
The need for a new look at the Federal coal
management program is related to three broad
conditions. The first is the Nation's serious energy
problem, characterized by declining domestic oil
and gas resources and limited alternatives. A
national policy goal has been advanced to reduce
reliance on imported oil. The National Energy
Plan (NEP) [5] announced by President Carter in
April 1977 presents detailed steps to be taken to
achieve this goal. Salient features of the NEP
include energy conservation, rational fuel pricing
policies, and increased use of abundant domestic
energy sources. Although coal comprises 90 per-
cent of the country's fossil fuel reserve, only 18
percent of the national energy needs are met by
coal. A cornerstone of the NEP is the goal of
correcting this imbalance between coal reserves
and consumption by doubling 1977 annual pro-
duction by 1985. Coal from mines under Federal
leases has accounted and is expected to continue to
account for a significant share in the expanding
use of this resource.
The second condition results from the failure
of former coal management practices to address
current concerns. Major concerns expressed both
within and outside of the Department are the
government's historically passive role in coal
leasing decisions, lack of active control over
production from Federal leases, absence of an
effective system to ensure fair market return for
the right to mine Federal coal, and the potential
for serious social, economic, and ecological im-
pacts of expanded coal production and use.
Finally, as briefly discussed in the introduction
to this chapter, a reassessment of the coal manage-
ment program has been precipitated by recent
critical reviews of management practices by the
Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of the
Federal government.
1.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Federal coal management program is
concerned with the development of coal resources
on public domain lands and acquired lands. The
public domain refers to those lands which are
subject to the public land laws of the United
States. These lands were obtained primarily by
cession, treaty, and purchase from other countries.
Acquired lands are purchased by the United States
from private owners after the lands became part of
the United States.
Almost as fast as public domain was obtained,
it was disposed of by the Federal government to
further national goals. These dispositions provided
rewards for soldiers and other deserving persons,
encouragement for the rapid settlement and
development of the western states, incentives for
construction of railroads and canals, and many
other purposes. Dispositions of public lands
included more than 1.1 billion acres between 1781
and 1963.
Early development of Federal coal lands was
governed by a law controlling land entry and sale
[6]. Under this law a maximum of 160 acres could
be granted to an individual; up to 640 acres were
allowed to groups of four or more persons who had
expended at least $5,000 in work and improve-
ments, where mines were opened and improved,
and when the group was in actual possession. Land
payments ranged from $10 to $20 per acre,
depending upon the distance from a railroad. A
claimant who discovered minerals on public
domain land received complete transfer of mineral
ownership.
Another factor of some importance is that
Congress granted nearly 100 million acres of land
to railroads in the West. To settle the West, the
building of railroads was essential. But to build a
railroad was a costly venture, and railroad compa-
nies would not begin construction in what was
then virtual wilderness without financial induce-
ment. The grants of land by the government to the
companies were that inducement.
Typically, Congress granted the railroads the
odd-numbered sections on both sides of the
proposed railroad right-of-way extending back
from the right-of-way some 10 or 20 miles on each
side of the railroad. The even-numbered sections,
which were not conveyed to the railroad, contin-
ued to be in the public domain. By granting to the
railroad the odd-numbered sections, and retaining
the even-numbered sections, a checkerboard effect
resulted. Although Congress probably expected
that the granted land would be sold by the
railroads to other citizens, and much of it has been
conveyed, millions of acres of land or mineral
interests have been retained by the original
grantees. The resulting checkerboard land patterns
1-i
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
continue to influence western coal development,
particularly in areas of Montana, Wyoming, and
New Mexico.
1.2.1 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
Enactment of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
provided a radical policy change for disposal of
Federal coal lands. The new policy was to lease
coal rather than sell it. Under the law, rights to
explore, develop, and remove coal (and other
specified minerals) were acquired through a lease
or prospecting permit issued by the Bureau of
Land Management.
In areas with no known coal deposits, the
Secretary of the Interior could issue prospecting
permits which entitled the permittee to the exclu-
sive right to prospect for coal. Each permit had an
initial two-year term, but could be extended for an
additional two years if the permittee was unable,
with the exercise of reasonable diligence, to
determine the existence or workability of coal
deposits in the area to which the permit applied.
Permittees were entitled to preference right leases
if they could demonstrate that the lands contained
coal in commercial quantities.
Lands containing known coal deposits were
not subject to prospecting permits. Instead, the
lands were divided into leasing tracts and leases
were awarded competitively. The competitive
leasing system adopted by the Department was to
award leases to the highest bidder. A lump sum
cash bonus was collected at the time the lease was
awarded.
The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 restricted the
acreage that could be held by one party in one
state. Originally, the law allowed only one lease per
person in each state. The limits were raised several
times until, in 1964, they allowed a holding by any
person of up to 46,080 acres (72 square miles) in
one state.
Another feature of the Act was the require-
ment that leases be issued for an indeterminate
period as long as conditions of diligent develop-
ment and continuous operations were satisfied.
These conditions could be waived if operations
were interrupted by strikes, the elements, or
casualties not attributable to the holder of the
lease. Lease terms and conditions became subject
to readjustment at the end of 20-year periods. In
addition, leases could not be assigned or sublet
without the consent of the Secretary of the
Interior.
Other major provisions of the Mineral Leasing
Act were:
• Leases could be modified by an additional
2,560 contiguous acres.
• Additional tracts up to 2,560 acres could be
leased if workable deposits of coal would be
exhausted within three years.
• Single leases could contain noncontiguous
tracts.
• Royalties were set at not less than five cents
a ton of coal.
• Annual rentals were set at not less than 25
cents, 50 cents, and $1 for the first, third
through fifth, and sixth year onward from
lease issuance, respectively.
• Limited licenses or permits could be issued
to municipalities (without royalties) if the
coal mined was sold without profit to local
residents.
1.2.2 1971 Leasing Moratorium
Prior to 1970, the Department's coal leasing
policy was reactive in nature. Lease requests were
processed on a case-by-case basis. Particularly
between 1955 and 1970, there was little consider-
ation given to the total coal reserves under lease or
to the need for additional leasing, and environ-
mental impacts of leases were not addressed.
A 1970 Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
study [1] reported that leased coal acreage on
public lands in six western states - Colorado, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Montana, Utah, and
Wyoming - rose sharply from roughly 80,000 acres
in 1945 to about 788,000 acres in 1970, but that
Federal lease production dropped from 10 million
tons of coal to 7.4 million tons in those same years.
Of the total acreage under lease, over 90 percent
was not producing coal. Similar conclusions on
leasing problems were reached in a 1974 report by
the Council on Economic Priorities [7].
As a result of the 1970 BLM study, the
Department took a series of informal actions that
resulted in no leases being issued between May
1971 and February 1973.
1.2.3 Short-Term Leasing Since 1973
The informal 1971 moratorium was replaced in
February 1973 with a new coal leasing policy that
embodied both short-term and long-term actions.
1-9
I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The long-term actions were to develop a
comprehensive planning system to determine the
size, timing, and location of future coal leases and
to prepare an environmental impact statement for
the Department's entire Federal coal leasing
program.
The short-term actions included a complete
moratorium on the issuance of new prospecting
permits and a near-total moratorium on the
issuance of new Federal coal leases. New leases
would be issued only to maintain existing mines or
to supply reserves for production in the near
future. BLM issued instructions implementing this
short-term policy in July 1973. The instructions
stated that the decision to issue new leases would
be based upon sufficient indications that a pro-
spective lessee needs coal to satisfy an existing
market and intends to begin development within
three years.
Between 1974 and April 1, 1978, ten leases,
covering 30,246 acres, were issued; most were for
extensions of existing operations (see Table 1-2).
Seven of these leases were producing coal by the
end of 1977.
1.2.4 1975 Federal Coal Leasing Environmental
Impact Statement
As part of its long-term leasing policy, the
Department, in May 1974, issued a draft program-
matic environmental impact statement [2],
The focus of the draft statement was on
implementation of a new coal leasing system
entitled the Energy Minerals Allocation Recom-
mendation System (EMARS I). As described in
the draft environmental statement, EMARS I was
a three-part system: (1) allocation, (2) tract
selection, and (3) leasing. During the allocation
process, Federal agencies were to relate invento-
ried Federal coal resources to projections of coal-
related energy needs. Total national energy needs
were to be disaggregated into regional demands for
coal. In the tract selection phase, Federal coal
leasing targets would be established in each coal
region. These targets would be derived in part from
total national projections for coal-based energy
needs. Tracts would be selected to meet the leasing
targets. The leasing phase was to begin with
detailed pre-planning of the coordinated mining
and rehabilitation factors required for reclamation
and subsequent surface resource management.
This last phase would conclude with pre-sale
evaluations, lease sales, post sale evaluation proce-
dures, and, finally, lease issuance.
Approximately 2,100 sets of the two-volume
draft statement were distributed to Federal and
state agencies, U.S. Senators and Representatives,
industry organizations, conservation groups, and
others. Local public hearings were held and 117
formal comments on the draft statement were
received.
Comments and testimony were received from a
diverse group of individuals, organizations, com-
panies, and agencies. Comments ranged from
support of the statement to requests for a complete
rewrite. However, two areas of major concern were
readily apparent. These were the need (1) for a
more detailed description of the proposed Federal
coal leasing program, and (2) to further analyze
whether additional Federal coal should be leased
in light of the large acreage and coal reserves
presently under lease but on which no develop-
ment had taken place.
The Department's final programmatic environ-
mental impact statement [3] was released in
September 1975. The proposed action in that
statement was changed from that in the draft
statement. EMARS I was modified and retitled the
Energy Minerals Activity Recommendation Sys-
tem (EMARS II). The three phases of this revised
leasing system became: (1) nominations and
programming, (2) scheduling, and (3) leasing.
While the system envisioned in the draft statement
emphasized Interior Department identification of
coal reserves to be considered for leasing, the
revised EMARS II program involved annual
industry nominations and public identification of
areas of concern. Nominations would be accepted
for any area, with industry providing information
on where and how much coal to lease. Based on
these nominations, the Department would prepare
land use plans and environmental analyses, resolve
or mitigate resource conflicts, and hold lease sales
if coal development was found to be compatible
with the environment. The reasons behind the
changes in the program between draft and final
statements were not provided.
The following points were offered in the final
environmental impact statement to support contin-
ued leasing:
• Changing economic conditions made it
probable that much of the coal under lease
1-10
I
H
DATE OF
STATE/
METHOD OF
ISSUANCE
COUNTY
MINING
1974
KY-McCreary
Underground
1974
UT-Eroery
Underground
1974
AL-Fayette
Underground
1974
PA- Indiana
Underground
PA- Indiana
Underground
1975
KY-Clay
Underground
1975
CO- Routt
Both
1976
WY- Sweetwater
Both
1977
UT-Sevler
Underground
1978
CO-Delta
Underground
TABLE 1-2
LEASES ISSUED BETWEEN 1974 and 1978
ACRES CURRENTLY
UNDER LEASE
1,544
1,360
2,388.24
50.62
29.66
361.83
474.93
14,902.11
8,823.88
310.51
BLM SURFACE
CONTROL
ACRES
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
SURFACE CONTROL
ACRES
14,822
295
311
1,544
1,360
362
8,528
OTHER FEDERAL
NON- FEDERAL
SURFACE CONTROL
SURFACE CONTROL
ACRES
ACRES
2,388
51
30
475
80
30,245.78
15,428
11,794
81
2,943
Note: Does not include leases issued after April 1, 197E
,^«— .1- ■
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
in 1975 was no longer suitable for develop-
ment.
• Diligence requirements extended to existing
leases would cause production or relin-
quishment over a period of a few years.
• Additional leasing might be required to
avoid increases in energy costs.
• Some existing leases might be environmen-
tally unsuitable for development, and leas-
ing in new areas might be substituted for
leases in unsuitable areas, thereby decreas-
ing the relative value of the latter leases and
possibly causing their relinquishment.
• Additional leasing would provide access to
Federal coal for firms interested in pene-
trating new market areas but not currently
holding Federal coal leases.
Analysis of the environmental impacts associ-
ated with the leasing program was quite brief in the
final environmental impact statement.
On October 21, 1975, the validity of the
statement was challenged in NRDC v. Hughes in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colum-
bia (see Section 1.2.6 for a discussion of this
lawsuit).
1.2.5 Sierra Club v. Kleppe
The decision in Sierra Club v. Kleppe, All U.S.
390 (1976), was the Supreme Court's first extensive
treatment of NEPA's environmental impact state-
ment requirements as they concern the Depart-
ment's coal-related activities. As such, it provides
constructive background to the discussion in
Chapter 3 of this statement of the Department's
policy options for incorporation of environmental
analyses into the evolving Federal coal manage-
ment program.
The litigation began in July 1973. The plaintiffs
contended that Federal agencies could not allow
further coal development in the Northern Great
Plains area (encompassing portions of four states -
northeastern Wyoming, eastern Montana, western
North Dakota, and western South Dakota) without
preparing a comprehensive environmental impact
statement for the entire region. The United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit found that there was no Federal regional
plan or program for coal development in the
Northern Great Plains area. Nevertheless, the
court concluded that the involved Federal agencies
"contemplated" such a regional plan. The agencies
were ordered to inform the District Court of their
role in the further development of the region; if
they decided to control that development, an
environmental impact statement would be re-
quired. The Court of Appeals also enjoined the
Department of the Interior from approving the
four mining plans analyzed in the multiproject
Eastern Powder River Coal Basin Regional Impact
Statement, which covered only a two-county area
in Wyoming.
The Court further proposed a four-part balanc-
ing test for determining when preparation of an
environmental impact statement must begin dur-
ing contemplation of a plan or action. Factors to
be considered were:
• Likelihood that the program would soon be
initiated.
• Extent to which information is available on
the effects of program implementation.
• Extent to which irreversible commitments
of resources are being made or options
precluded.
• Severity of resultant environmental im-
pacts.
In reversing the Court of Appeals decision, the
Supreme Court held that NEPA did not require a
"regional" environmental impact statement for the
Northern Great Plains area where no proposed
action was pending. It also found that an environ-
mental impact statement is not required until the
time at which a Federal agency makes a recom-
mendation or report on a proposal for Federal
action. Mere contemplation of action does not
trigger the need for a statement and, thus, the
Court of Appeals balancing test had no statutory
authority. The Court further indicated that NEPA
may require comprehensive statements where
several related projects are pending at the same
time, although an individual project may proceed
where covered by an adequate statement. Finally,
the Court noted that the choice of a region to be
covered is largely that of the agency.
1.2.6 NRDC v. Hughes
On September 27, 1977, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia ruled in NRDC v.
Hughes (cited previously) that the 1975 final coal
leasing programmatic environmental impact state-
ment was inadequate and enjoined the Depart-
ment from "taking any steps whatsoever directly or
indirectly to implement the new coal leasing
1-12
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
program including calling for the nominations of
tracts for Federal coal leasing and issuing any
leases, except when the proposed lease is required
to maintain an existing mining operation at the
present levels of production or is necessary to
provide reserves needed to meet existing contracts
and the extent of the proposed lease is not greater
than is required to meet these two criteria for more
than three years in the future." The court stated
that the standard should be applied to both
noncompetitive preference right lease applications
(PRLAs) and competitive leases.
The court ordered the Department to issue an
official press release, publish a notice in the
Federal Register, and take other steps appropriate
to receive additional comments on the 1975
statement. The Department was further ordered to
prepare a draft supplement to the 1975 statement,
receive comments on the supplement, and prepare
a new final statement. These documents were to
discuss the issues which the court identified as
being deficient.
Prior to the entry of the order, the Department
had already begun to review its coal management
policies and activities and to determine what, if
any, coal management program it should adopt.
As a result of this internal review process, the
Department prepared a series of option papers on
the various elements which might comprise a coal
management program. In a series of decisions
beginning in October 1977 and concluding in
November 1978, the Secretary and Under Secre-
tary chose what is described in this statement as a
preferred Federal coal management program.
Because the Department's preferred program
alternative is no longer the EMARS II program
described in the 1975 statement and because there
have been significant changes in statutory and
Presidental policy and in available data, particu-
larly as to the need for new coal leasing, the
Department decided not to prepare a supplement
to the original environmental impact statement but
to write an entirely new statement. Both depart-
mental and public review will be aided by this new
statement. To the extent an entirely new integrated
statement has been prepared instead of a supple-
ment, the Department has exceeded the court's
requirements by preparing an entirely new, com-
prehensive statement instead of a supplement. This
statement responds to all the major concerns
expressed about and corrects the faults previously
found in the 1975 statement.
Following the decision in NRDC v. Hughes and
in accordance with the court order, the Depart-
ment, in November 1977, solicited comments on
the final statement, including the following ques-
tions:
• Is there a need for renewed Federal coal
leasing?
• If there is a need, how should the leasing
program be defined?
• If new Federal leasing should be undertak-
en, how would different types of Federal
leasing programs affect the environment?
Over 100 comments were received from Feder-
al agencies, state and local governments and
agencies, coal industry representatives, and private
individuals and organizations. Comments included
criticisms of the final environmental impact state-
ment and suggestions on preparation of an
improved statement, as well as responses to the
three questions listed above. Major suggestions
offered for an improved statement included:
• Further analyses of the need for renewed
Federal coal leasing and a clearer descrip-
tion of the proposed leasing program.
• Detailed analysis of potential environmen-
tal, social, and economic impacts of re-
newed leasing and alternative leasing pro-
grams.
• Consideration of current data and recent
legislation (e.g., the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977, Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, and
1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act).
• Consideration of the impacts of processing,
transportation, and ultimate use of coal.
• Improved consideration of alternative ener-
gy sources (e.g., nuclear, solar, geothermal,
wind, and conservation)
o Consideration of state coal-related policies.
• Definition of the role of more detailed
regional and site-specific environmental
impact statements.
These comments were summarized in Chapter
8 of the draft version of this environmental impact
statement and responses to them were integrated
into its text, as well as the text of this statement.
Although the Department initially filed a
notice of appeal of the court's decision, the District
Court approved a settlement of the case on June
1-13
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
14, 1978. The amended order permitted substan-
tially more leasing before issuance of this new
programmatic environmental impact statement
than would have been allowed under the court's
initial standards. The standards will remain in
effect until the Department files this programmatic
statement and the Secretary decides whether to
adopt a program. Utah Power and Light Company
has appealed the order to the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia.
The agreement embodied in the amended
order permits leasing under any of the following
six standards:
By-pass leases are permitted where Federal coal
may be otherwise lost if it is not developed by an
existing mine because subsequent costs (either
economic or environmental) would be much
higher. Up to five years of reserves may be
included in a lease issued under this provision. To
qualify for a lease, mining operations must have
been in existence on September 27, 1977.
Employment leases may be issued in order to
maintain production and employment in existing
mines on September 27, 1977, which are running
short of reserves needed to maintain past produc-
tion or where additional reserves are needed to
meet existing contracts. Up to eight years of
reserves may be included in a lease under this
provision.
ERDA project leases of no more than 500,000
tons annual production may be issued to support
Energy Research and Development Administra-
tion (ERDA) projects authorized under Section
908 of SMCRA. Leasing is allowed if the technolo-
gy assessed cannot be demonstrated on existing
leases or private coal holdings.
Lease exchanges are permitted to implement
exchanges for Federal leases in alluvial valley
floors under Section 510(b)(5) of SMCRA.
Hardship Leases involve seven particular lease
applications specified in the agreement as being
not subject to the injunction regardless of any
other particular standard. The basis for these
leases varies, but each has some special circum-
stance or hardship which justified proceeding with
lease issuance in advance of the completion of this
statement.
Noncompetitive (preference right) lease applica-
tions may be processed but not issued for the 20
PRLAs having the least environmental impact.
Other than these 20 (and any applications which
meet one of the court's other standards), the
Department may not process any PRLAs. Prefer-
ence is to be given to PRLAs for tracts containing
90 percent of reserves which can be mined by deep
mining and PRLAs for tracts which would not
require substantial additional transportation facili-
ties or water storage or supply systems, and would
not involve substantial new industrial develop-
ment, in the region. All activities, including
completion of the commercial quantities test and
necessary environmental analyses, are permitted
under this standard.
In addition to the six standards, the agreement
allows the Department to process, but not issue, a
lease based on an application by the Edison
Development Corporation.
Although the total amount of coal to be leased
under all of these provisions cannot be stated
precisely, the Department estimates as many as 35
leases involving a total of 275 to 300 million tons of
coal reserves could be involved. If these leases
were granted, the increased annual production
from Federal lands could be as much as 13 to 17
million tons. By comparison, approximately 96
million tons of coal were produced from mines on
or including Federal leases in 1977. The original
court order would have permitted the issuance of
only six leases which would have resulted in
approximately 10 million tons of production. As of
April 1, 1978, 13 leases have been offered for sale
under the amended order covering 6,442 acres and
53 million tons.
The modified order will enable the Department
to achieve production in areas where needs are
critical and to avoid unnecessary loss of Federal
coal resources in by-pass situations. In addition,
the settlement allows the Department to continue
with the overview portion of the regional environ-
mental impact statements. Although only lease
proposals meeting the revised short-term standards
will be studied on a site-specific basis, the regional
environmental impact statements will address the
social, economic, and environmental effects of
increased coal production in particular areas,
including impacts which could occur under various
leasing levels. This information will be useful both
to this programmatic environmental impact state-
ment and to subsequent program decisions.
1-14
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.2.7 NRDC V. BERKLUND
The rights of holders of PRLAs was recently
addressed in related litigation. The issue in NRDC
v. Berklund, 454 F. Supp. 925 (D.D.C. 1978), appeal
pending, was whether the Secretary's duty to issue a
noncompetitive lease to an otherwise qualified
holder of a PRLA is mandatory or discretionary.
The United States District Court for the District of
Columbia ruled, on June 30, 1977, that the
Secretary does not have discretion to reject 77, the Department of the
Interior has been developing unsuitability criteria
for Federal lands. These are discussed in Chapters
3 and 5 and are presented in the proposed
regulations (Appendix A). Although these stan-
dards are exempt from NEPA's environmental
impact statement requirement, the effects of the
proposed criteria are discussed in this statement.
Other features of SMCRA relevant to the
development of a Federal coal management
program are:
© Authority to exchange Federal lands al-
ready under lease but which have been
included in an alluvial valley floor and are
subject to the grandfather clause in Section
510(b)(5) of the Act.
• A requirement for the consent of certain
private surface owners before the Depart-
ment can lease any Federal coal under
privately-owned land.
1.3.1.4 Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands.
The Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands
governs leasing on Federally-acquired lands for
coal as well as other minerals covered by the
Mineral Leasing Act. The Act requires the consent
of the head of the Federal agency having adminis-
trative jurisdiction over the lands before BLM can
lease For coal. The Federal Coal Leasing Amend-
ments Act grants similar veto authority to the
surface managing agency with regard to non-
acquired lands. Otherwise, leasing provisions are
the same as those for nonacquired lands.
1.3.1.5 Other Relevant Laws. Numerous other
Federal laws regulate aspects of coal development
and energy conversion. Most pertinent laws are
summarized in Table 1-3.
1.3.2 Interagency Relationships in Federal Coal
Management
The jurisdictional interrelationships in a Feder-
al coal management program are complex. Many
Federal departments and agencies are involved
through their specific mandates or related authori-
1-18
V
Wmsm
PNb
Popular Name
Antiquities Act of 1906
TABLE 1-3
FEDERAL LAWS AFFECTING COAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY CONVERSION
Public Law/U.S. Code Citation Purpose
59-209; 16 U.S.C. 431
•Regulates antiquities
excavation and collection
(including fossil remains),
Major Relevance
'Mitigates potential harm
to historical, archaeolo-
gical, and paleontological
resources.
Archaeological and
Historical Preservation
Act of 1974; Archaeological
Salvage Act
93-291, 86-523; 16 U.S.C. 469
I
H
o
Bald Eagle Protection
Act of 1969, as amended
Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977
86-70; 16 U.S.C. 668
95-95; 42 U.S.C. 7401
'Protects historical values
on public land.
'Provides for recovery of
data from areas to be
affected by Federal
actions.
'Provides for preservation
of data (including relics
and specimens) at every
Federal construction
project.
'Protects bald and golden
eagles.
'Establishes requirements
for areas failing to
attain National Ambient
Area Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
"Provides for prevention of
significant deterioration
of areas where air is
cleaner than NAAQS.
'■lay require a Federal permit
where conflicts with coal
development exist.
'Mitigates potential harm
to historical and archaeo-
logical, and paleontolo-
gical resources.
'Mitigates potential harm
to historical and archaeo-
logical resources.
'May make certain coal
lands off-limits for
development.
'Limits industrial develop-
ment within and adjacent
to areas exceeding NAAQS
and areas preserving clean
air quality.
'Reduces commercial attrac-
tiveness of low-sulfur
Western coal as new source
standard changed to percent
emissions reduction.
TABLE 1-3 (Continued)
FEDERAL LAWS AFFECTING COAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY CONVERSION
Popular Name
Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977 (Con't.)
Public Law/U.S. Code Citation
Clean Water Act of 1977
95-217; 33 U.S.C. 1251
I
o
Purpose
'Modifies 1970 air act provi-
sions regarding Federal
facilities; enforcement strat-
egies; coal utilization im- .
pacts; and interstate air
pollution.
"Establishes effluent limita-
tions for new and existing
industrial discharges into
U.S. waters.
"Limitations set for public
treatment discharges; with
pretreatment by industrial
users.
"Provides mechanism to
restore and maintain
integrity of the nation's
waters.
Major Relevance
"May reduce development
options in areas where
anti-degradation policy
restricts discharges into
high quality waters.
"Treatment facilities In
areas with rapidly
expanding infrastructures
must meet water quality
standards.
"Effluent standards apply
to coal mining point
sources.
Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended
93-205;16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act of 1934
85-624; 16 U.S.C. 661
Protects endangered and
threatened species and
critical habitat from Federal
activities. Requires prior
consultation with Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Requires consultation about
water resource development
actions which might affect
fish or associated wild-
life resource.
May make certain coal
lands unsuitable for
development.
Mitigates potential
Federal coal development
impacts.
mmm
gWT^Pp
■P
WPPP
NpM
Popular Name
Historic Preservation Act
of 1966
National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969
H
1
Mining and Minerals
Policy Act of 1970
TABLE 1-3 (Continued)
FEDERAL LAWS AFFECTING COAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY CONVERSION
Public Law/U.S. Code Citation
89-665; 16 U.S.C.
See also 94-429;
U.S.C. 1609
470
16
91-190; 42 U.S.C. 4321
91-631; 43 U.S.C. 21
Noise Control Act of 1972 92-574; 42 U.S.C. 4901
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976
94-580; 42 U.S.C. 6901
Purpose
'Establishes system of classi-
fying properties on or
eligible for inclusion on
Historic Register.
"Mandates Federal agency con-
sultation with Advisory
Council and State historic
preservation officers.
'Makes environmental protec-
tion part of the mandate of
every Federal agency.
'Requires impact statements
for major Federal actions
with potentially signifi-
cant impacts.
'Declares Congressional
Minerals Policy.
'Requires publication of
information on limits of
noise required to protect
public health and welfare.
'Preempts local control of
railroad equipment and yard
noise emissions.
'Establishes guidelines for
collection, transport,
separation, recovery and
disposal of solid waste.
Major Relevance
'Mitigates potential harm
to historical and
archaeological values.
'Provides legislative
authority to control
energy development on
environmental grounds.
"Impact statement process
must be integral part of
coal leasing system.
'Provides broad, general
principles for mineral
resource development.
'Regulations may be proposed
to control coal mining
areas and activities.
'Mining locations may be
affected by EPA regulations
governing disposal of coal
mining wastes.
TABLE 1-3 (Continued)
FEDERAL LAWS AFFECTING COAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY CONVERSION
I
Popular Name
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of
1976 (Cont.)
Public Law/U.S. Code Citation
Safe Drinking Water Act
of 1977
Soil and Water Resources
Conservation Act of 1977
Multiple-Use Sustained
Yield Act of 1960
95-190; 42 U.S.C. 300
95-192; 16 U.S.C. 2001
86-519; 16 U.S.C. 528
National Forests
Management Act of 1976
95-233; 16 U.S.C. 472a
Purpose
'Creates major Federal
hazardous waste regulatory
program.
'Provides assistance to
establish state or regional
solid waste plans.
'Establishes mechanism for
National Primary Drinking
Water Standards.
Major Relevance
'Coal industry faced with
stringent permit require-
ments if coal wastes classi-
fied by EPA as hazardous.
'EPA conducting study of the
impacts of pits, ponds,
lagoons, etc. on underground
water supplies for public
water systems.
'Requires appraisal by 'Provides opportunity for
Secretary of Agriculture expanded data base,
of information and expertise
on conservation and use of
soils, plants, woodlands, etc.
Requires management of
national forests under
principles of multiple use
so as to produce a sustained
yield of products and
services.
'Mandates land management
principles similar to those
required under FLPMA.
•Provides for a comprehensive »Key factor in the Depart-
system of land and resource ment of the Interior's
management planning for determination of where
National Forest System coal leasing would occur.
lands.
rlhii i JHfrwft^^HMn
~-w°m
~*^
TABLE 1-3 (concluded)
FEDERAL LAWS AFFECTING COAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY CONVERSION
Popular Name
Department of Energy
Organization Act of 1977
Public Law/U.S. Code Citation
95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101
Act of September 28,
1976
94-429; 16 U.S.C. 1908
V
S3
Purpose
•Transfers authority to
issue some coal regulations
from DOI to DOE, including
production regulations.
*D0E determines long-term
national coal production
goals.
•Provides for the regulation
of mining activity within,
and to repeal the applica-
tion of mining laws to,
areas of the National Park
System, and for other
purposes.
Ma jor Relevance
•Limits coal management
authority exercised by the
Department of the Interior.
'Requires program to establish
proper coordination mechanisms.
'Requires recognition and pro-
tection of nationally signifi-
cant natural areas as they
relate to surface mining.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
ties. This section summarizes the major points of
interaction both within and external to the Depart-
ment of the Interior.
1.3.2.1 Department of Energy Coal-Related Func-
tions. While many agencies across the Federal
structure are involved in coal management activi-
ties, the Federal coal management program would
be carried out principally by agencies in the
Department of the Interior and the Department of
Energy (DOE). The DOE was established in
October 1977 following enactment of the Depart-
ment of Energy Organization Act (DOE Act). The
DOE Act was passed in response to the Nation's
increasing shortage of nonrenewable energy re-
sources and to the national security implications of
increasing dependence on foreign energy supplies.
Under the Act, many of the energy-related
functions of a myriad of agencies were consolidat-
ed under a single departmental organization. It
was envisioned that the reorganization would
foster cooperation among Federal, state, and local
governments in the development of national
energy programs.
Prior to the passage of the DOE Act, the
Department of the Interior had exclusive jurisdic-
tion over Federal coal leasing decisions for public
lands administered by the Department. However,
the DOE Act transferred to the Department of
Energy authority to promulgate regulations for:
Fostering competition for Federal leases.
Implementing alternative bidding systems
for the award of Federal leases.
• Establishing diligence requirements for coal
development operations on Federal leases.
• Setting rates of production for Federal
leases.
• Specifying procedures, terms, and condi-
tions for the acquisition and disposition of
Federal royalty interests taken in kind.
Activities specified in the DOE Act for which
the Secretary of the Interior will remain solely
responsible are:
• Issuance and supervision of Federal leases.
© Enforcement of all regulations applicable to
leasing of mineral resources, including but
not limited to lease terms and conditions
and production rates.
• Issuance of all other kinds of regulations.
The Department of the Interior is also required
to provide DOE not less than 30 days in which to
o
o
disapprove any newly proposed lease term or
condition which relates to any matter upon which
DOE has authority to promulgate regulations
under the DOE Act. No such term or condition
may be included in a lease if it is disapproved.
Reasons for such disapproval and acceptable
alternatives must be furnished in writing to the
Department by DOE.
The DOE is required to consider and establish
energy production, use, and conservation goals, for
periods of 5, 10, and 15 years, necessary to satisfy
projected energy needs of the United States. These
goals are considered as objectives for the national
production of energy resources which are neces-
sary to carry out national energy policy. These
production goals are to be included in the
proposed National Energy Plan (which is to be
transmitted to the Congress no later than April 1,
1979) and are to be reviewed biennially. Section
802 of the Act provides procedures for the
Congress to enact legislation regarding the Nation-
al Energy Plan which may contain appropriate
alternatives to, modifications of, or additions to
the proposed Plan submitted by the President.
Department of Energy and Department of the
Interior production goal setting procedures for
national energy resources, including coal, from
Federal lands between the two Departments have
been established in a September 1978 Memoran-
dum of Understanding signed by the two Secretar-
ies. This Memorandum is included in Appendix B.
The Office of Leasing Policy Development
manages DOE's responsibilities for participating in
Federal energy leasing programs. This office has
the responsibility for drafting regulations to imple-
ment DOE's leasing responsibilities addressed in
the prior section and for fostering close coordina-
tion with the Department of the Interior and other
agencies.
The Department of Energy's Office of Coal
Supply Development was established to monitor,
from a broad viewpoint, restraints on coal supply.
The office has no direct mandate in coal leasing,
but has been reviewing coal supply as a system. Its
aim is to isolate potential constraints and attempt
to ameliorate them by alerting appropriate policy
offices and by drafting corrective legislation. Some
subjects currently under study by the office
include: the effect of SMCRA on coal production;
transportation problems (rising rates, equipment
shortages); manpower demand in the mines; coal
1-24
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
leasing (or lack of it) as a potential constraint for
competition; and constraints in supply from
growing production costs.
1.3.2.2 DOE-Interior Leasing Liaison. A Leasing
Liaison Committee was authorized by the DOE
Organization Act. This committee has been estab-
lished and now serves as an executive level
coordinating mechanism on Federal energy leasing
and other interagency energy programs. Both DOE
and Interior are represented by four policy level
representatives on the Committee. The Committee
meets quarterly and has been used to discuss major
policy-level concerns of the two agencies.
1.3.2.3 Department of the Interior's Coal Manage-.
ment Functions. The division of the Department of
the Interior's functions and responsibilities con-
cerning management of Federal coal between the
the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM), the Geological Survey
(USGS), and BLM was set forth in a memoran-
dum signed by the Assistant Secretary, Land and
Water Resources, and the Assistant Secretary,
Energy and Minerals, in July 1978. Table 1-4
presents the three agencies' extensive coal manage-
ment responsibilities. The table is divided into
three sections— Pre-leasing Functions, Post-leasing
Pre-mining Functions, and Functions and Respon-
sibilities During Mining Operations. It indicates
the prime responsibility, joint responsibility, con-
sulting, and concurrence requirements of the
departmental agreement.
Regulation of coal development on Federal
leases is shared by the OSM and the USGS. OSM
administers the Department's program to mitigate
the adverse effects of surface coal mining and to
reclaim land which has been adversely affected.
OSM's jurisdiction extends to the surface effects of
underground coal mining operations.
SMCRA, OSM's enabling statute, establishes a
two-tiered program for the regulation of surface
coal mining and the surface effects of underground
coal mining on both private and Federal lands.
The first phase of this regulatory program went
into effect on private lands on December 13, 1977,
upon publication of OSM's interim program
regulations (30 CFR Part 700, Subchapter B)[15].
These regulations, among other things, put into
effect those of the statute's environmental perfor-
mance standards which the Congress considered to
be sufficiently critical to require almost immediate
implementation. Examples of these standards are
the requirement to return previously mined land to
approximate original contours, to segregate top-
soil, and to minimize the disturbance to the
hydrological balance of both the mine site and
associated off-site areas. These interim perfor-
mance standards, as well as OSM's inspection and
enforcement program, were applied to Federal
lands on September 21, 1978, upon publication by
the USGS of revisions to its coal mining operating
regulations (30 CFR Part 21 1)[16].
Regulations governing OSM's permanent regu-
latory program were published in the Federal
Register on March 13, 1979, 44 Federal Register
14902-15463 (1979). The permanent regulatory
program implements the statute's remaining envi-
ronmental performance standards, as well as
permit application requirements, bonding provi-
sions and provisions for the designation of lands
unsuitable for mining on Federal lands.
The USGS determines reserves present on
Federal lease tracts, develops coal resource eco-
nomic evaluations for lease tracts (recommenda-
tions for bonus bids and royalty rates), and
prepares development and mineral resource recov-
ery requirements for Federal leases. Under its Part
211 regulations, the USGS oversees coal explora-
tion operations, reviews mine plans, and inspects
mining operations for compliance with its re-
source, conservation, development, and recovery
requirements. The USGS is currently revising its
Part 2 1 1 regulations to be consistent with OSM's
permanent Federal lands regulations.
In those instances where a mining operation
occurs on Federal lands in a state which has
concluded a cooperative agreement with the
Department under Section 523 of SMCRA, regula-
tory responsibility for Federal coal development,
with respect to reclamation requirements, may be
shared with that state. Both SMCRA and the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, prohibit
the Secretary's delegating to the states his responsi-
bility for protection of the Federal government's
proprietary interest in the development of coal
resources on Federal lands. Under these coopera-
tive agreements, the states may review and approve
mining plans concurrently with the Federal review
of those plans and inspect mining operations on
Federal lands. To date, the Secretary has conclud-
ed and formally proposed cooperative agreements
with the States of Utah, Wyoming, and Montana.
1-25
TABLE 1-4
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
DIVISION OF FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES CONCERNING MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL COAL
BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING, THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (OSM, USGS, AND BLM)
PRIME
RESPONSIBILITY
JOINT
RESPONSIBILITY
IN CONSULTATION
WITH
CONCURRENCE
FROM
I
PRE-LEASING FUNCTIONS
Evaluate coal resources
Petition process for
designation of Federal lands
unsuitable for all or certain
types of surface coal mining
operations
Federal coal lands review
Preparation of regional EIS
or site-specific pre-lease
EIS concerning lease tract
selection
USGS
OSM - Receives petitions
- Conducts hearings
- Issues decisions
BLM - applies criteria in
determination of
suitability
BLM lead agency (unless other
agency designated lead agency)
- Relating to lease tract
selection
Surface Management Agency
and other appropriate State
and local agencies
OSM, USGS & other surface
managing agencies
OSM - establishes
ground rules
and criteria
for Federal
coal lands
review
OSM, USGS S. other appropriate
agencies and state and local inter-
ests
Preparation, special lease
terms and conditions
Act as Secretary's official
representative in dealing
with lease applicants
Surface owner consent
BLM
BLM (lease tract selection function)
OSM (responsibilities under
SMCRA - to administer protec-
tion requirements of the act) ,
USGS (responsibilities under the
MLA
USGS,
DOE
_^-*l
— —
-*md
*-- —
TABLE 1-4 (Continued)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
DIVISION OF FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES CONCERNING MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL COAL
BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING, THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (OSM, USGS AND BLM)
FUNCTION
PRIME
RESPONSIBILITY
JOINT
RESPONSIBILITY
IN CONSULTATION
WITH
CONCURRENCE
FROM
POST-LEASING PRE-MINING
FUNCTIONS
I
^3
Prepare recommendations on ap-
plications for use of Federally
owned surface over leased coal
for rights net granted in
Federal coal lease
Delineation of "permit area"
Review, approval of mining
plans and major modifications
lead agency for preparation
of site specific EA/EIS and
coordination with other
agencies outside DOI
Exploration on leased coal
lands outside a permit area
Exploration on leased coal
lands within a permit area
Responsibility for all non-
lessee activity on lease land
prior to operations
Responsibility for deter-
mining performance bond
None until mining plan filed.
Then OSM assumes responsibility
with concurrence of BLM and USGS
OSM has lead responsibility (for-
merly assigned to USGS,
became essential function of OSM
under Sec. 201, SMCRA)
USGS receives application and
and supervises operations for
all exploration outside a per-
mit area
OSM
BLM
OSM (BLM for interim period)
OSM & USGS (BLM receives
applications) - prior to re-
ceipt of coal mining plan it
is solely USGS responsi-
bility to report on surface
use application
BLM and USGS
USGS before mining plan;
OSM after mining plan filed.
OSM and USGS coordinate a
a data exchange
BLM regarding special require-
ments relating to protection of
natural resources; USGS re-
garding responsibilities relating
to development, production and
resource recovery requirements
OSM
BLM and USGS
USGS on produc-
tion and recovery
requirements
USGS
TABLE 1-4 (Continued)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
DIVISION OF FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES CONCERNING MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL COAL
BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING, THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (OSM, USGS AND BLM)
FUNCTION
PRIME
RESPONSIBILITY
FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILI-
TIES DURING MINING OPERATIONS
Act as Secretary's representa-
tive in dealing with lessees
and/or operators during
operations
I
CO
Take necessary action in
emergency environmental
situation
OSM (formerly USGS & BLM)
JOINT
RESPONSIBILITY
IN CONSULTATION
WITH
CONCURRENCE
FROM
Conduct inspection prior to
abandonment and specify and
approve abandonment procedures
OSM (formerly USGS & BLM) USGS retains production
functions; OSM assumes envi-
ronmental and enforcement
functions;
BLM retains non-mining func-
tions, outside the permit area,
including rights-of-way and
ancillary activities related to
mining. USGS & BLM inspec-
tion in connection with USGS,
BLM functions, are coordinated
with OSM inspections (except BLM
inspections otuside the permit
area). USGS makes royalty
audits and other nonfield inspec-
tions independent of OSM.
OSM has primary emergency authority;
BLM & USGS have such authority
when OSM inspectors are unable to
take action before significant harm
or damage will occur.
USGS & BLM retain their present
procedures for emergencies involving
loss, waste, or damage to coal and
other natural resources and to other
MLA functions
OSM (primary authority to approve OSM, USGS, BLM - all have Private surface owner
abandonment procedures and approve abandonment inspection responsibility in case of private
abandonment of operat ions ) surface .
BLM concurrence in ap-
proval of compliance,
special requirements:
protection of natural
resources & post-mining
land use of affected
lands. USGS con-
currence : compliance
with production and
coal resource recovery
requirements .
*^M
>
TABLE 1-4 (Conclusion)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
DIVISION OF FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES CONCERNING MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL COAL
BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING, THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (OSM, USGS AND BLM)
p RIHE JOINT IN CONSULTATION CONCURRENCE
RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY WITH WITH
.„„ BLM & USGS con-
Release of reclamation bond ObM currence
(permanent program)
„„ BLM & USGS con-
Release of lease bond BLM
currence .
H
I
■vD
NOTE: These agencies will also consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, both on a general basis such as during land-use planning and on a
specific basis when required by laws such as The Endangered Species Act.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Negotiations are in progress with the States of New
Mexico, Colorado, and North Dakota. If these
latter three states are unable to conclude successful
negotiations with the Department to modify their
cooperative agreements, their existing agreements
will terminate.
The BLM has the principal responsibility for
carrying out the requirements of FCLAA. It
prepares the required land use plans and does land
use analyses where Federal interests are not
sufficient to justify a land-use plan. It has the
responsibility to delineate, rank, and select lease
tracts and to consult with surface owners over
Federal coal. The BLM also conducts hearings on
leasing proposals and prepares the necessary
environmental analyses. It also carries out certain
functions under SMCRA including the initial
review of Federal lands to determine which lands
are unsuitable for all or certain types of coal
mining.
The Department's Office of Coal Leasing,
Planning and Coordination serves as the focal
point for developing and carrying out the Depart-
ment's coal policy review and the development of a
program for the management and leasing of
Federally-owned coal resources in accordance
with the President's directives in the National
Energy Plan and Environmental Message (see
Section 1.4.1). The Office is responsible for
developing and coordinating Departmental poli-
cies affecting Federal coal management. It assists
the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for
Land and Water Resources, in implementing the
Federal coal management responsibilities vested in
the Department under the Mineral Leasing Act of
1920 and the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments
Act of 1976.
Other Interior Department agencies with lesser
coal related responsibilities are the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Mines, Bureau of
Reclamation, and Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service conducts surface mining studies and
monitoring work relating to impacts on wildlife in
general and on endangered species in particular.
These studies are used to assess and predict the
affects of coal-related activities on fish, wildlife,
and their habitats on Federal, state, and private
lands. For particular requirements on Endangered
Species Act consultation, see 50 CFR Part 402, 43
Federal Register 870. The division of wildlife
related responsibilities in coal management be-
tween the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Bureau of Land Management was established in a
Memorandum of Understanding signed on Sep-
tember 26, 1978, and is included in Appendix B.
Coal activities in the U.S. Bureau of Mines
include conducting advanced coal mine health and
safety research and demonstration projects on
backfilling and subsidence.
1.3.2.4 Other Federal Agencies with Coal Related
Responsibilities. Table 1-5 summarizes relevant
coal management functions within the Federal
structure. Policy and evaluation functions relating
to coal, not previously addressed, are assigned
within the Executive Office of the President to the
Office of Management and Budget, the Council of
Environmental Quality, the Domestic Policy Staff,
the National Security Council, and the Office of
Science and Technology Policy.
The Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture has been given added responsibility
relating to coal management functions through the
FCLAA. Under the Act, the Secretary of Agricul-
ture has consent authority for Federal leases under
his jurisdiction, and may add terms and conditions
to coal leases on these lands to protect resource
and environmental values. This authority extends
to approval of mining and reclamation plans for
Federal leases on National Forest System lands.
New responsibilities have also been given to a
second Agriculture Department agency, the Soil
Conservation Service, including assisting in the
identification of prime farmlands within areas that
may be surface mined in the future and reviewing
and commenting on permits for surface mining
which involve prime farmland. The Service is also
authorized to review and comment on state
reclamation plans.
The FCLAA strengthened the Justice Depart-
ment's role in preventing anticompetitive and
monopolistic practices related to Federal coal
leasing. FCLAA requires the Interior Department
to consult Justice during rulemaking. It also
requires the Justice Department to review whether
the issuance, renewal, or readjustment of a coal
lease would tend to create a situation inconsistant
with the antitrust laws, and limits the Interior
Department's authority to issue a coal lease once
that finding has been made. Justice is also required
1-30
TABLE 1-5
PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES INVOLVED IN ACTIVITIES
AFFECTING THE PRODUCTION, TRANSFORMATION AND UTILIZATION OF COAL
DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OR
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
MAJOR ORGANIZATION UNIT
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OR
AGENCY (BUREAU, ETC.)
PROGRAM OR FUNCTION
1. Energy Department (including
functions relating to coal from
ERDA, FEA and FPC; and some from
Interior)
Ass' t Secretary, Energy Technology
Fossil Energy Program Office
Coal mining technology development
Coal utilization R&D (e.g. , gasifi-
cation; liquefaction)
Coal cleaning technology
Ass* t Secretary, Resource Application Fossil Energy Division
I
GO
Ass' t Secretary, Environment
Biomedical and Environmental
Research Division
Control Technology Division
Division of Policy Analysis
Division of NEPA Affairs
Division of Operational
Safety
Division of Technology Assess-
ment
Division of Environmental Im-
pact
Coal utilization technology demon-
strations
Leasing of publicly-owned coal lands
(with Interior)
Forced use of coal by utilities and
industry through regulation
Coal loan guarantee program
Section 302 of DOE Organization Act
Biomedical and environmental effects
research
Environmental control technology
NEPA compliance
Evaluates policy conflicts
Administrator, Energy Regulatory
Administration
Energy Regulatory Administra-
tion
Regulation, conversion to coal and use
of coal
Regulation of gas from coal
Administrator, Energy Information
Administration
Energy Information Administra-
tion
Data collection and analysis relating
to coal
Director , Energy Research
Coordinates all energy research, pre-
sumably including coal
Grants for University Coal Research
Laboratories (title VIII of H.R. 2)
TABLE 1-5 (Continued)
PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES INVOLVED IN ACTIVITIES
AFFECTING THE PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILIZATION OF COAL
DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OR
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
MAJOR ORGANIZATION UNIT
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OR
AGENCY (BUREAU, ETC.)
PROGRAM OR FUNCTION
2 . Interior Department
Ass't Secretary, Energy and Minerals Bureau of Mines
Geological Survey
I
LO
Ass't Secretary, Land and Water
Ass't Secretary, Fish and Wildlife
and Parks
Office of Surface Mining
Bureau of Land Management
Office of Coal Leasing, Plan-
ning and Coordination
Bureau of Reclamation
Developing mining technology
Mine reclamation demonstrations
Coal mine health and safety R&D
Technology for cleaning coal
Coal resource investigations
Coal hydrology investigations
Classification of publicly-owned lands
Regulation of operations on leased coal
lands
Environmental studies related to coal
Regulate surface mining
Regulating surface effects of underground
min ing
Assistance to states for mining and recla-
mation programs
Assistance for state mining and mineral
search institutes
Reclamation of abandoned mined areas
Develop mining technology, production,
environment, health and safety
Leasing and operations — publicly-owned coal
lands (with DOE)
Environmental studies relating to coal
Policy and program development responsibi-
lity
Water project studies
Water availability
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Surface mining studies relating to wildlife
TABLE 1-5 (Continued)
DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY
3. Agriculture Department
*
PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES INVOLVED IN ACTIVITIES
AFFECTING THE PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILIZATION OF COAL
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OR
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
Ass' t Secretary, Conservation,
Research and Education
MAJOR ORGANIZATION UNIT
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OR
AGENCY (BUREAU, ETC.)
PROGRAM OR FUNCTION
Forest Service
Land and resource management planning
necessary for the administration of
National Forest System lands and the
management of renewable natural resources.
The development of lease stipulations and
the exercise of consent authority in lease
issuance and mining and reclamation plan
approval.
The issuance of easements and permits for
ancillary facilities off the lease area
The administration of an abandoned mined
land reclamation program
H
I
Co
LO
4. Labor Department
Soil Conservation Service
Science and Education Admini-
strat ion
Ass't Secretary, Rural Development Rural Electrification Admini-
stration
Ass*t Secretary, Mine Safety and
Health
Technical assistance on conservation
planning, soil surveys, plant materials,
river basis surveys, and hydrological
studies
Mined land reclamation research
Loans and loan guarantees for electrical
generating, transmission and distribu-
tion systems
Mine Safety and Health Admini- Regulation of coal mine safety and health
stration*
Ass' t Secretary, Employment
Office of Worker 7 Compensa-
tion
Pneuraocniosis benefits
5. Transportation Department
6. Commerce Department
Ass't Secretary for Economic
Development
Federal Railroad Administra-
tion
Economic Development Admini-
stration
Railroad assistance programs, including
revitalization, important to coal trans-
portation
Assistance for planning for socioeconomic
planning for energy development
*Formerly Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration (MESA)
TABLE 1-5 (Continued)
PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES INVOLVED IN ACTIVITIES
AFFECTING THE PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILIZATION COAL
DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OR
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
7. Health, Education and Welfare
Department
8. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
Ass't Secretary for Health
Ass't Administrator Air and Waste
Management
Ass't Administrator, Water and
Hazardous Materials
MAJOR ORGANIZATION UNIT
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OR
AGENCY (BUREAU, ETC.)
PROGRAM OR FUNCTION
National Cancer Institute
National Institute for Environ-
mental Health Sciences
National Institute for Occupa-
tional Safety and Health
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
Office of Water Planning and
Standards
Biomedical effects research
Biomedical and environmental effects
relating to coal
Biomedical and environmental effects
research (e.g., coal workers occupa-
tional diseases)
Air quality standards and regulations
Water quality standards and regulations
I
Corps of Engineers
10 . Interstate Commerce
Commission
11. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Ass' t Administrator, Enforcement
Ass't Administrator, Research and
Development
(Reports to Secretary of the Army)
Office of General Enforcement
Office of Water Enforcement
Office of Health and Ecologi-
cal Effects
Office of Energy, Minerals and
Industry
Civil Works
Enforcement of EPA standards and regula-
tions
Biomedical and environmental effects
research
Environmental control technology develop-
ment
Coal utilization R&D
Coal cleaning technology
Waterways projects important to coal
transportation
Regulation relating to standards and cri-
teria on design, location , construction,
maintenance, enlargement, modification,
removal and abandonment of new and
existing coal mine waste piles
Regulations of railroads
Coal technology R&D (ammonia from coal) of
activities (technology , economic assis-
tance, etc. )
Purchases and uses large amounts of coal
.jtt^^ x
JUk
TABLE 1-5 (Continued)
PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES INVOLVED IN ACTIVITIES
AFFECTING THE PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILIZATION OF COAL
DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OR
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
MAJOR ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OR
AGENCY (BUREAU, ETC.)
PROGRAM OR FUNCTION
12 . Treasury Department
13. Justice Department
14. Housing and Urban Development
Tax policy and collection
Litigation involving public lands
Housing and development of new commu-
nities
15. Community Services Administration
Assistance to solve economic problems
in communities
16. Small Business Administration
Small business loans for coal-related
facilities, machinery, equipment
I
17 . National Science Foundation
18. Federal Trade Commission
19. Securities and Exchange Commission
20. Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Other Independent Commissions
Promotes fair competition; prevents re-
straint of trade, and price fixing
Regulates public utility holding company
systems; reviews mining disclosures
Has regulatory authority over gasifica-
tion in interstate sales of power;
establishes and enforces rates and
charges for electric energy transmis-
sion and sale
And also various water resources and regional agencies and commissions:
Water Resources Council, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Delaware River Basin Commission,
Missouri River Basin Commission, Regional Action Planning Commissions: Coastal Plains, Four
Corners, Old West, Appalachian Regional Commission, Ozarks and Upper Great Lakes Regions,
involved with coal and mining planning water resources, environmental and economic impacts,
reg iona 1 deve lopmen t s .
TABLE 1-5 (Concluded)
PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES INVOLVED IN ACTIVITIES
AFFECTING THE PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILIZATION OF COAL
MAJOR ORGANIZATION UNIT
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OR WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OR
DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR AGENCY (BUREAU, ETC.) PROGRAM OR FUNCTION
Activities of organizations and agencies within the Executive Office of the President such as:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
The Domestic Policy Staff
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
Activities of the Departments of Treasury (e.g., tax policy and collections, proposed tax rebates for coal utilization facilities) and
Justice (e.g., litigation involving public lands)
Activities of Ass't Secretaries and Administrators having major activities relating to coal but no in line program activities; e.g.,
those concerned with policy analysis, planning, management, budgeting, general counsel
Activities of numerous additional agencies or elements of agencies that participate In or comment upon Environmental Impact Statements
prepared by the organizations listed on the chart above
t- 1
Ijj Energy related basic research activities, such as that of the Energy Department, National Science Foundation, and Bureau of Standards
C^ (Commerce Department)
Agencies purchasing coal for their use, such as TVA and Department of Defense
Activities — usually studies — of the agencies of the Legislative Branch:
Library of Congress General Accounting Office (GAO)
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Source: Developed from descriptions of various agency programs.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
to report to Congress annually on competition in
the coal industry.
Legislative organizations with coal manage-
ment involvement are:
• Library of Congress, Congressional Re-
search Service.
• General Accounting Office.
• Congressional Budget Office.
• Office of Technology Assessment.
These organizations provide research, monitor-
ing, and oversight capabilities for the Congress.
1.4 EXISTING FEDERAL ENERGY
POLICIES
1.4.1 Role of Coal in National Energy Policy
In April 1977, President Carter released the
Administration's National Energy Plan (NEP),
which combines legislative, administrative, and
budgetary proposals aimed at solving the Nation's
energy crisis. The following seven energy goals for
1985 were announced:
• Reduce total energy growth to below two
percent a year.
• Reduce oil imports below six million barrels
a day.
• Reduce gasoline consumption by 10 per-
cent from 1977 levels.
• Increase annual coal production by at least
400 million tons over 1976 levels.
• Insulate 90 percent of all buildings.
• Use solar energy in 2.5 million homes.
• Acquire a strategic oil reserve of one billion
barrels of oil.
An important element of the NEP is the belief
that coal must be the fuel which makes possible a
reduction in the U.S. economy's energy related
uses of oil and gas. The NEP sets goals for
replacing oil and gas with coal and other energy
alternatives. Meeting those goals will require
increases in the production of coal, with the
predicted added production ranging from 400
million more tons per year to 600 million more
tons per year, or a possible doubling of 1977
annual production by 1985.
The President also stressed that projected
increases in coal production can and must take
place without increasing the damage caused by
traditional coal mining and consumption practices.
In his Environmental Message of May 23, 1977,
the President said:
"The newly enacted Coal Leasing Amendments and
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
provide the Secretary of the Interior with the
necessary authority to carry out environmentally
sound, comprehensive planning for the public lands.
His duty now is to implement an affirmative
program for managing coal lands and associated
resources in a manner that fully protects the public
interest and respects the rights of private surface
owners" [18].
Following this message, the President, by
memorandum of May 24, 1977, instructed the
Secretary of the Interior to "manage the coal
leasing program to assure that it can respond to
reasonable production goals by leasing only those
areas where mining is environmentally acceptable
and compatible with other land uses."
The President further directed that the Depart-
ment "scrutinize existing Federal coal leases (and
applications for preference right leases) to deter-
mine whether they show prospects for timely
development in an environmentally acceptable
manner, taking steps as necessary to deal with
nonproducing and environmentally unsatisfactory
leases and applications." The memorandum also
contained the instruction to review the basis for
granting or denying preference right leases and to
propose legislation authorizing the Department to
condemn outstanding leases upon payment of
reasonable compensation, if necessary, to prevent
unacceptable environmental damage. Implementa-
tion of these Presidential directives are addressed
in subsequent chapters of this statement, particu-
larly in Chapter 3.
1.4.2 Congressional Action
Prior Congressional action on legislative pro-
posals directly related to coal management was
addressed previously (see Section 1.3). Last year,
the Congress focused on the President's proposed
National Energy Act.
The National Energy Act was submitted to
Congress on April 29, 1977, in response to the
President's April 20, 1977, message to a joint
session of Congress. The Act was then divided into
five major legislative initiatives to correspond to
the jurisdictions of appropriate standing commit-
tees. On October 15, 1978, Congress passed five
bills:
• The National Energy Conservation Policy
Act.
1-37
II. ■ ■ ■■■■■■■——■——.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
• The Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act
of 1978.
• The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1 978.
• The Energy Tax Act of 1978.
o The Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use
Act of 1978.
Summaries of these Acts, as passed by
Congress and signed by the President follow.
Conservation. The National Energy Conserva-
tion Policy Act contains incentives to reduce
residential energy use. The Act provide grants for
weatherizing lower income homes and a $900
million three-year grants program to states to
improve the energy efficiency of schools, hospitals,
and municipal buildings. Grants and government-
backed loans are made available for low-income
families. The Act also establishes mandatory
efficiency standards for 13 major home appliances
including water heaters and furnaces. These are to
take effect in the mid-1980's. Finally, the Act
establishes a program requiring utilities to inform
their customers of suggested energy conservation
and solar energy measures and to give loans to
consumers to install conservation equipment.
These measures could indirectly affect coal use by
potentially reducing electrical demand from utili-
ties.
Utility Rate Reform. The Public Utility Regula-
tory Policies Act of 1978 establishes several rate
making standards to guide electric utility rate
setting policies and practices. To the maximum
extent practicable, rates charged by any electric
utility should reflect the costs of providing that
electric service and encourage conservation
through time-of-day rates, seasonal rates, cost of
service pricing, interruptible rates, lifeline rates,
and prohibition of declining block rates. State
regulatory authorities and utilities would be re-
quired to formally consider standards within
prescribed periods. The Act also requires the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to pre-
scribe rules favoring industrial cogeneration facili-
ties.
Coal use could be affected by the Act through
a leveling of electrical demand, thereby reducing
the number and capacity of generating plants
needed to supply peaking power.
Natural Gas. The Natural Gas Policy Act of
1978 is particularly significant in that it settles a
39-year confrontation between natural gas produc-
ers and consumers over the question of natural gas
price controls. It provides continued controls
through 1985 with appropriate safeguards beyond
that period. The controlled, but escalating, price
will substantially increase the incentives for new
gas production. Most importantly, the Act will: (1)
create a single national market for natural gas
production; (2) increase production; and (3)
increase producer revenues because of the ability
of all producers to help satisfy the demand for
natural gas in the interstate market. The one to two
trillion cubic feet per year of extra gas that would
flow into the interstate market would replace up to
one million barrels per day of foreign oil imports.
Coal Conversion. The Powerplant and Industri-
al Fuel Use Act (FUA) of 1978 prohibits, the use of
petroleum and natural gas by certain electric
powerplants and industrial major fuel burning
installations. Effective May 8, 1979, FUA would
require the use of coal, synthetic gas derived from
coal, or alternate fuels other than oil or natural gas
in new utility generation facilities or new industrial
boilers, gas turbines, and internal combustion and
combined cycle units with a capacity greater than
10 megawatts. For existing powerplants and
industrial facilities, DOE can require conversion to
coal, other fuels, or coal-oil mixtures.
As with the Department's preferred program,
FUA contributes an element to the NEP which
advances the use of coal over oil and natural gas.
The NEP requirement to increase usage of abun-
dant domestic energy sources is addressed in a
November 1978 FUA draft programmatic environ-
mental impact statement prepared by the DOE.
The DOE statement evaluates the national impact
of the Act based on the assumption that coal will
be the primary fuel substituted for oil and gas until
1990. The level of coal production is based on the
assumption that no economic exemption would be
granted under the Act unless coal is 44 percent
more costly than the use of imported oil. Base-case
coal production estimates for 1985 and 1990 are
indicated by DOE to be 1,098 and 1,255 million
tons per year, respectively. These production
estimates serve as the basis for the impact
quantifications of the DOE statement. Coal con-
sumption attributable to FUA implementation
should be only seven percent (72 million tons) of
1-38
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
the total demand in 1985 and over 10 percent (129
million tons) in 1990, according to the statement.
Regional coal production estimates for 1985
and 1990 differ slightly from those used in the
Department's preferred program and DOE leasing
alternative; however, they are within the high-low
estimate range used as the Department's analytical
basis. The most obvious reason for the differences
is that DOE's coal regions differ somewhat from
those in this final environmental impact statement.
The FUA is expected to affect industries which
consume large amounts of oil and gas in large
boilers, such as food processing, paper and pulps,
chemicals, refineries, and machinery. Utilities
should be affected less, since new baseload
facilities using fuels other than oil or gas are
generally anticipated.
According to the FUA draft programmatic ES,
the Act will have a major impact in Texas,
Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico,
which area accounts for 58 percent of the projected
increased coal use in 1985 and 68 percent in 1990.
Specific regional environmental impacts as evalu-
ated in the draft programmatic environmental
impact statement for the FUA are as follows:
• Air Quality - "negligible impact" from
transportation due to the FUA through
1990; "little or no deterioration" in the
Northern Great Plains states, northern New
England, and Central Appalachia; and "no
regional air degradation" from storage and
onsite processing of coal".
• Weather and Climate - ". . . not expected to
affect the climatic process ..."
• Water Resource Quality - With some
exceptions, "Generally, the FUA will not
greatly accelerate mining in areas where
acid drainage is a major problem"; ". . .
FUA will contribute incrementally to acid
precipitation in the eastern United States.";
"Acid precipitation is expected to be mini-
mal in the East Texas Gulf area. . . "; and
"minimal" increase in mobilization of trace
elements.
« Land Use - 328,000 acres of mostly range-
land, cropland, and some forest land may
be disturbed by mining by 2020 as a result
of the FUA. Assuming total disposal of ash
and sludge by landfill, an additional
108,000 acres would be required for waste
disposal; "minimal" land use impacts ex-
pected from FUA-generated transporta-
tion, storage, processing, and combustion.
• Terrestrial Biota - Major impact in Texas,
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri,
and Iowa due to loss of deciduous for-
est/grassland habitats, "increased combus-
tion, emissions due to the FUA are not
expected to be large enough to pose a major
threat to terrestrial biota."
• Aquatic Biota - ". . . the FUA may create
local impacts. . . resulting from hydrologic
alterations, sedimentation, acid mine drain-
age, alkaline drainage, nutrient enrichment,
acid precipitation, and trace metal precipi-
tation."
• Endangered Species "Increased demand for
coal under the FUA can . . . increase the
potential for deleterious impact upon en-
dangered species and their habitats."
• Social and Economic Impacts - Greatest
impacts expected in the Northern Great
Plains (25 percent coal production increase
due to the FUA); 41 percent coal produc-
tion increase in Texas.
• Health Effects - 82 fatal and 2500 nonfatal
injuries in 1990 expected from increased
coal use due to FUA.
Although the FUA draft environmental impact
statement and this final environmental impact
statement differ in scope and methodology, they
are compatible. Both statements address aspects of
the NEP which are consistent with increased
importance of coal as a domestic energy source.
Both statements are based on independently
derived regional production estimates which are
within close approximation of each other. More-
over, neither program (or environmental impact
statement) conflicts with the other because they
are directed at distinct and independent phases of
the coal cycle.
1.5 STATE POLICIES AND
CONSTRAINTS
State policies and legislative actions could act
as constraints to development of coal resources in
the western coal regions. This section considers the
principal potential constraints embodied in the
laws and permitting requirements of Colorado,
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming. No attempt has been made to compile a
a comprehensive listing of those laws or permits.
1-39
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Rather, the purpose has been to indicate the
principal constraints to coal development in State
legislation. Table 1-6 lists some of these laws and
presents a brief statement of their purpose and the
state office or agency responsible for their adminis-
tration and enforcement.
As can be seen from Table 1-6, potential
legislative constraints to coal development are
quite similar among the six states. Two of the
states-Montana and New Mexico - have passed
umbrella-type legislation similar to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. These
laws establish state agencies to serve as general
policy-making agencies of the state government.
With or without these oversight agencies, however,
all six states have developed legislation and
established agencies to administer and enforce the
legislation in key areas of environmental protec-
tion such as air, water, and solid waste manage-
ment.
In many cases, the standards set at the state
level have requirements more stringent than, or in
addition to, the corresponding Federal standards.
For example, the Wyoming ambient air quality
standards are identical to the most stringent
national standards except for the annual and 24-
hour sulfur dioxide standards. (Wyoming's 60
microgram per cubic meter (/xg/m 3 ) annual and
260 jUg/m 3 24-hour standards are more stringent
than the 80 jtig/m 3 annual and 365 /xg/m 3 24-hour
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.) Also in
the area of air quality, New Mexico has added
standards for hydrogen sulfide, total reduced
sulfur, and suspended particulate trace elements
(beryllium, asbestos, and combined total of heavy
metals).
State responsibility for enforcement of these
environmental standards is considerable. This
responsibility is derived either directly from state
enabling legislation or indirectly through Federal-
ly-authorized transfers of enforcement responsibil-
ity as provided by applicable Federal law. For
example, Section 107(a) of the Clean Air Act states
that, "Each State shall have the primary responsi-
bility for assuring air quality within the entire
geographic area comprising such State by submit-
ting an implementation plan for such State which
will specify the manner in which the national
primary and secondary ambient air quality stan-
dards will be achieved and maintained within each
air quality control region in such State."
More specifically applicable to coal develop-
ment, the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act of 1977 (SMCRA) states in Section 523(c),
"Any State with an approved State program may
elect to enter into a cooperative agreement with the
Secretary of the Interior to provide for State
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on Federal lands within the State,
provided the Secretary determines in writing that
such State has the necessary personnel and funding
to fully implement such a cooperative agreement in
accordance with the provision of the Act." A
listing of other relevant Federal legislation is
contained in Table 1-3.
Other areas of concern that resulted in Federal
legislation have also been addressed by comple-
mentary laws enacted by the western coal states.
The states have passed antiquities or historic
preservation laws to protect paleontological, ar-
chaeological, or historic resources within their
boundaries. All of the states have adopted a
provision that no mining plans or rights-of-way
will be approved until the Bureau of Land
Management has coordinated professional surveys
of cultural resources (including archaeological,
architectural, and historical remains) with the
appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and
received their written review and comments.
All of the states have expressed concern over
the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat. In
some states, this concern is demonstrated in the
legislative approach to reclamation plans. In other
states, such as New Mexico (under State Regula-
tion 563), the State Game Commission is specifi-
cally authorized to be responsible for endangered
species and sub-species in that State.
None of the state legislative measures men-
tioned thus far represent definite constraints to
increased development of western coal resources.
Rather, they can be interpreted more as extensions
of Federal legislation. Given the high probability
of increasing coal development activities through-
out the coal regions of the United States in the
near future, it is unlikely that state governments
will attempt to block this activity unless the quality
of the environment or the health and safety of their
populations are in clear danger. Although some
states have adopted somewhat more stringent
environmental standards, a spirit of cooperation is
apparent throughout state and Federal legislation.
1-40
^^^
TABLE 1-6
STATE LEGISLATION
COLORADO
Lead State Agency
Legislation
Colorado Department of
Health
— Water Quality
Control Commission
Colorado Water Quality
Control Act
Purpose or Relevance
Establishes and administers water
quality standards in State waters.
Requires site review and permit
issuance for projects involving
water, sewage, and waste disposal.
Establishes criteria for erosion
control dams.
H
I
4>
-Air Pollution Control
Commission
State Land Use Commission
Colorado Air Pollution
Control Act
House Bill 1041
Colorado Land Use Act
of 1974
Colorado Antiquities
Act of 1973
Establishes and administers air
quality standards. Would require
mines to employ dust preventive
measures to all mining procedures
including construction activities.
Provides for the protection of the
utility, value, and future of all
lands within the State, including
the public domain as well as privately
owned land. Local governments have
the duty to identify, designate, and
administer such areas and activities
of State interest, including mineral
resource areas and mining activities.
House Bill 1041 also establishes areas
containing or having significant impact
upon historical, natural, or archaeological
resources as being of state interest.
BLM must coordinate with State Historic
Preservation Officer before approving
mining plans or rights-of-way.
TABLE 1-6 (Continued)
COLORADO (Continued)
Lead State Agency
Legislation
Purpose or Relevance
Colorado Public Utilities
Commission and State
Highway Department
Colorado Department of
Natural Resources
Division of Mines
— Land Reclamation
Board
I
Division of Labor
Mining Employees Safety
Act
Colorado Open Mining
Land Reclamation Act
of 1973
Concerned with construction of
utility lines, highways and rail-
road lines, especially where cross-
ing of public roads by a railroad
is concerned.
Requires the filing of a Notice of
Activity for any proposed mining
exploration.
Minitors mine safety practices.
Provides for the reclamation of
land subjected to surface disturbance
by open mining and thereby conserve
natural resources, protect wildlife
and aquatic resources, and establish
recreational, home and industrial
sites to protect and perpetuate the
taxable value of property.
Issues permits to acquire, transport,
and store explosives and other
hazardous materials used in connection
with construction or mining.
■w
TABLE 1-6 (Continued)
MONTANA
Lead State Agency
Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation
Legislation
Montana- Major Facility
Siting Act
Purpose or Relevance
Vests in the department the authority to
require and review long-range planning by
by certain utilities, to give approval to
energy generation and conversion plant sites
and associated facilities, and to require
preconstruction certification of such
facilities.
Environmental Quality Council
■P-
u>
Montana Department of Health
ana environmental Sciences
Montana Department of
Highways
Montana Environmental
Policy Act
Montana Water Pollution
Control Law
Montana Water Quality
Criteria
Montana Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit
Montana Solid Waste Manage-
ment Act
Montana Refuse Disposal
Regulations
Montana Clean Air Act
Montana Air Quality
Regulations
The purpose of this act is to declare a
state policy which will encourage produc-
tive and enjoyable harmony between man and
his environment; to promote efforts which
will prevent or eliminate damage to the
environment and biosphere and stimulate the
health and welfare of man; to enrich the
understanding of the ecological systems and
natural resources important to the state;
and to establish an environmental quality
council.
All laws and regulations designed to mini-
mize contamination and pollution and
maintain the quality of the environment by
establishing standards and maximum amounts
of deviation of pollutant substances.
The Montana Department of Highways may
approve or disapprove the relocation of
roads and railroads across state lands or
across existing highways.
TABLE 1-6 (Continued)
MONTANA (Continued)
Lead State Agency
Montana Department of
State Lands
H
I
Board of Land
Commissioners
Legislation
Montana Strip and Underground
Mine Reclamation Act
Strip Mined Coal Conserva-
tion Act
State Antiquities Act
Chapter 25 of Title 81,
R.C.M. 1947
Section 81-103,
R.C.M. 1947
Section 81-501,
R.C.M. 1947
Purpose or Relevance
The Department of State Lands may
grant or deny surface-mining permits.
The Act and promulgated rules contain
detailed standards regarding the
method of mining, blasting, subsidence
stabilization, water control, back-
filling, grading, highwall reduction,
topsoiling, and for the reclamation of
lands affected by the proposed mining
operations.
The intent of the Coal Conservation Act
is to prevent waste of marketable coal.
Administered by the DSL and the Board
of Land Commissioners and provides for
the registration and protection of
historic, prehistoric, archaeologic,
palenontologic, scientific, or cultural
sites and objects on State Lands.
Requires that the Board of Land Commis-
sioners and provides for the registration
and protection of historic, prehistoric,
archaeologic, palenontologic, scientific,
or cultural sites and objects on State
lands .
Authorizes the Board to grant coal
leases.
■Al
-*■■
a* ~—
•mm
TABLE 1-6 (Continued)
NEW MEXICO
Lead State Agency
Legislation
He'-' Mexico Environmental
Improvement Agency
Environmental Improvement
Act of 1971
NMSA 12-12 through 14
Air Quality Control Act
Water Quality Control
Commission
Water Quality Control Act
Purpose or Relevance
Responsible for environmental manage-
ment and consumer protection programs,
including food protection, water
supply and pollution as provided in the
Water Quality Act, liquid wastes and
solid waste, air quality management as
provided in the Air Quality Act, radiation
control, noise control, nuisance abatement
vector control, occupational health and
safety, sanitation of public buildings.
Establishes and enforces regulations to
prevent or abate air pollution. Requires
submission of plans, specifications, and
other relevant information prior to
issuing a permit for the construction or
modification of any new source of air
contaminant.
Establishes and administers a comprehen-
sive water quality program and develop a
continuning planning process, including
adoption of water quality standards as a
guide to water pollution control. Also
certifies permits to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for the discharge of any
water contaminant either directly or
indirectly into water. Has groundwater
regulations pertaining to strip or tunnel
mines .
TABLE 1-6 (Continued)
NEW MEXICO (Continued)
Lead State Agency
Legislation
State Engineer of
New Mexico
NMSA Section 75-2-1
I
State Game Commission
State Historic Preserva-
tion Officer
Coal Surf acemining Commission
Regulation 563
Cultural Properties Act,
as amended, 1969
Coal Surfacemining Act
of 1972
Purpose or Relevance
Empowered with general supervision,
measurement, appropriation, and
distribution of the State waters.
Responsible for the safety of all
State and private dams and providing
guidelines to counties for the
formulation of local regulations.
Responsible for endangered species
and sub-species of the State.
Regulates antiquities excavation and
collection, and protects historical
values on public, Indian Trust, and
State lands.
Administers the Surfacemining Act,
including the setting of standards for
mining plans, the procedures for mining
plan submission, approval and amendment,
and the procedures for permitting and
bonding. Issues the necessary permits
and licenses to mine after the plan is
approved. Responsible for developing
reasonable regulations covering the pro-
ductive reclamation of stripmined land,
including grading and revegetation.
Administers groundwater regulations
pertaining to strip or tunnel mines.
TABLE 1-6 (Continued)
NEW MEXICO (Continued)
Lead State Agency
Legislation
State Land Office
Minerals Division
Purpose or Relevance
Responsible for leasing of all
mineral rights, excluding oil and
gas on State trust lands. Also
responsible for issuing rights-of-
way signed by the Commissioner of
Public Lands, for utility lines or roads
which cross State lands.
Bureau of Mines and
Mineral Resources
Public Service Commission
Studies oil, gas, and uranium on
State lands.
Requires certificates of Public
Convenience and Necessity of any public
utility plant or system or any
extension thereof.
I
■P-
TABLE 1-6 (Continued)
NORTH DAKOTA
Lead State Agency
North Dakota State
Department of Health
-Environmental Health
and Engineering Services
— Environmental Control
I
00
Legislation
North Dakota Air
Pollution Control Act
Solid Waste Management and
Land Protection Act
North Dakota Water
Pollution Control Act
North Dakota Century Code
(NDCC 23-25)
NDCC 23-29
NDCC 61-28
Purpose or Relevance
Requires plans to issue permit to
construct, install, modify, use, or
operate any air contaminant source.
Required to approve or disapprove
permits for solid waste disposal
plans. Also enforces North Dakota
New Source Performance Standards.
Responsible for establishing and
administering standards to prevent or
abate pollution of State waters.
Provides means of presenting signifi-
cant deterioration of state air quality
as related to energy development.
Involves review of application for permit
to construct or operate facilities and
monitoring of facilities after operational,
Requires permits for solid waste
disposal facilities
Responsible for establishing and
administering standards to prevent or
abate pollution of state waters. Requires
application for and receipt of a permit
to discharge mine water.
dta»Jta
TABLE 1-6 (Continued)
NORTH DAKOTA (Continued)
Lead State Agency
Worth Dakota State Water
Commission
Legislation
Purpose or Relevance
I
North Dakota State Industrial
Commission - State Geologist
North Dakota State Engineer
North Dakota Land Development
NDCC 61-04
NDCC 61-02
61-16
NDCC 38-121
NDCC 61-04
NDCC 61-01
NDCC 15-05
Permit must be secured for all
appropriations of water for
industrial uses greater than 5000
acre-feet .
Permit must be obtained with the
approval of the local water management
district for construction of dikes
or dams for water storage greater
than 12.5 acre-feet.
Requires a permit for coal explora-
tion and requires the filing of basic
coal exploration data with the State
Geologist.
Permit must be secured for all appro-
priations of water for industrial use
less than 5000 acre-feet.
Permit must be obtained with the
approval of the local water management
district for drainage.
Responsible for leasing of State coal.
Also authorized to coordinate leasing
activities with Federal leasing in
order to prevent speculation.
TABLE 1-6 (Continued)
NORTH DAKOTA (Continued)
Lead State Agency
Legislation
North Dakota Highway
Commission
NDCC 24-01
North Dakota Industrial
Commission
North Dakota Public Services
Commission
I
O
North Dakota Surface Owners
Protection Act NDCC
Chapter 38-18
NDCC 38-14
NDCC 49-22
North Dakota Coal Development
Impact Office
House Bill 1262,
Section 15
NDCC 57-62
Purpose or Relevance
Authorized to approve or disapprove
granting rights-of-way for communi-
cation or power lines, pipelines,
etc., along or over state highways.
Also controls placement of railroad-
lines affecting state highways.
Requires permits for drilling for
purposes of coal exploration.
Requires approval of surface owners
prior to permitting of mining plans.
Issues permits for surface mining
activities.
Requires application for and receipt
of a permit for coal surface mining
and reclamation activities.
Regulates siting of conversion and
transmission facilities through the
North Dakota Facility Siting Act.
Requires the application for and receipt
of: 1. Certificate of site compatibility;
2. Certificate of corridor compatibility,
and 3. Route permit for transmission
facility within corridor.
Authorized to issue State funds to
aid areas experiencing impacts due
to coal development.
Authorized to issue financial grants
to impacted taxing districts which
demonstrate extraordinary expenditures
caused by coal development and the
growth incidental thereto.
TABLE 1-6 (Continued)
l
u.
UTAH
Lead State Agency
Legislation
Air Conservation Committee
Utah Bureau of Water
Quality
Utah Air Conservation
Regulations
Water Quality Standards
for Utah
State Historic Preservation
Officer
Utah State Antiquities
Act (HB 366, 1977)
Purpose or Relevance
These regulations do not officially
adopt the NAAQS, but the NAAQS are
enforceable in the state. Changes
to the Utah regulations are presently
under consideration.
Important prescribed standards include
those which specify maximum permissible
concentrations of dissolved solids,
minimum permissible concentrations of
dissolved oxygen, and permissible
temperatures of State waters. Also
establishes anti-degradation policy and
effluent standards.
Requires a paleontological survey to be
undertaken before mining activities
can be begin. No mining or rights-of-
way will be approved until the surface
management agency has coordinated
professional cultural resource (including
archaeological, architectural, and histor-
ical remains) surveys with the State
Historic Preservation Officer.
TABLE 1-6 (Continued)
UTAH (Continued)
Lead State Agency
Legislation
I
LTL
State of Utah
— Division of Oil,
Gas and Mining
-Division of Health
-Division of Lands
-Division of Water
Rights
Department of Transportation
Purpose or Relevance
This division and the Office of
Surface Mining are preparing rules
and procedures to implement the
applicable initial regulations of
SMCRA.
Reviews air pollution sources,
culinary water sources, water
treatment and solid waste disposal
areas .
Utility lines, roads, and railroads
crossing state lands would require
easements from the division.
Authorizes diversion structures,
channel modifications, slurry lines
and water use.
Requires authorization for relocation
of highways, highway access, utility
line crossings of State and Federal
aid highways, and wide and heavy load
requirements.
TABLE 1-6 (Continued)
WYOMING
Lead State Agency
Legislation
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
— Land Quality Division
— Water Quality Division
— Air Quality Division
I
Wyoming Environmental
Quality Act of 1973
— Land Quality Rules
and Regulations, 1975
— Water Quality Standard
for Wyoming, 1973
— Wyoming Ambient Air
Quality Regulations
— Solid Waste Management
Rules and Regulations,
1975
Purpose or Relevance
Has authority relating to air
quality, solid wastes, water quality,
and mining and mine-land reclamation.
The Land Quality Division issues permits
and licenses to mine upon approval of
a mining and reclamation plan. Mined-
land reclamation provisions of the
mining and reclamation plan are administered
and enforced by the Land Quality Division.
The Air Quality Division issues permits
to construct coal mines and permits to
construct coal mines and permits to operate
coal mines after approval of applications
with regard to plans for monitoring and
controlling air contaminants. The Water
Quality Division issues permits to
construct settling ponds and waste water
systems. They also issue NPDES permits
for discharing waste water. The Solid
Waste Division issues construction fill
permits and industrial waste facility
permits for solid waste disposal during
construction and operation of coal mines.
TABLE 1-6 (Concluded)
WYOMING (Continued)
Lead State Agency
Legislation
Wyoming Industrial
Siting Administration
Industrial Development
Information and Siting
Act, 1975
Commissioner of Public
Lands
Title 36 Wyoming Statute
1977
r- 1
I
Ul
4^
Land Use Administration
Wyoming Highway
Department
Land Use Flanning Act
Wyoming State
Engineer
Purpose or Relevance
Requires furnishing extensive
information and a state permit
before certain facilities can be
constructed. Affects developments
which include gasification or electric
generation proposals. Control does not
apply to public properties except as
provided by law.
The Commissioner is responsible for the
administration, leasing, and management
of lands owned by the State. Utility
lines, roads, and railroad spurs
crossing state land require easements
from the Commissioner.
The Act requires completion of county
land use plans by 1978; these plans
could conflict with or modify some
energy development proposals.
Relocation of highways and all utility
line crossings of state and Federal aid
highways require authorization.
Any storage, impoundment, or use of
surface or groundwater for mining and
coal processing operations requires a
permit from the State Engineer. Water
pipelines and diversion structures that
could affect other users also require a
permit.
A —
■ " : ■ i : " '~
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Difficulties are far more likely to arise at a
local level where specific ecosystems and individu-
al lives and lifestyles would be unavoidably
affected by coal development. Conflict is possible
between some of these laws and Federal authority.
These laws must be veiwed in light of the
Secretary's responsibility for coal leasing decisions
and for making unsuitability determinations under
Section 522 of SMCRA. In Colorado, for example,
House Bills 1023 and 1041 give counties and
municipalities authority and funding to develop
plans for all lands within their boundaries. A key
feature provides authority to designate areas or
activities of "state interest" so that they may be
maintained or protected to preserve specific
values. This could include mineral resource areas,
areas of historical significance, and areas around
important facilities such as airports, utility facili-
ties, and high- way interchanges. Relevant activi-
ties that may come under this state interest
category include site selection of arterial highways
and collector highways, major facilities of a public
utility, and development of new communities.
Colorado's House Bill 1041 places primary
responsibility for designation of areas and activi-
ties of state interest at the local level of govern-
ment. Permits to develop or undertake activities of
state interest in these areas would have to be
obtained from local county governments. In
addition, Senate Bill 35 gives counties the authori-
ty to approve or reject subdivision proposals. As a
result, all subdivision plans must be submitted for
review by designated agencies and affected munic-
ipalities prior to approval.
Colorado presents an unusual situation in that
the State has delegated control of mineral re-
sources to local governments. All of the states have
authorized local governments to develop their own
plans and zoning ordinances. In most of these
states, however, localities are specifically denied
control over state mineral resources, though
individual communities still maintain control over
development within their own jurisdiction through
local zoning laws.
In New Mexico, local planning and zoning
control may extend three miles beyond the
boundaries of all cities and five miles for cities with
populations over 25,000. Given such a three-mile
extension of local control, a small town of ten
square miles could have state-authorized develop-
ment control over an area as much as seven or
eight times its actual incorporated area.
Housing demands and the need for greater
infrastructural capabilities that will result from
increased population from coal development activ-
ities could place considerable economic strain on
communities and local governments.
In North Dakota, the Coal Development
Impact Office is authorized to distribute State
funds to assist areas experiencing impacts as a
result of coal resource development. Wyoming has
passed a 50 percent tax on minerals royalties and
an 8 1/2 percent severance tax on mining compa-
nies. Some of these funds are to be redistributed
for schools, water systems, highways, counties, and
municipalities. But unless communities and local
governments can be guaranteed that they will not
suffer the ultimate cost of coal development, they
are likely to take a more conservative position
toward development than the states or the Federal
government. State and Federal officials will have to
coordinate closely with local representatives to
assure the protection of both the ecological and
human environments.
1.6 REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, 1970. Holdings and Develop-
ment of Federal Coal Leases. Washington, D.C.
2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, 1974. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Proposed Federal Coal Leasing
Program (DES74-53).
3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, 1975 Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Proposed Federal Coal Leasing
Program (FES 75-80).
4. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, 1978.
National Environmental Policy Act, Implementa-
tion of Procedural Provisions; Final Regulations,
43 Federal Register 55978 (November 29, 1978).
5. Executive Office of the President, 1977.
National Energy Program. The President's Ad-
dress to the Congress. April 20, 1977. Presidential
Documents Vol. 13, No. 17, pp. 556-583.
6. Act of March 3, 1873, 17 Stat. 607, 30 U.S.C
71, et seq.
1-55
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
7. Council on Economic Priorities, 1974. Leased
and Lost. Economic Priorities Report, Vol. 5, No.
1.
8. U.S. House of Representatives, 1975. Federal
Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1975. Report of
the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
Report No. 94-681. 94th Congress, 1st Session.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
9. U.S. Senate, 1978. Federal Coal Leasing
Policies and Regulations, 95-77. Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, D.C.
10. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, 1976. Coal, An Analysis of
Existing Federal Coal Leases.
11. Public Land Law Review Commission, 1970.
One Third of the Nation's Land: A Report to the
President and the Congress. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
12. National Academy of Sciences, 1974. Reha-
bilitation Potential of Western Coal Lands. Bal-
linger, Cambridge, Mass.
13. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
1979. Final Environmental Statement, Permanent
Regulatory Program Implementing Section 501(b)
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977.
14. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
1978 Draft Regulatory Analysis, Permanent Regu-
latory Program of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1 977.
15.
16.
17.
18.
43 Federal Register 62639 (1977).
43 Federal Register 37181 (1978).
43 Federal Register 41662 (1978).
Executive Office of the President, 1977. The
Environment. The President's Message to the
Congress. May 23, 1977. Presidential Documents,
Vol. 13, No. 22, pp. 782-794.
19. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey, 1939. Boundaries, Areas, Geographic
Centers. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, D.C, pp. 249-251.
20. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
the Secretary, 1922. Areas of Acquisitions to the
Territory of the United States. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
21. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, 1976. Public Land Statistics.
Washington, D.C.
1-56
I
CHAPTER 2
THE NATIONAL ENERGY ROLE OF WESTERN
AND FEDERAL COAL
I
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 2 - THE NATIONAL ENERGY ROLE OF WESTERN
AND FEDERAL COAL 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.2 COAL RESERVES AND CHARACTERISTICS 2-1
2.3 HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL COAL USE 2-5
2.4 THE GROWTH IN WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
PRODUCTION '. 2-11
2.5 TRENDS IN OTHER SOURCES OF ENERGY 2-17
2.5.1 Oil Production Trends 2-17
2.5.2 Natural Gas Production Trends 2-21
2.5.3 Nuclear Power Trends 2-21
2.5.4 Hydroelectric Power Trends 2-25
2.5.5 Nontraditional Energy Sources 2-25
2.5.6 Energy Conservation 2-27
2.6 EXPECTED FUTURE COAL USE 2-27
2.6.1 Coal in the National Energy Plan 2-27
2.6.2 Department of Energy Coal Projections 2-27
2.7 WESTERN COAL SUPPLY SOURCES 2-35
2.7.1 Production Potential of Federal Coal 2-35
2.7.2 Coal Owned by Indian Tribes 2-40
2.7.3 Non-Federal, Non-Indian Coal 2-43
2.8 THE NEED FOR NEW FEDERAL COAL LEASING 2-48
2.8.1 Leasing to Meet National Energy Objectives 2-50
2.8.2 Leasing to Promote Motre Desirable Patterns of
Coal Development 2-58
2.8.3 Leasing for Legal and Administrative Purposes .. 2-60
2.8.4 Leasing to Increase Competition in the Coal
Industry 2-61
2.9 OVERVIEW OF THE NEED FOR A FEDERAL COAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2-61
2.10 REFERENCES 2-65
j
J
i
I
CHAPTER 2
THE NATIONAL ENERGY ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Fifty-four percent of the coal reserves in the
United States are located west of the Mississippi
River. Until recently, these reserves played only a
limited role as a source of the Nation's coal
production, largely because demand for coal was
primarily in regions of the East and Midwest
which have substantial coal reserves, and which
satisfied their demand with coal produced from
Appalachian and midwestern coal mines. In the
past few years, however, production of western
coal has increased rapidly, rising from 60 million
tons in 1972 to 166 million tons in 1977 (24 percent
of total 1977 coal production in the United States).
This upward trend is expected to continue as coal
will make an increasingly important contribution
to the Nation's energy supplies, especially for
electric power generation, and as demand for coal
increases in the western states.
Federally owned coal is concentrated in the six
key western coal producing states of Colorado,
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming, which in 1977 accounted for 71 percent
of the production of all western coal. Production of
Federal coal in these states was 51.7 million tons in
1977, or 43.7 percent of their total coal production
and 7.5 percent of national coal production [5].
Other Federal coal is located in Oklahoma,
Alabama, Washington, Kentucky, and in small
amounts in other states. Production of Federal
coal in these areas could be significant regionally
or for specialized types of coal such as metallurgi-
cal coal.
Federal coal is expected to have a growing
importance in national coal production. Of overall
western coal reserves, approximately 60 percent is
owned by the Federal government and an addi-
tional 20 percent is dependent on the availability
of complementary Federal coal for its production.
2.2 COAL RESERVES AND
CHARACTERISTICS
In describing the production potential of coal,
it is customary to distinguish between coal "re-
sources" and "reserves." The term "resource"
describes the estimated total amount of coal for
which economic extraction could eventually be-
come feasible. The coal "reserve" is that limited
portion of the resource which is judged to be
minable at a profit under existing market condi-
tions [19]. The total identified coal resource of the
United States is estimated to be 1.7 trillion tons [3].
Of this coal only 438 billion tons have thus far
been identified with enough certainty and with
sufficient economic prospects to be included in the
reserve category.
Reserve calculations for western coal are based
in many cases on old geologic data and are
probably considerably underestimated. The Unit-
ed States Geological Survey has underway a coal
exploration program which will generate improved
reserve estimates over the next few years.
For this programmatic environmental impact
statement, twelve coal regions were selected as
basic units for analysis (see Figure 1-1). The twelve
regions contain over 92 percent of the reserve base
of the United States and account for over 97
percent of the Nation's current coal production.
The regions shown in Figure 1-1 are used
throughout this impact statement as the geograph-
ic basis for identifying coal production levels and
subsequent impacts. The regions were delineated
based on similarities of coal characteristics (as
shown on the 1960 USGS map of coal fields of the
U.S. [1]) and on opportunities for and the likeli-
hood of new or expanded coal production, both
from Federal and non-Federal sources.
As discussed further below, the Federal gov-
ernment administers large amounts of coal in six of
these coal regions: the Fort Union, Powder River,
Green River-Hams Fork, Uinta-Southwestern
Utah, San Juan River, and Denver-Raton Mesa
Coal Regions. Smaller but still important amounts
2-1
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
of Federal coal are located in the Western Interior
and Central and Southern Appalachian Coal
Regions, particularly in the States of Alabama and
Kentucky. It is within these geographic areas that
the preferred Federal coal management program,
described in Chapter 3, would function.
Except for some limited Forest Service-ac-
quired lands, the Federal government owns
essentially no coal within the Northern Appala-
chian, Eastern Interior, and Texas Coal Regions.
These regions are included in order to fully present
the impacts of Federal coal management actions
which might cause coal production to shift from
regions with significant Federal coal ownership to
regions with high production potential for predom-
inantly non-Federal coal.
Certain areas of the Nation with coal, princi-
pally eastern Pennsylvania, southern Michigan,
central Texas, northern Montana, Arizona, Wash-
ington, and Alaska, are not included in any of the
twelve coal regions. Several of the areas - such as
eastern Pennsylvania, Washington, and Alaska -
were isolated from other regions and did not have
enough expected coal production by themselves to
form a separate region. Other areas - such as
central Michigan and central Texas - are not
expected to have any significant production in the
near future. The San Juan River Coal Region does
not include the State of Arizona because it has
little Federal coal and it did not have enough
projected production to be a separate region.
Table 2-1 shows the estimated coal reserve
base and 1976 production for each of the twelve
coal regions. Of the total reserves in the West, a
large proportion (66 percent) are located in the
Powder River Coal Region. The next most impor-
tant western coal regions are the Fort Union ( 1 1
percent of western coal reserves), Western Interior
(seven percent), and Green River-Hams Fork
(seven percent) Coal Regions. In the East, reserves
are divided almost equally between the Appala-
chian (54 percent) and the Eastern Interior (46
percent) Coal Regions.
The proportion of surface minable coal re-
serves in the West is significantly larger than for
the Nation as a whole. Seventy-four percent (by
weight) of the surface minable reserves shown in
Table 2-1 are located west of the Mississippi River.
Western surface minable reserves in many cases
have less overburden and lie in thicker beds than
eastern reserves. This generally results in relatively
lower mining costs, although these lower costs
historically were not enough to compensate for
higher transportation costs to eastern coal markets.
The Powder River Coal Region in northeast
Wyoming and southeast Montana contains 40
percent of the United States' surface minable
reserves, and has an exceptionally high average
seam thickness of 25 feet (eastern seams are
typically four to eight feet thick). Another western
region, the Fort Union Coal Region, contains 16
percent of the national reserves of surface minable
coal, although it is largely comprised of less
valuable lignite.
Coal produced by surface mining has increased
steadily as a proportion of national production. In
the nineteenth century, all mining was by under-
ground methods. However, surface mining in the
United States supplied 24 percent of overall
production by 1950 and 56 percent by 1976.
There are substantial variations in the heating
value (Btus) of a unit of coal [19]. Eastern coal is
almost entirely bituminous coal (94 percent) and
anthracite, and has a higher heat content than
most western coal. Of total western coal, 75
percent is subbituminous and 15 percent lignite,
and only 10 percent is the more desirable bitumi-
nous. Although western coal reserves represent 54
percent of the Nation's reserves by weight, on a
Btu basis they represent only around 45 percent of
total national reserves. The overall distribution of
coal types by state is shown in Table 2-2.
Sulfur content is a key factor in assessing the
value of coal. The sulfur content of coal in the
United States generally ranges from 0.2 to 7.0
percent by weight. The presence of sulfur lowers
the quality of coke and the resulting iron and steel
products. Sulfur also contributes to corrosion and
to the formation of boiler deposits. Sulfur com-
pounds may react with water to form sulfuric acid,
which is one of the major deleterious substances in
acid mine waters contributing to stream pollution.
Most importantly, sulfur compounds are a major
source of air pollution, particularly in. the form of
sulfur dioxide.
The percentage of sulfur is highest in the
Appalachian and Eastern Interior Coal Regions.
Western Interior Coal Region coals are also
relatively high in sulfur content. The sulfur
percentage is relatively low in the subbituminous
coals and lignite of the western states which
contain large Federal coal reserves. Because of the
2-2
TABLE 2-1
REGIONAL AND U.S. DEMONSTRATED COAL RESERVE BASE AND PRODUCTION LEVEL
RESERVE BASE
(b)
(a)
PRODUCTION v '
1976
COAL REGION
(mill
ions of tons)
(thousands of
tons)
UNDER-
UNDER-
GROUND
SURFACE
TOTAL
GROUND
SURFACE
TOTAL
Appalachian
Northern
59,266
6,292
65,558
92,028
83,931
175,959
Central
27,321
7,589
34,910
125,928
80,889
206,817
Southern
1,963
250
2,213
8,605
14,783
23,388
Subtotal
88,550
14,131
102,681
226,561
179,603
406,164
Eastern Interior
71,110
17,801
88,911
55,366
81,075
136,441
Western Interior
10,125
5,467
15,592
339
11,111
11,450
Texas
3,271
3,271
14,063
14,063
Powder River
86,500
56,024
142,524
119
37,290
37,409
Green River-Hams Fork
13,396
2,147
15,543
768
24,916
25,684
Fort Union
23,101
23,101
11,414
11,414
San Juan River
1,906
2,258
4,164
17
8,824
8,841
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
6,915
262
7,177
10,144
10,144
Denver-Raton Mesa
3,865
'
3,865
1,453
409
1,862
Total of 12 Regions
282,367
124,462
406,829
294,767
368,705
663,472
U.S. Total
296,976
141,361
438,337
294,771
383,914
678,685
Regions as
Percent of U.S.
95.1
88.3
92.8
100
96.0
97.8
(a) Source: Reference Number 2,22,23
(b) Source: Reference Number 3
2-3
TABLE 2-2
»
DEMONSTRATED RESERVE BASE V ' OF COALS IN THE UNITED STATES ON JANUARY 1, 1976
POTENTIALLY MINABLE BY UNDERGROUND AND SURFACE METHODS ( b )
(million short tons)
ANTHRACITE
SURFACE
BITUMINOUS
SURFACE
SUBBITUMINOUS
SURFACE
ro
I
Alabama
*Alaska
*Arizona
*Arkansas
*Colorado
Georgia
*Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
*Iowa
^Kansas
Kentucky , East
Kentucky, West
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
*Missouri
*Montana
*New Mexico
North Carolina
*North Dakota
Ohio
* Oklahoma
*Oregon
Pennsylvania
*South Dakota
Tennessee
*Texas
*Utah
Virginia
^Washington
West Virginia
* Wyoming
Subtotal Western States
Subtotal Eastern States
TOTAL
88 . 6 7 .
25.5
6,966.8 142. 7
114.1 7.8
7.106.6 142.7
7.220.7 150.5
1,724.2
284.4
-
_
617.0
80.4
4
,805.9
640
.7
-
325.5
-
-
163.1
107.0
-
_
8,467.9
676.2
3
,972.1
149
.2
0.5
0.4
-
-
4.4
-
-
-
53,128.1
14,841.2
-
_
8,939.8
1,774.5
-
-
1,736.8
465.4
-
_
-
998.2
-
-
9,072.5
4,467.6
-
-
8,510.4
3,950.4
-
-
913.8
134.5
-
_
125.2
1.6
-
-
1,418.0
3,596.0
-
_
1,385.4
-
69
,573.5
33
,843
.2
1,258.8
601.1
889.0
1
,846
8
31.3
0.4
-
-
13,090.5
6,139.8
-
_
1,192.9
425.2
-
_
(c)
-
14.5
2
9
22,335.9
1,391.8
-
-
627.2
337.9
-
-
6,283.8
267.9
1.1
_
3,277.0
888.5
-
-
255.3
_
835.3
481
5
33,457.4
5,149.1
-
_
4,002.5
-
27
,644.8
23
724
7
26,785.9
7,543.0
107
736.2
60
689
155,251.8
39,362.1
-
-
182,037.8
46,905.1
107
736.2
60
689
LIGNITE
UNDER
SURFACE
STATE
SURFACE
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
1,083.0
1,724.2
1,367.4
3,091.6
14.0
5,422.9
735.2
6,158.1
-
-
325.5
325.5
25.7
251.7
140.5
392.2
2,965.7
12,465.5
3,791.1
16,256.6
-
0.5
0.4
0.9
-
4.4
-
4.4
-
53,128.1
14,841.2
67,969.3
-
8,939.8
1,774.5
10,714.3
-
1,736.8
465.4
2,202.2
-
-
998.2
998.2
-
9,072.5
4,467.6
13,540.1
-
8,510.4
3,950.4
12,460.8
(c)
-
(c)
(c)
-
913.8
134.5
1,048.3
-
125.2
1.6
126.8
-
1,418.0
3,596.0
5,014.0
15,766.8
70,958.9
49,610.1
120,569.0
-
2,150.1
2,447.9
4,598.0
-
31.3
0.4
31.7
10,145.3
-
10,145.3
10,145.3
-
13,090.5
6,139.8
19,230.3
-
1,192.9
425.2
1 , 618 . 1
-
14.5
2.9
17.4
-
29,302.7
1,534,5
30,837.2
426.1
-
426.1
426.1
-
627.2
337.9
965.1
3,181.9
-
3,181.9
3,181.9
-
6,284.9
267.9
6,552.8
-
3,414.5
888.5
4,303.0
8.1
1,090.6
489.6
1,580.2
-
33,457.4
5,149.1
38,606.5
-
31,647.3
23,724.7
55,372.0
32,533.6
162,338.1
100,773.5
235,407.6
1,083.0
134,638.5
40,587.8
202,930.3
33,616.6
296,976.6
141,361.6
438,337.9
Source: Reference Number 3.
(a) Includes measured and indicated resource categories as defined by the USBM and USGS and represents 100% of the coal in place.
(b) Figures have been rounded .
(c) Quantity undetermined (basic resource data do not provide the detail required for delineation of reserve base).
^Western states including Alaska
a -
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
different heating (Btu) values of coal, a given
sulfur percentage by weight involves varying sulfur
content by energy provided. Western coal is also
typically low in sulfur content per Btu, although
less so than the sulfur percentage by weight would
suggest.
Generally, coal with less than one percent
sulfur by weight is considered "low sulfur" coal.
Only 16 percent of eastern coal is considered low
sulfur, compared with 71 percent of western coal
(see Tables 2-3 and 2-4). Eighty-four percent of the
Nation's low sulfur coal is located in the West. On
a tonnage basis, there are nevertheless substantial
low sulfur reserves in the East, much of it
metallurgical coal.
Within the six western states with major
Federal coal ownership, coal mining will be
concentrated in areas which are identified by the
U.S. Geological Survey as Known Recoverable
Coal Resource Areas (KRCRAs) (see Figure 2-1).
The total area included within the KRCRAs
defined as of March 1978 was 18 million acres (see
Table 2-5). It is expected that about 25 million
acres will be included in KRCRAs when mapping
is completed. Around half of this acreage is
expected to have coal of medium or high develop-
ment potential. By comparison, the total land area
of the six western Federal coal states is 396 million
acres.
The distribution of coal ownership within
KRCRAs is shown in Table 2-5. In many cases,
surface ownership differs from subsurface owner-
ship. The largest single ownership category is
private surface and Federal coal, which includes 34
percent of the total KRCRA acreage. The second
largest category is private surface and non-Federal
(usually private) coal, covering 29 percent of the
total acreage. Federal surface administered by the
BLM with Federal coal and Federal surface
administered by The Forest Service with Federal
coal cover 21 percent and five percent of total
KRCRA acreage, respectively, Finally, state sur-
face and non-Federal (usually state) coal has five
percent of the acreage.
Of the total KRCRA acreage, 71 percent of the
surface is non-Federally owned. For Federal coal
alone, only 44 percent of the surface is owned by
the Federal government. Federal subsurface own-
ership of the coal, on the other hand, covers 66
percent of the total KRCRA acreage. Mainly
because the Federal ownership share is unusually
high (80 percent) in the Powder River Coal
Region, where coal seams are exceptionally thick
and contain large amounts of coal per acre,
Federal coal reserves in the West are estimated to
be 72 percent of total western KRCRA reserves.
2.3 HISTORY OF NATIONAL COAL USE
Coal was the primary energy source upon
which the Nation's early industrial and economic
growth was based. Basic industries such as rail-
roads, steel, and, later, electric power generation
were developed and rapidly expanded through the
production and use of coal. The coal industry
reached a 100-million ton level of production by
1880 and 212 million tons by 1900. Stimulated by
World War I, coal production reached 579 million
tons in 1918. Coal production declined after the
war (particularly during the Depression), reaching
a low in 1932 of 310 million tons. With World War
II, production again rose to new heights, reaching
a peak in 1947 of 631 million tons [20].
Once again, however, the coal industry went
into decline and reached its post-war low of 392
million tons in 1954. For the next 10 years, while
major year-to-year fluctuations sometimes oc-
curred, the basic level of coal use increased only
slightly. But by the mid-1960's, the industry had
begun an upward trend that by 1977 had reached
an annual production level of 689 million tons, the
highest ever.
For many years the major coal use categories
were railroads, manufacturing and mining indus-
tries, retail dealer deliveries, coke plants, and
electric utilities. In 1944, railroads consumed 132
million tons of coal. The introduction of diesel
locomotives and electrification, however, caused
the railroad market for coal to virtually disappear
by the early 1960's. Also, the use of coal by ships
has been displaced almost entirely by oil. Retail
coal deliveries for space heating declined steadily
over the years, from more than 122 million tons in
1944 to seven million tons in 1977.
Consumption of coal by coke plants fell from
107 million tons in 1955 to 77 million tons in 1977.
The gradual decline in this use resulted from
technological changes in the coking processes,
including increased injection of supplemental fuels
and modification of blast furnace practices. Never-
theless, it is expected that the demand for coking
coal will be reasonably steady over the near term,
2-5
TABLE 2-3
THE DEMONSTRATED RESERVE BASE OF COALS OF THE WESTERN UNITED STATES
ON JANUARY 1, 1974, BY MINING METHOD AND SULFUR CONTENT
(million tons)
STATE
MINING
MT7TTinrt
SULFUR CONTENT,
WEIGHT-PERCENT
1 i£j 1 nUU
<1.0
1
.1-3.0
>3.0
UNKNOWN
TOTAL
Alaska
Underground
4,080.8
163.2
4,246.4
Surface
7,377.8
21.0
7,399.0
Arizona
Surface
173.2
176.7
350.0
Arkansas
Underground
43.4
310.3
29.2
19.1
402.4
Surface
37.9
152.9
17.1
55.2
263.3
Colorado
Underground
6,751.3
640.0
47.3
6,547.4
13,999.2
Surface
724.2
146.2
870.0
Iowa
Underground
1.6
226.7
2
,105.9
549.2
2,884.9
Kansas
Surface
309.3
695.6
383.2
1,388.1
Missouri
Underground
134.2
3
,590.2
2,350.5
6,073.6
Surface
47.8
1
,635.8
1,730.0
3,413.7
Montana
Underground 63,464.4
1
,939.9
456.2
65,834.3
Surface
38,182.5
2
,175.4
46.4
2,166.7
42,562.0
New Mexico
Underground
1,894.4
214.1
0.8
27.5
2,136.5
Surface
1,681.1
579.4
2,258.3
North Dakota
Surface
5,389.0
10
,325.5
268.7
15.0
16,003.0
Oklahoma
Underground
154.5
238.4
202.6
264.3
860.1
Surface
120.5
88.2
38.8
186.2
434.1
Oregon
Underground
1.0
1.0
Surface
0.5
0.3
0.9
South Dakota
Surface
103.1
287.9
35.9
1.0
428.0
Texas
Surface
659.8
1
,884.7
284.1
444.0
3,271.9
Utah
Underground
1,916.2
1
,397.6
6.8
460.3
3,780.5
Surface
52.3
149.2
42.6
18.0
262.0
Washington
Underground
431.0
957.7
13.2
42.9
1,445.9
Surface
172.5
307.7
25.8
2.2
508.1
Wyoming
Underground 20,719.1
4
,535.0
1
,275.6
2,955.0
29,489.8
Surface
tmderground
13,192.9
10
,122.4
425.5
105.3
23,845.3
Total (
99,457.7
10
,757.2
7
,727.8
13,216.2
131,155.6
Surface
67,866.8
26
,774.3
3
,516.3
5,106.8
103,256.8
Grand
Total
167,324.5
37
,531.5
11
,244.1
18,323.0
234,412.4
(a)
Distribution may not add to total because of the rounding of individual
figures .
SOURCE: Reference Number 5.
2-6
TABLE 2-4
THE DEMONSTRATED RESERVE BASE OF COALS OF THE
EASTERN UNITED STATES ON JANUARY 1, 1974,
BY MINING METHOD AND SULFUR CONTENT
(million tons)
MINING
METHOD
SULFUR CONTENT, WEIGHT-PERCENT
STATE
<1.0
1.1-3.0
> 3.0
Unknown
Total
Alabama
Jnderground
589.3
1,106.7
14.8
176.2
1,887.0
Surface
35.4
83.2
1.6
1,063.2
1,183.4
Georgia
Jnderground
Surface
0.3
0.2
(b)
0.5
Illinois
Underground
1,034.7
5,848.4
33,647.6
12,908.4
53,439.1
Surface
60.4
1,493.0
9,321.3
1,347.8
12,222.5
Indiana
Underground
443.5
2,746.6
4,355.1
1,402.5
8,947.7
Surface
105.3
559.2
907.3
101.6
1,673.4
Kentucky, East
Underground
Surface
5,042.7
1,515.7
2,391.9
929.9
212.7
86.8
1,814.0
915.3
9,461.3
3,447.7
Kentucky, West
Underground
Surface
0.2
386.0
177.8
7,226.4
2,017.5
1,107.1
1,708.8
8,719.5
3,904.3
Maryland
Underground
Surface
106.5
28.6
623.9
66.6
171.2
16.2
34.6
901.6
146.0
Michigan
Underground
Surface
4.6
84.9
0.5
20.8
0.1
7.0
117.3
0.6
North Carolina
Underground
Surface
-
~
_
31.3
0.4
31.3
0.4
Ohio
Underground
115.5
5,449.9
10,109.4
1,754.1
17,428.9
Surface
18.9
991.0
2,524.9
117.9
3,652.7
Pennsylvania
Underground
Surface
7,179.7
138.6
16,195.2
718.4
3,568.1
231.5
2,864.8
89.5
29,807.8
1,178.0
Tennessee
Underground
139.3
370.0
101.4
53.9
664.6
Surface
65.5
163.2
55.2
34.1
318.0
Virginia
Underground
1,728.5
945.4
12.0
238.3
2,969.2
Surface
411.6
218.1
2.1
46.7
678.5
West Virginia
Underground
Surface
Underground
11,086.6
3,005.5
12,583.4
1,422.8
6,552.9
270.4
4,142.9
509.6
34,365.8
5,208.0
27,471.2
48,732.3
65,992.4
26,545.7
168,741.6
TOTAL
Surface
5,385.7
6,823.7
15,434.9
5,969.5
33,613.8
(a)
GRAND TOTAL v '
32,856.9
55,556.0
81,427.3
32,515.2
202,355.4
(a)
(b),
Distribution may not add to total because of the rounding of individual figures.
Undetermined .
Source: Reference Number 5.
2-7
■■ . ■ ■;■:;■ . ' ' : ■ ' .. :.\ :
l^^^^^HH
FIGURE 2-1
KNOWN RECOVERABLE COAL RESOURCE AREAS (KRCRAs)
2-8
TABLE 2-5
KRCRA COAL AND SURFACE OWNERSHIP
(Acres)
(a)
PUBLIC
DOMAIN
PUBLIC
DOMAIN
PRIVATE
SURFACE
PRIVATE
SURFACE
STATE
SURFACE
STATE
SURFACE
FOREST
SERVICE
FOREST
SERVICE
OTHER
SURFACE
OTHER
SURFACE
GRAND
REGION AND KRCRA
SURFACE
FEDERAL
COAL(b)
SURFACE
NONFEDERAL
COAL
FEDERAL
COAL
NONFEDERAL
COAL
FEDERAL
COAL
NONFEDERAL
COAL
FEDERAL
COAL
NONFEDERAL
COAL
FEDERAL
COAL(c)
CONFEDERAL
COAL
TOTAL
'ore Union Region
North Dakota KRCRAs
74,910
131,680
2,120
2,240
2,890
50,730
18,990
283,560
80,440
310,520
320
2,240
4,440
1,000
398,960
640
322,600
802,890
600
27,960
3,740
4,610
1,163,040
New England-Mott
40
186,970
346,680
160
9,040
20,650
1,280
564,820
Niobe
880
15,040
120
16,040
3,200
17,600
120
20,920
120
800
42,160
711,160
18,840
1,643,250
440
3,640
2,880
44,600
300
79,860
290
26,170
65,030
Total
2,890
2,512,370
Montana KRCRAs
Burns Creek-I3 Mile Creek
400
320
98,640
120,480
3,440
15,360
5,680
181,240
225,760
3,360
25,160
441,200
120
1,460
1,840
8,280
1,680
6,000
760
20,140
Lame Jones Creek
1,640
6,320
25,320
3,240
5,720
520
42,760
Pine Hills
1,040
6,200
10,120
600
Sidney
17,800
480
103,660
159,660
3,800
18,160
303,560
4,200
30,880
96,680
494,580
70,600
80
10,680
2,280
66,480
173,840
Total
2,260
620,220
11,720
1,280
1,238,100
Fort Union Total
31,680
2,260
1,205,740
2,263,470
14,320
111,080
2,890
91,580
27,450
3,750,470
'owder River Region
Montana KRCRAs
Powder River Basin
193,430
60
1,046,895
443,560
21,190
107,980
434,515
3,120
2,470
2,960
2,256,180
Wyoming KRCRAs
Powder River Basin
390,901
584,331
1,831
2,767,827
3,814,722
276,606
720,166
24,418
45,608
365,119
473,099
55,986
490,501
5,040
8,160
68,367
70,827
29,243
32,203
3,985,338
Powder River Total
1,891
6,241,518
ireen River-Hams Fork Region
Wyoming KRCRAs
Hanna-Carbon Basin
85,493
160
6,454
116,367
760
7,343
6,649
223,226
105,260
18,053
125,751
1,163
14,004
2,331
266,562
Rawlins
49,863
40
16,155
48,761
480
5,280
160
3,050
40
123,829
Red Deseit
453,267
640
7,834
309,076
80
12,040
880
783,817
Rock Springs
Total
430,487
1,124,370
120
960
7,739
56,235
312,905
912,860
249
2,732
18,467
57,134
4,973
17,883
774,940
160
40
2,172,374
Colorado KRCRAs
18,400
240
5,040
15,120
2,640
4,640
800
46,880
Yampa
36,970
3,640
269,300
101,675
640
40,990
2,060
640
10,965
120
467,000
Total
55,370
3,880
274,340
116,795
3,280
45,630
2,060
640
11,765
120
513,880
Green River-Hams Fork
Total
1,179,740
4,840
330,575
1,029,655
6,012
102,764
2,220
640
29,648
160
2,686,254
lintaSouthwestern Utah Region
Utah KRCRAs
Alton-Kanab
48,040
1,160
27,380
11,450
280
2,680
25,040
116,030
Book Cliffs
42,440
280
39,540
38,960
1,600
6,560
129,380
Henry Mountains
34,540
40
5,480
400
40,460
Kaiparowits Plateau
397,760
2,520
1,780
1,160
80
46,320
71,600
200
10,760
400
532,580
12,120
534,900
36,640
105,340
47,320
98,930
2,720
4,680
5,360
66,400
192,650
289,290
840
1,040
297,650
Total
3,960
11,160
400
1,116,100
a) Includes Known Recoverable Coal Resource Areas (KRCRAs) defined as of March 1978.
b) Includes BLM administered lands
c) Includes Bankhead-Jones acquired lands, Federal withdrawn lands, and Indian lands.
2-9
TABLE 2-5
(Concluded)
KRCRA COAL AND SURFACE OWNERSHIP
(Acres)
(a)
REGION AND KRCRA
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
DOMAIN
DOMAIN
SURFACE
SURFACE
FEDERAL
NONFEDERAL
COAL(b)
COAL
PRIVATE
PRIVATE
STATE
STATE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE
FEDERAL
NONFEDERAL
FEDERAL
NONFEDERAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
COAL
FOREST
FOREST
SERVICE
SERVICE
SURFACE
SURFACE
FEDERAL
NONFEDERAL
COAL
COAL
OTHER
OTHER
SURFACE
SURFACE
GRAND
FEDERAL
NONFEDERAL
TOTAL
COAL(c)
COAL
Uinta-SW Utah (Continued)
Colorado KRCRAs
Danforth Hills 46,850
Lower White River 152,320
Paonia-Somerset 31,560
,560 101,230 16,970
40 13,200 4,700
80 65,640 22,690
Total
230,730
2,680
180,070
44,360
Uinta Total
765,630
6,640
285,410
143,290
San Juan River Region
New Mexico KRCRAs
La Ventana
172,840
3,420
39,380
8,200
San Juan
1
007,140
23,500
165,200
89,940
Tsaya
1
5,320
185,300
40
204,620
240
Total
26,920
98,380
Colorado KRCRAs
Cimaroon Ridge
3,120
10,400
4,920
Durango
27,750
120
58,150
70,680
East Cortez
1,720
400
6,160
Nucla
1,880
3,080
Total
34,470
120
68,950
84,840
San Juan River Total
1
219,770
27,040
273,570
183,220
Denver-Raton Mesa Region
Colorado KRCRAs
Denver Basin
94,800
348,980
Denver-Raton Mesa
Total
94,800
348,980
TOTAL - ALL WESTERN
3
781,151
42,671
6,004,817
4,688,781
REGIONS
Southern Appalachian Region
Alabama KRCRAs-
North Central Alabama
TOTAL - ALL EASTERN
REGIONS
520,088
4,350
3,840
94,980
8,190 94,980
4,680 74,590 384,270
1,200
4,960 16,240
19,320 115,960 7,040
6,200
7,040
24,280 138,400
2,000
2,910 20,780 53,610
1,440
2,910 22,220 55,610
27,190 160,620 62,650
28,560
1,200 28,560
99,010 950,713 942,531
1,040
3,140
3,140
640
2,920
600
4,160
15,320
640
400
172,600
177,020
215,550
565,170
1,681,270
58,000 22,800 325,840
331,980 75,280 1,835,360
39,420 34,300 85,520
429,400
132,380
2
,246,720
80
20,520
480
1,120
238,740
9,720
120
5,080
680
1,120
274,060
430,080
133,500
2
520,780
474,18
640 474,180
12,980 638,105 193,713 17,354,472
2,676
Source: Reference Number 4.
2-10
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
with relatively small further declines resulting from
technological changes.
Industrial uses, other than electric power
generation, include coal used for general manufac-
turing and mining and for cement, steel, and
rolling mills. Industrial coal consumption has
declined from approximately 270 million tons in
1945 to 60 million tons in 1977.
As recently as 1943, coal contributed more
than 50 percent of the Nation's total energy. By
1977, it contributed only 18 percent. Except for
coke ovens, the declines in the U.S. domestic coal
markets following World War II resulted primarily
from the rapid takeover of these markets by oil and
natural gas. These fuels were cheap, easy to
handle, and relatively clean, and thus provided a
competition that coal was unable to meet. Table 2-
6 shows the historical pattern of decline of coal in
these markets.
Compensating considerably for the loss or
decline of all but one of its historical markets, and
its exclusion from new markets by the rise of oil
and gas consumption, has been the rapid growth in
the use of coal for electric power generation. As
recently as 1950, less than 100 million tons of coal
were burned by utilities. By 1977, use of coal for
electric power generation reached 475 million tons
(producing 47 percent of the Nations's total
electric power) and is expected to constitute the
major source of future increases in coal use.
The growth since World War II of coal exports
has provided additional coal markets, particularly
for coals of metallurgical quality. In 1957, during
the Suez Crisis, exports reached more than 76
million tons. In recent years, exports generally
have been in the mid-50 million ton level, but rose
to over 65 million tons in 1975.
2.4 THE GROWTH IN WESTERN AND
FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION
Before 1972, coal production in the six western
Federal coal States (Colorado, Montana, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming)
never exceeded 40 million tons or seven percent of
national production. In 1962, as shown in Table 2-
7, these states produced only 14 million tons, or 3.3
percent of national coal production. Production
from all western coal regions was still far lower in
1976 than their proportionate share of the Nation's
coal reserves, as seen in Figure 2-2.
Production of Federal coal has been even more
minimal. Although in the six western Federal coal
states more than 70 percent of the coal is Federally
owned, in 1972 the amount of Federal coal
produced was only 9 million tons or 20 percent of
the six states' total production.
This situation has been changing rapidly. Total
western production - including that of Texas,
Arizona, and the Western Interior Coal Region -
reached 165.4 million tons, or 24 percent of
national production in 1977 (see Table 2-8). Coal
production from the six western Federal coal states
was 118.4 million tons in 1977, up from 39.3
million tons in 1971 (see Table 2-7). Production of
Federal coal has also been rising rapidly. In 1977,
as shown in Table 2-9, Federal coal production in
the six western states rose to 51.9 million tons, a
five-fold increase over 1971.
As seen in Table 2-9, Wyoming was the leading
Federal coal producing state as of 1977. Produc-
tion of Federal coal in Wyoming grew from only
five million tons in 1973 to 28.3 million tons in
1977. Federal coal production in Montana has also
grown rapidly, from 1.9 million tons in 1973 to 10.5
million tons in 1977. Almost all the recent growth
in Federal coal production in Montana and a large
share of it in Wyoming has been from the Powder
River Coal Region.
The increasing production of western and
Federal coal is attributable to two key factors. The
most important is the sharp rise in the price of oil
and natural gas, which has made these fuels less
economical to use in new utility boilers. Many new
western power plants are coal burning, and are
using coal mined in the West. In addition, some
western plants now burning oil or gas are convert-
ing to coal, and this coal is obtained from the
western coal regions.
In the East, there is a much greater traditional
use of coal for power generation. Because trans-
portation is a substantial portion of the overall cost
of coal, eastern power plants traditionally used
eastern coal. The economics of eastern power
generation were significantly altered, however, by
air quality control regulations under the 1970
Clean Air Act Amendments, particularly with
respect to sulfur dioxide emissions. Emission
standards were set for new plants which were low
enough to prohibit use of most eastern coal unless
utilities invested in pollution control equipment,
but high enough to permit most western coal,
2-11
TABLE 2-6
CONSUMPTION AND EXPORTS OF BITUMINOUS COAL AND LIGNITE
BY CONSUMER CLASS IN SELECTED YEARS 1933-1977 (a)
(thousand short tons)
STEEL
MANU-
BUNKER
ELECTRIC
AND
RAIL-
FACTURING
TOTAL
RETAIL
FOREIGN
POWER
COKE
ROLLING
ROADS
AND
INDUS-
DEALER
& LAKE
TOTAL
GRAND
YEAR
1933
UTILITIES
27,088
PLANTS
40,089
MILLS
14,129
CLASS II
72,548
MINING (c)
84,137
TRIAL
DELIVERIES
VESSEL
U.S.
EXPORTS
TOTAL (b)
170,814
77,396
2,298
317,685
9,037
326,722
1935
30,936
50,515
16,585
77,109
98,054
191,748
80,444
2,683
356,326
9,742
366,068
1940
49,126
81,386
14,169
85,130
113,423
212,722
84,687
2,989
430,910
16,466
447,376
1945
71,603
95,349
14,241
125,120
130,765
270,096
119,297
3,192
559,567
27,956
587,523
1947
86,009
104,800
14,195
109,296
131,847
255,338
96,657
3,087
545,891
68,667
614,558
1950
88,262
103,845
10,877
60,969
103,785
175,631
84,422
2,042
454,202
25,468
479,670
k;
1955
140,550
107,377
7,353
15,473
98,140
120,966
53,020
1,499
423,412
51,277
474,689
1
H
1960
173,882
81,015
7,378
2,101
84,703
94,182
30,405
945
380,429
36,541
416,970
ro
1965
242,729
94,779
7,466
-
94, 487 (c
)101,953
19,048
655
459,164
50,181
509,345
1970
318,921
96,009
5,410
-
82,909
888,319
12,072
298
515,619
70,944
586,563
1973
386,879
93,634
6,356
-
60,837
67,193
8,200
116
556,022
52,870
608,892
1975
403,249
83,272
2,715
-
59,759
62,474
7,282
24
556,301
65,669
621,970
1976
447,021
84,324
2,743
-
57,750
60,493
6,900
12
598,750
59,406
678,685
1977(d)
474,818
77,380
3,243
™*
57,146
60,389
7,020
9
619,616
53,687
673,303
(a) Sources: Reference Numbers 6 ar.d 7.
(b) Differences between the total of consumption plus exports and total production accounted for
principally by coal in transit between mines and consumer facilities and coal put into stockpiles.
(c) Includes cement mills, all years, and railroad fuel after I960.
(d) Preliminary
l> **'- * : ~ J *hii
TABLE 2-7
COAL PRODUCTION FROM FEDERAL LANDS IN THE SIX MAJOR COAL-PRODUCING STATES
OF THE WEST IN SELECTED YEARS, 1957-1977,
AND COMPARISONS WITH TOTAL U.S. AND TOTAL STATE PRODUCTION
(tons in millions)
TOTAL U.
S. PRODUCTION
(a)
TOTAL PRODUCTION SIX WESTERN STATES
FEDERAL LANDS, SIX
WESTERN STATES
(b)
YEAR
SURFACE
UNDER-
GROUND
TOTAL
SURFACE
UNDER-
GROUND
TOTAL
PERCENT
OF U.S.
SURFACE
UNDER-
GROUND
TOTAL
PERCENT OF
WESTERN
PERCENT
OF U.S.
1957
132.1
360.6
492.7
4.6
11.1
15.7
3.2
n.a.
n.a.
4.4
28.0
0.9
1960
130.6
284.9
415.5
5.1
8.5
13.6
3.3
n.a.
n.a.
5.4
39.7
1.3
1962
140.8
281.3
422.1
6.3
7.7
14.0
3.3
n.a.
n.a.
4.9
35.0
1.2
1965
179.4
332.7
512.1
10.3
9.1
19.4
3.8
n.a.
n.a.
5.9
30.4
1.2
K>
1967
203.5
349.1
552.6
12.6
8.6
21.2
3.8
n.a.
n.a.
6.5
30.7
1.2
1
I- 1
00
1971
276.3
275.9
552.2
30.2
9.1
39.3
7.1
n.a.
n.a.
10.1
25.7
1.8
1972
291.3
304.1
595.4
35.0
9.3
44.3
7.4
n.a.
n.a.
8.8
19.9
1.5
1973
292.3
299.4
591.7
43.0
10.0
53.0
9.0
n.a.
n.a.
12.9
24.3
2.2
1974
326.1
277.3
603.4
53.9
10.2
64.1
10.8
n.a.
n.a.
21.5
33.5
3.6
1975
355.6
292.8
648.4
66.9
11.4
78.3
12.1
n.a.
n.a.
31.0
39.6
4.8
1976
383.9
294.8
678.7
82.8
12.5
95.3
14.0
31.7
6.3
38.0
40.2
5.6
1977< c >
416.9
271.6
688.6
105.4
13.4
118.4
17.2
44.0
7.6
51.9
43.8
7.5
(a)Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
(b)Total production from Federal lands is for "calendar" years covered; there are differences in some years from other
reference data where the latter cover "fiscal" years, i.e., 4.2, 4.9, 9.1 and 10.2 million tons, respectively, in
1960, 1965, 1971, and 1972.
(c)Preliminary
Sources: Reference Numbers 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10.
OTHER
U.S.
I
*-
WESTERN
INTERIOR
TEXAS
DISTRIBUTION OF COAL RESERVE BASE
SOURCE: Table 2-1
DENVER-RATON MESA
UINTA
SAN JUAN
FORT UNION
GREEN RIVER-
HAMS FORK
WESTERN
INTERIOR
TEXAS
POWDER RIVER
GREEN RIVER
HAMS FORK
OTHER U.S.
DENVER-RATON MESA
UINTA
SAN JUAN
FORT UNION
DISTRIBUTION OF COAL PRODUCTION (1976)
FIGURE 2-2
DISTRIBUTION OF THE COAL RESERVE BASE AND OF 197 6 PRODUCTION
TABLE 2-8
COAL PRODUCTION FROM ALL LANDS IN SELECTED YEARS
1957-1977 BY STATES
Cthousand tons)
1957
1962
1967
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977(a)
Six Major States:
Colorado
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
3,594
3,379
5,439
5,552
6,233
6,896
8,219
9,437
11,920
Montana
413
382
371
8,221
10,725
14,106
22,054
26,231
29,320
New Mexico
137
677
3,463
8,248
9,069
9,392
8,785
9,760
11,255
N. Dakota
2,561
2,733
4,156
6,632
6,906
7,463
8,515
11,102
12,165
Utah
6,858
4,297
4,175
4,802
5,500
5,858
6,961
7,967
9,240
Wyoming
2,117
2,569
3,588
10,928
14,886
20,703
23,804
30,836
44,500
Sub-total
15,680
14,037
21,192
44,353
53,319
64,418
78,338
95,333
118,400
Other West:
Arizona
_
_
1,000
2,954
3,247
6,448
6,986
10,420
11,475
Arkansas
508
256
189
428
434
455
488
534
570
Iowa
1,312
1,130
883
851
601
590
622
616
525
Kansas
749
915
1,136
1,227
1,086
718
479
590
630
NO
1
Missouri
2,976
2,896
3,696
4,551
4,658
4,623
5,638
6,075
6,625
Oklahoma
2,195
1,048
823
2,624
2,183
2,356
2,872
3,635
5,345
H
Washington
360
235
59
2,634
3,270
3,913
3,743
4,109
5,055
Texas
Total Other West
-
18
6,498
5
7,791
-
6,944
22,423
7,684
26,787
11,002
31,830
14,063
40,042
16,765
46,990
8,100
15,269
Total West
23,780
20,535
28,983
59,622
75,742
91,205
110,168
135,375
165,390
Eastern States:
Alabama
13,260
12,880
15,300
20,814
19,230
19,824
22,644
21,537
21,220
Illinois
46,993
48,487
65,200
65,523
61,572
58,215
59,537
58,239
53,880
Indiana
15,841
15,709
18,800
25,949
25,253
23,726
25,124
25,369
27,995
Kentucky
74,667
69,212
99,500
121,187
127,645
137,775
143,613
143,972
142,945
Maryland
748
821
1,250
1,640
1,789
2,337
2,606
2,830
3,290
Ohio
36,862
34,125
45,800
50,967
45,783
45,409
46,770
46,582
46,205
Pennsylvania
85,365
65,315
79,400
75,939
76,403
80,462
84,137
85,777
83,225
Tennessee
7,955
6,213
6,750
11,260
8,219
7,541
11,002
9,283
10,320
Virginia
29,506
29,474
37,900
34,028
33,961
34,326
35,510
39,996
37,850
West Virginia
156,842
118,499
152,500
123,743
115,448
102,462
109,283
108,834
95,405
Total East
468,035
400,735
522,400
531,050
515,303
512,077
540,226
542,419
522,335
Grand Total U.S.
491,815
421,270
551,383
590,672
591,045
603,282
650,394
677,794
687,725
(a)
Preliminary
Source: Reference Number 5.
TABLE 2-9
COAL PRODUCTION FROM FEDERAL LANDS IN SELECTED YEARS
1957-1977 BY STATES
(thousand tons)
1957
1962
1967
19 72
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977(a)
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
Six Major States:
Colorado
531
500
2,030
2,386
1,746
2,300
1,600
2,650
4,020
Montana
26
156
115
82
1,940
4,500
9,700
10,500
10,460
New Mexico
34
104
27
206
260
1,000
1,300
1,290
2,340
N. Dakota
412
366
590
1,361
1,535
1,000
300
770
750
Utah
2,957
2,723
1,649
1,980
2,416
3,200
3,800
4,900
5,800
Wyoming
442
1,029
2,112
2,809
4,991
9,500
14,300
17,960
28,290
Sub-total
4,402
4,878
6,523
8,824
12,888
21,500
31,000
38,070
51,660
Other West:
Arizona
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
_
_
to
Arkansas
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
Iowa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
(^
Kansas
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Missouri
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oklahoma
420
249
144
410
337
-
-
300
240
Washington
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Texas
Total Other West
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
420
249
144
410
337
-
-
300
240
Total West
4,822
5,127
6,667
9,234
13,225
21,500
31,000
38,370
51,900
Total East
Grand Total U.S.
764
842
5,969
510
7,177
988
367
-
-
250
250
5,586
10,222
13,592
-
-
38,620
52,150
(a)
Preliminary
Source : Reference
Number 5 .
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
which is lower in sulfur content, to be burned
without the installation of control equipment. For
many eastern and mid-western utilities, the added
cost of building a scrubber was large enough that
they preferred to substitute western coal even if its
energy content was lower and transportation costs
were relatively high. Greater ease of passing
increased fuel costs through to customers may also
have played a part in this utility preference.
Changes in the emission standards for new
power plants are required by the 1977 Clean Air
Act Amendments. These new standards are ex-
pected to reduce substantially the amount of sulfur
which can be emitted. Most western coal, like most
coal from the East and Midwest, contains enough
sulfur to require that new coal-burning power
plants use pollution control equipment to meet the
expected new standards. The stricter air quality
standards will diminish the economic advantage of
western coal over eastern and midwestern coal,
and will result in power companies in the East and
Midwest using more coal from their own regions
instead of transporting coal from the West.
However, since power plants coming on line before
1983 will largely be using the old air quality
standards, it will be some time before the new
standards affect western production. Overall de-
mand for western coal will not be greatly affected
by the new air quality standards, because most
new demand for western coal will be from power
plants and industries in the West. The growth in
coal demand is expected to be higher in the West
than in any other region of the country. An EPA
computer analysis of alternative new source
performance standards (published in 43 Federal
Register No. 237, December 8,1978) indicated that
new tighter controls would decrease western coal
production by two to five percent, depending on
the final standard selected.
Western coal is used mainly for electric power
generation, with small amounts used for metallur-
gical and other purposes. Proportionately some-
what greater amounts of eastern coal are used for
metallurgical and other purposes than power
generation. The use of western and eastern coal by
consumer classification is shown in Table 2-10.
In the eastern United States, the Federal
government owns the coal rights to 916 thousand
acres. Much of this coal lies within national forests.
Around three percent of the coal in Alabama is
Federally owned. A significant amount of this coal
is interspersed with non-Federal coal and also has
non-Federal surface ownership.
Historically, production of Federal coal in the
East has never exceeded one million tons per year.
In 1977, total eastern production of Federal coal
was only 250 thousand tons. However, there is a
growing interest in developing Federal coal in the
East, especially in Alabama where it could supply
metallurgical needs.
2.5 TRENDS IN OTHER SOURCES OF
ENERGY
Historically, the United States was able to
supply its oil and gas needs largely from domestic
sources. However, it now appears that, although
world oil and gas supplies might be adequate for
some time, continued reliance on these fuels will
leave the United States very heavily dependent on
foreign nations for its basic energy requirements.
The undesirable national security, economic, and
other implications of such heavy dependence on
foreign energy sources have forced a major
national reassessment of future energy directions.
2.5.1 Oil Production Trends
The production of oil in the United States
peaked in 1970 and, despite the stimulus of sharply
increased prices over the past five years, there has
been a continuing domestic production decline. As
shown in Table 2-11, the decline in domestic
production had to be offset by a large increase in
oil imports to meet rising demand. Although
overall demand dropped in 1974 and 1975, it again
increased in the past two years.
The domestic production decline has been
matched by a comparable decline in proven
reserves. The discovery of the nearly 10-billion
barrel Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska gave a large
boost to reserves in the late 1960's. But, by 1975,
U.S. crude oil reserves had fallen to a level largely
equivalent to the level 10 years earlier (see Table 2-
12). Reserves have continued to drop despite the
large increase in the number of wells drilled. There
were 44,982 completed wells in 1977, the highest
level since 1960 [11,30,31].
Sustaining the existing level of domestic oil
production will not be easy. At current production
rates, more than 25 billion barrels of oil will have
to be discovered by 1985 to keep the re-
serves/production ratio from dropping further.
While new discoveries are continually being made,
2-17
TABLE 2-10
COAL SHIPMENTS FROM SELECTED WESTERN
AND EASTERN STATES IN 1976 BY CONSUMER CLASSIFICATIONS
(thousands of short tons)
ELECTRIC
RETAIL
POWER
COKE
DEALER
UTILITIES
PLANTS
DELIVERIES
OTHER
TOTAL
Western States:
Arizona
10,258
(a)
(a)
102
10,360
Colorado
5,984
2,583
31
806
9,404
Montana
26,038
(a)
(a)
397
26,435
New Mexico
8,516
858
(a)
345
9,719
North Dakota
10,257
(a)
86
748
11,091
Oklahoma
2,497
491
4
319
3,311
Utah
3,915
1,453
243
1,785
7,396
Washington
4,087
(a)
(a)
24
4,111
Wyoming
28,282
(a)
109
2,761
31,152
Subtotal
99,834
5,385
473
7,287
112,979
Eastern States:
«
Illinois
48,385
3,231
5,970
653
58,239
Indiana
21,865
3,333
170
25,368
Ohio
40,854
4,369
1,290
46,513
(a)
Other Eastern States:
248,714
77,604
33,868
52,230
412,416
Subtotal
359,818
80,835
47,540
54,343
542,536
Grand Total
459,652
86,220
48,013
61,630
655,515
(a) Shipments not published on State basis for these states.
2-18
TABLE 2-11
U.S. PETROLEUM SUPPLY AND DEMAND
(thousands of barrels per day)
YEAR
PRODUCTION
(a)
IMPORTS
(b)
DEMAND
(c)
1965
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
(d)
9014
11297
11156
11185
10946
10462
10007
9736
9834
2467
3419
3925
4741
6256
6112
6056
7312
8708
11709
14968
15449
16602
17552
16886
16545
17698
18666
(a) Crude oil, lease condensate and natural gas liquids
(b) Crude oil and refined products
(c) May not add up due to losses, changes in stock, and exports
(d) Preliminary
Source: Reference Number 7,
2-19
TABLE 2-12
U.S. PROVEN RESERVES OF CRUDE OIL
(billions of barrels)
YEAR END
RESERVES
1965
31.3
1970
39.0
1971
38.0
1972
36.3
1973
35.3
1974
34.2
1975
32.6
1976
30.9
1977
29.5
RATIO
RESERVES /PRODUCTION
9.5
9.5
9.3
8.9
8.8
8.9
8.9
8.7
8.2
Source: Reference Number 11,
2-20
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
they are more difficult and expensive to produce as
the easier finds are exhausted. The greatest
potential for new finds appears to be in costly
offshore areas. Recent discoveries also suggest that
the Overthrust Belt in the Rocky Mountains may
contain major oil reserves.
Stable or declining domestic oil production
would have fundamental national security and
economic implications. The U.S. payments for
foreign oil imports rose from $2.0 billion in 1965 to
$41.8 billion in 1977 (see Table 2-13). These
payments were a principal factor in the U.S.
foreign trade deficit in 1977 of $26.5 billion and
the international decline in the value of the dollar.
Projections of future oil imports indicate that U.S.
payments for foreign oil could be as high as $60
billion by 1985 [11, 30,31].
The huge Mexican oil and gas reserves offer
the opportunity to widen the number of nations
from which the United States imports oil and to
reduce supply instability. The use of Mexican oil
and gas of course will not solve balance of
payments problems.
The effect of increased coal production, even
of modest magnitude, will be significant in terms
of reducing dependence on imported oil. By
increasing coal production from the 1976 level of
679 million tons to a 1985 production level of 1.2
billion tons as proposed in the President's Energy
Plan [12], the importing of around 2.4 million
barrels of oil a day, or 803 million barrels a year
could be avoided. This would result in reductions
in import payments of more than $10 billion.
The problems of dependence on foreign oil
supplies have been underscored by recent instabili-
ty in Iran and the Middle East generally. Future
oil supplies are reduced and prices appear uncer-
tain at this time. If future supplies are reduced and
oil prices rise substantially, it may prove necessary
to call upon domestic coal production for an even
larger energy role than has been expected.
2.5.2 Natural Gas Production Trends
The pattern of domestic production of natural
gas has closely followed that of crude oil. Natural
gas output peaked in 1973 and has since declined.
The proven reserves of natural gas have declined
since the mid-1960's, as shown in Table 2-14.
Unlike petroleum, natural gas imports amounted
to only about five percent of total U.S. consump-
tion in 1977 and have not made up for domestic
production declines. Falling gas supplies have
caused gas distributors to curtail and/or interrupt
deliveries to industrial customers, restrict the hook-
up of new residential and commercial accounts,
and limit boiler fuel usage.
The extent to which natural gas will be
available to meet future energy requirements is
very uncertain at this time. Large foreign supplies
of natural gas may be obtained from Mexico or
could be transported in liquified form from more
distant foreign supply areas. Major Canadian gas
discoveries have recently been made in Alberta.
Domestically, Alaskan gas could provide substan-
tial supplies or exploration on the outer continen-
tal shelf might result in discovery of significant
amounts of gas. The recently enacted Natural Gas
Policy Act of 1978 aims to stimulate greater
production of domestic gas supplies by raising the
regulated price and providing for deregulation by
1985. In the short term, the act's most significant
consequence has been to abolish the price differen-
tial between interstate and intrastate gas. This has
resulted in an unexpected increase in the supply of
gas which at least temporarily is likely to delay
some industrial and utility conversions to coal.
The conversion of coal into synthetic gas is
expected to have considerable importance at some
time in the future. However, high costs and
uncertain technology make it unlikely that large
supplies of synthetic gas could be produced before
the 1990's [7,30,32].
2.53 Nuclear Power Trends
Nuclear power plants produced 1 1.8 percent of
the Nation's electric power in 1977. At that time
there were 68 nuclear power plants in operation or
in the startup phase with a total capacity of more
than 49,000 megawatts. As shown in Table 2-15,
154 other nuclear plants with a total design
capacity of 172,000 megawatts were being built, on
order, or announced. If all these plants were to be
in operation by 1990, they would provide as much
as 27 percent of expected national power require-
ments.
Nuclear plants are currently cost competitive
with coal plants and rapid expansion of nuclear
power generation could significantly diminish
future coal requirements. In recent years, however,
the expected growth rate of nuclear energy has
been sharply reduced by a number of concerns
about its cost and safety. Safety concerns have
2-21
TABLE 2-13
VALUE OF CRUDE OIL/PETROLEUM PRODUCT IMPORTS, 1965 TO 1977
(millions of current dollars)
YEAR
CRUDE OIL
1965
$1,120
1970
1,260
1971
1,687
1972
2,369
1973
4,240
1974
15,253
1975
18,290
1976
25,456
1977 (a)
33,398
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS TOTAL
$ 924 $2,044
1,483 2,743
1,656 3,343
1,989 4,358
3,498 7,738
11,013 26,266
6,768 25,058
6,646 32,102
8,413 41,811
(a)
' Preliminary
Source: Reference Number 7.
2-22
TABLE 2-14
U.S. PROVEN RESERVES OF NATURAL GAS
(trillion cubic feet)
YEAR
Source: Reference Number 11.
RESERVES
1965 286.5
1970 290.7
1971 278.8
1972 266.1
1973 250.0
1974 237.1
1975 228.2
1976 216.0
1977 208.9
2-23
TABLE . 2-15
STATUS OF NUCLEAR POWERPLANTS, END OP 1977
CAPACITY
STATUS NUMBER (Megawatts)
Order Placed for Plant 13
Source: Reference Number 7.
2-24
In Operation or Startup 68 .49 000
Construction Permit Granted 80 87 000
Construction Started (67) (73 000)
No Construction (13) (14,000)
Construction Permit Pending 52 58 000
16,000
Announced 9 ii qqq
222 221,000
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
involved questions of nuclear proliferation, radia-
tion hazards, spent-fuel storage, and radioactive
waste management [7,29,33].
2.5.4. Hydroelectric Power Trends
Hydroelectric plants in 1977 accounted for
68,300 megawatts, or 12 percent of the total
installed electrical generating capacity of the
United States. This was about 25 percent less than
in 1974 and 1975, due primarily to drought
conditions in many western states. In the 1930's
and 1940's, hydroelectric power provided as much
as 30 percent of total domestic electricity needs.
Although hydroelectric power is relatively safe,
nonpolluting, low in cost, and does not consume
fuels, its expansion in recent years has been limited
by the lack of good new sites and opposition on
environmental and cost grounds. The possibilities
for expanding capacity at existing dams and for
development of hydroelectric facilities on smaller
rivers and streams for more local use are being
investigated [7,34].
2.5.5 Nontraditional Energy Sources
Although a number of nontraditional energy
sources are under active investigation, these efforts
are still mostly in their infancy and these sources
are not expected to make a significant contribution
to energy supplies by 1990. These sources are
briefly described below.
2.5.5.1. Unconventional Sources of Gas. There are
four types of gas resources receiving the greatest
current attention. The first is gas in geopressured
zones of the Gulf Coast in the form of methane-
rich waters at depths below 10,000 feet. Although
estimated to encompass a vast resource base (3,000
to 50,000 trillion cubic feet), there are numerous
technical and environmental problems to be
resolved before gas from this resource can be
developed [7,36]. The second is gas in "tight"
(impermeable) sandstone formations in the Rocky
Mountain States. Again, the resource is consider-
able but the recovery technology has yet to be
developed. Gas is also found in Devonian Shales
of the Appalachian States. This gas is currently
being produced in local areas and efforts are
underway to enhance production. Finally, recov-
ery of methane from coal seams in advance of
mining operations is technologically possible.
Production of this resource would improve mine
safety and make a regionally important impact on
gas supply availability [7,37]. Uncertainty about
legal ownership of coal seam methane and the
right to produce it are currently inhibiting its
production.
2.5.5.2 Oil Shale. High grade deposits of oil shale,
located primarily in Colorado, Utah, and Wyom-
ing, may contain as much as 600 billion barrels of
oil, and lower grade deposits may contain an
additional 1.2 trillion barrels. Given favorable
economic conditions, as much as 80 billion total
barrels of shale oil could be extracted from this
resource. A number of optimistic production
forecasts were made in the 1973-74 period; it soon
became evident, however, that production costs
would be much higher than originally expected.
Unless there are breakthroughs in technology,
shale oil is not expected to be competitive with oil
and gas until their prices rise considerably above
current levels. Even then, shale development might
not be competitive because historically increases in
prices have tended to lag behind increases in cost
[7,38].
In 1974, the Interior Department awarded four
competitive oil shale leases. Construction of in situ
experimental systems is now proceeding on two
leases in western Colorado.
2.5.5.3 Tar Sands. Although found in at least nine
states, the largest known resource of bitumen-
bearing rocks (tar sands) is located in Utah,
encompassing a resource base roughly equivalent
to 28 billion barrels of oil. Because of various
constraints and high extractive costs, significant
production from this resource is not expected in
the United States in the near future [7]. There are
much better prospects, however, for development
of the major oil sand resources in the Canadian
province of Alberta.
2.5.5.4 Alcohol Fuel Uses. Alcohol fuels include
methanol and ethanol. Most methanol traditional-
ly comes from natural gas. However, methanol can
also be produced from coal or biomass sources.
Ethanol can be produced by the direct hydra-
tion of ethylene gas and by the process of
fermentation and distillation using various agricul-
tural products such as grain or molasses as feed
stock. Ethanol fuel may be a way to effectively use
extensive food and grain surpluses in the United
States and Canada.
2-25
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
Satisfactory engine operation is possible on
existing automobiles that are fueled with up to 15
percent methanol or ethanol gasoline blends and
require no carburetor readjustment. Also, the
present automobile engine can be retrofitted to run
successfully on 100 percent methanol. Brazil has
been producing ethanol from excess sugar and is
using ethanol gasoline blends as an automobile
fuel. However, there is a great deal of uncertainty
about the prospects for a nationwide alcohol-
gasoline fuel system based on alcohols derived
from biomass resources. The principle disadvan-
tages of alcohols are their toxicity, with ethanol
being the least toxic. Methanol vapors are more
toxic than gasoline vapors. Other methanol disad-
vantages are its poor cold start capability, alde-
hyde emissions, and a lower heat of combustion.
An advantage to the use of alcohols in gasoline
relates to fuel octane rating. When added to
gasoline, both methanol and ethanol boost the
octane value of the original gasoline in much the
same way as tetra-ethyl lead and no-lead additives
in gasoline [21].
2.5.5.5 Geothermal Energy. While it constitutes an
enormous potential resource base, the heat of the
earth has so far seen limited use as an energy
source. Natural hot dry steam at Geysers, Califor-
nia, is the fuel source for a series of plants
generating 520-megawatts of electricity. Hot water
in Oregon, Idaho, and other western states has
been used for local space heating purposes. Other
plans are currently being developed to employ hot
waters for power production in certain western
states and Hawaii and for space heating in several
eastern states. However, there is still a great deal of
uncertainty about reservoir longevity, since these
hot waters are essentially nonrenewable. This
feature, combined with technological difficulties
and problems of corrosion, has tended to discour-
age private investment thus far [7,29,39].
2.5.5.6 Solar Energy. The basic solar energy
categories are solar heating and cooling of build-
ings, agricultural and industrial process heat, wind
energy conversion, photovoltaic conversion, solar
thermal conversion, and biomass. Solar heating
and cooling, agricultural and industrial process
heat, wind energy, and biomass appear to have
potential for significant uses between now and
1990. Technologies need to be developed further
for other solar energy sources to attain a reason-
ably competitive level. On an overall basis, solar
energy is not expected to contribute more than one
to two percent of the total water and space heating
energy requirements by 1990. Its impact is more
likely to be felt in the period between 2000 and
2020, when forecasts suggest that as much as 10
percent of U.S. energy needs could be met by solar
sources. Technological breakthroughs, major sub-
sidy programs, or other developments could cause
the earlier use of this resource [7, 29].
2.5.5.7 Energy from the Ocean. The renewable
energy sources from the ocean include the follow-
ing:
» Ocean thermal energy conversion - based
on harnessing the thermal differences of at
least 17°C between warm surface water and
cold deep sea water (found primarily
between the Tropics of Cancer and Capri-
corn).
© Tidal energy conversion - plants proposed
for two potential sites in the United States,
one in Maine at the Bay of Fundy and the
second in Cook Inlet, Alaska. The maxi-
mum total capacity of these plants would
be 3,600 megawatts and the annual energy
output would represent about 1 percent of
the electricity produced in the United
States.
® Other ocean energy forms that have been
the subject of limited study are wave
energy, ocean current energy, ocean wind
energy, and salinity gradient energy conver-
sion [7, 29].
These sources are not expected to provide signifi-
cant amounts of energy until the 2000-2020 period
at the earliest.
2.5.5.8 Nuclear Fusion. Since it would use low cost,
inexhaustible fuels, nuclear fusion is generally
considered environmentally more desirable than
nuclear fission plants. Although the feasibility of
key design principles was recently verified in an
important experiment at Princeton University,
there are major engineering problems to be
overcome before nuclear fusion is a reality. Even if
problems are successfully resolved, nuclear fusion
cannot be expected to make a major contribution
for probably another 50 years [7,35].
2-26.
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
2.5.6 Energy Conservation
There are significant possibilities for reducing
energy needs through conservation. In many cases,
conservation measures might well be more cost
effective than development of new energy sources.
The National Energy Plan formally proposed
by President Carter in 1977 [12] called for
measures such as wellhead taxes on crude oil,
phased deregulation of natural gas prices, taxes on
industrial use of oil and gas, and selected electric-
ity rate policies, all of which were designed at least
in part to dampen and discourage wasteful energy
consumption practices. Residential conservation
possibilities include weatherization of homes, use
of more efficient appliances, and installation of
heat pumps. Transportation energy use could be
reduced by improvements in operating procedures,
new equipment, pumping technologies, and modi-
fications of motor vehicle engine propulsion
systems. Possible areas of savings in the industrial
sector include waste heat utilization, industrial
waste application and process changes.
The various conservation measures could have
a substantial impact on energy consumption,
reducing it by perhaps as much as 10 percent by
1990 if there are major technology advances.
Whether such large scale energy savings will be
achieved through conservation efforts still remains,
however, an open question [7, 40].
2.6 EXPECTED FUTURE COAL USE
While the precise rate is in considerable doubt,
there is little question that the Nation's overall
energy requirements will continue to grow. There
is little likelihood of supplying that growth from
domestic oil and natural gas (see discussion in
Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2). New technologies and
energy forms are still unproven, and cannot be
relied on over the next decade or so. Nuclear
power could supply large amounts of additional
energy, but for the time being its growth is
inhibited by concerns about its safety. Given these
circumstances, in the next decade the United
States will be forced to address the problem of
growing energy demands largely through a combi-
nation of three basic types of actions: (1) expand
use of coal as a domestic energy source; (2) obtain
increased foreign supplies of oil and gas; and (3)
curb demands by greater energy conservation
measures.
2.6.1 Coal in the National Energy Plan
The role of coal in the President's April 1977
National Energy Plan [12] was previously dis-
cussed in Section 1.4.1. The National Energy Plan
included a reduction in the expected level of
imports of foreign oil as a prime objective. It
proposed to reduce foreign imports from a project-
ed level of 11.5 million barrels per day in 1985
without the plan, to 7.0 million barrels per day
with the plan. This reduction was to be achieved
by adoption of additional conservation measures
(2.1 million barrels per day of oil saved) and by
increased substitution of coal for oil and gas (2.4
million barrels per day).
Under the National Energy Plan, total coal
production was expected to rise from 679 million
tons per year in 1976 to 1.26 billion tons per year
in 1985. This would represent an increase in coal
production of about 200 million tons per year more
than would have been expected without the plan.
2.6.2 Department of Energy Coal Projections
Projections of future energy production and
consumption are based on many assumptions.
Inevitably, these assumptions change, sometimes
rapidly. Accordingly, it is necessary to use the best
projections possible at a given time, while remain-
ing ready to revise the projections as circumstances
are altered. Already, the projections in the Nation-
al Energy Plan are somewhat out of date and are
being revised.
In preparing this programmatic environmental
impact statement it seemed desirable to have the
most current projections of future coal production.
A regional breakdown with a fairly high degree of
geographic resolution was also needed for the
analytical purposes of this statement. Accordingly,
the Department of the Interior requested that the
Department of Energy (DOE) provide a new set of
coal production projections especially developed
for use in the preparation of this statement. These
projections for 1985 and 1990 were developed by
the DOE Leasing Policy Development Office and
submitted in a report to the Department of the
Interior in June 1978 [13]. This report focuses on
projections for the six key western Federal coal
producing states. It is available upon request.
The DOE energy and consumption projections
incorporate assumptions on future electric power
requirements, oil and gas prices, and nuclear
power development. Other assumptions involve air
2-27
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
quality controls, transportation costs, and labor
cost escalation. Different sets of assumptions were
developed for low, medium, and high projections
of western coal development. For example, the low
oil price assumption for 1985 was $13 per barrel,
the medium assumption $15 per barrel, and the
high assumption $20 per barrel. The electric power
annual growth rate, which is the single most
important assumption, was 4, 4.8, and 5.8 percent
for the 1985 low, medium, and high projections,
respectively. (Electrical growth rates provide an
example of the difficulty in selecting assumptions
to make energy production projections. They have
behaved erratically in recent years, making future
rates difficult to predict. From 1969 to 1973, the
average annual electricity growth rate was 7.1
percent. Following the OPEC embargo, the growth
rate declined to 0.2 percent in 1974 and 2.6 percent
in 1975. In 1976 the electricity growth rate rose
again to 6.3 percent but then declined to 4.6
percent in 1977 and 3.7 percent in 1978. The
average for the past three years was 4.9 percent,
slightly above the medium assumption.)
The low modeling assumptions were selected
to favor energy sources other than coal and to
favor eastern sources for coal produced. The high
assumptions favor both higher coal use and
western coal production. Low, medium, and high
projections were generated for both 1985 and 1990.
The DOE projections were obtained from a
large linear programming model and were calculat-
ed using a computer. For each coal model demand
region, the model user specifies in advance electric
power consumption, industrial coal use, and other
types of coal use. The model then calculates the
lowest cost way of providing for these electric
power and coal use requirements for all the
demand regions in the United States. Mining,
transportation, and air quality control costs are
among the costs considered. The model can make
decisions to switch among alternative energy
sources, to keep old plants operating or to build
new ones, and to change the distribution between
base, intermediate, and peak load plants. There is
no distinction in the model between Federal and
non-Federal coal reserves; essentially all reserves
are considered available for production.
The assumption that all western reserves are
available provides a benchmark production level
against which production levels under different
policies can be compared. Thus, the impact of a no
leasing policy is shown by comparing production
levels likely if all coal reserves are assumed
available with production levels likely if currently
unleased Federal coal is assumed not available.
This use of a with-and-without leasing comparison
is similar to the with-and-without techniques
commonly employed in benefit-cost studies.
Certain of the assumptions specified by DOE
in June 1978 will require revision in making future
coal production projections, for example, with
respect to predictions of national energy legislation
that had to be made before it was actually passed.
In addition, assumptions are modified and model
refinements are made regularly to improve the
predictive accuracy of the DOE projection model.
New computer runs thus would show some
differences compared with those obtained by
DOE. However, the range provided by the use of
low, medium, and high projections covers any
likely outcome under the changed circumstances
and model refinements since June 1978.
Table 2-16 shows the DOE national coal
consumption projections for 1985 and 1990,
broken down by types of use. Under assumptions
of medium use, consumption of coal by utilities is
projected to rise by 60 percent between 1977 and
1985, from 475 to 760 million tons a year. The
other main increase in coal consumption is in the
industrial sector, where coal use is projected to
grow by 99 million tons, from 60 million tons in
1977 to 159 million tons in 1985.
Total coal consumption for 1985 is projected to
be 1.11 billion tons under medium level assump-
tions. This is a decline of about 150 million tons
per year from the projected 1985 production level
under the National Energy Plan, reflecting reduced
projections especially for industrial coal use.
The medium level increase in national coal
production projected between 1985 and 1990 is 37
percent. Most of this increase is due to greater use
of coal by utilities. Industrial coal use has a more
rapid rate of growth, but the increase is considera-
bly less in absolute amount.
The projections for synthetic uses of coal
assign them a minor role in 1985 (23 million tons).
By 1990, synthetics are projected to grow by two
and one-half times, but would still not be major
uses of coal.
Table 2-17 shows the regional breakdown of
total coal production projected by DOE. By 1985,
coal production west of the Mississippi River is
2-28
mfmmmmm^mm
wm^*mm^
w ■ v
TABLE 2-16
DOE NATIONAL COAL CONSUMPTION
(million tons)
to
I
<0
—
1977
1985
1990
CONSUMING
SECTOR
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
Electric Utility
475
692.4
759.5
816.1
772.4
1,007.1
1,276.7
Industrial
60
109.1
158.7
158.1
138.2
279.4
279.3
Metallurgical
77
96.1
96.2
96.2
100.0
100.0
100.1
Residential/Commercial
7
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
Synthetics
—
13.1
22.5
41.3
26.3
56.2
122.1
Exports
54
72.5
73.7
73.6
76.3
77.2
77.1
Total
673
984.7
1,112.1
1,186.8
1,113.9
1,520.6
1,856.0
Source: Reference Number 13.
TABLE 2-17
DOE DETAILED REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION FORECASTS
(million tons)
AREA
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Total
Midwest
to
1
Total
o
E. Northern Great Plains
W. Northern Great Plains
Total
1977
173.0
195.5
21.2
389
7
132
7
132
7
12.
5
73.
9
Total
86.4
Central West
13.7
Gulf
16.8
Rocky Mountains
20.7
Southwest
22.7
Northwest
5.0
Total
78.9
TOTAL
687.7
LOW
182.7
182.7
136.8
1985
MEDIUM
213.0
205.2
21.4
439
.6
204
4
204
4
21
9
305
6
327.5
10.6
57.7
43.8
28.3
4.4
144.8
HIGH
223.4
209.7
21.4
454
.5
213
4
213
4
25
3
348
9
374.2
10,
57,
44.
28.
4.
146.1
990.1 1,116.3 1,188.2
LOW
194.0
188.4
13.8
396.2
264.2
264.2
23.8
267.7
291.5
9.6
62.3
43.7
39.9
7.0
162.5
1990
MEDIUM
225.3
206.2
13.8
445.3
312.3
312.3
22.5
529.0
551.5
10.3
79.6
53.3
65.0
3.7
211.9
HIGH
253.3
211.6
13.8
478.7
327.3
327.3
36.4
763.7
800.1
9.6
104.1
53.1
79.9
3.7
250.4
1,114.4 1,521.0 1,856.5
Source: Reference Number 13,
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
projected to reach 42 percent of the national total
(medium assumptions). By 1990, projected western
production would reach 50 percent of the national
total, corresponding roughly to the percentage of
reserves located in the West.
The Northern Great Plains (essentially Wyom-
ing, Montana, and North Dakota in the DOE
model) would become the largest single producing
section of the country if the DOE projections are
realized. By 1990, Northern Great Plains coal
production would exceed both Appalachian and
Midwestern production and would constitute 36
percent of national production. By comparison, in
1977 production from the Northern Great Plains
was 13 percent of national production, much
higher than only a few years earlier.
In Table 2-18, DOE projections are shown for
the western coal regions selected for assessment in
this environmental impact statement. As might be
expected, considering its huge reserves of low
sulfur coal obtainable at low cost by surface
mining, the Powder River Coal Region plays a
central role in predicted western coal production.
DOE projects coal production in the Powder River
Coal Region to be 205 million tons per year in
1985 and 396 million tons per year in 1990 under
its medium projection. These amounts represent 43
and 52 percent of total western coal production
projected for those years, and 18 and 26 percent of
national production.
Other major producing regions after the Pow-
der River Coal Region are the Green River-Hams
Fork and San Juan River Coal Regions. Assuming
medium consumption levels, production of 112
million tons a year in 1985 and 150 million tons a
year in 1990 is projected for the Green River-Hams
Fork Coal Region, or 24 and 20 percent of total
western production projected for those years. The
San Juan River Coal Region is projected to have
production of 23 million tons per year in 1985 and
58 million tons per year in 1990, or five and eight
percent of western production, respectively.
Although not shown in Table 2-18, the great
majority of the coal production projected by DOE
is expected to be surface mined. In the Fort Union
and Powder River Coal Regions, all the coal
production is expected to be surface mined, except
possibly for some limited production in the Bull
Mountains in Montana. Underground mining
represents a major share of projected production
only in the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region
(85-90 percent). Of overall western coal production
projected for 1985 and 1990, only 6.9 percent and
5.9 percent, respectively, are forecasted by DOE to
be mined underground. This low forecast reflects
the relatively lower costs of surface mining and the
presence in a number of western coal regions of
abundant surface minable reserves having low
overburden and high seam thickness.
The development of western coal has been
stimulated by the greater ease with which low
sulfur coal can meet air quality standards, creating
a demand in the East for western coal. However,
the most important sources of increased demand
for western coal are in the West itself. In time, the
West is expected to move from its traditional
reliance on oil, gas, and hydropower to a new use
of coal-fired plants for its electric power. In Table
2-19, the DOE projected transportation of western-
produced coal to eastern and western consumption
regions is shown. Overall, both for 1985 and 1990
medium forecasts, 18 percent of western produc-
tion is projected to be consumed in the East and
Midwest. While this is not a high percentage,
substantial amounts of coal would nevertheless
still be shipped east. Under DOE's 1990 high
assumptions, which involve low transportation
costs, less strict sulfur scrubbing requirements,
higher labor costs, and other assumptions designed
to promote western production, 299 million tons
per year of western coal would move to the East.
Table 2-20 provides a detailed breakdown of
projected coal flows for the 1990 medium case.
A certain amount of electric power and
synthetics production would take place in western
producing regions and then be shipped to consum-
ing regions in the East. The consumption of
western coal in the East shown in Tables 2-19 and
2-20 thus does not exhaust the use of western coal
for eastern energy supply purposes. Similarly,
some coal produced in the East will be used to
meet western energy consumption needs. The great
majority of western production, however, is used to
meet western energy needs.
The traditional modeling of the energy sector
of the economy, as reflected in the DOE coal
model, relates energy use to macroeconomic
variables such as income. A new alternative
approach currently is being employed in California
that projects energy consumption based on a
detailed survey of households, businesses, and
institutions. To complete the comprehensive inven-
2-31
TABLE 2-18
I
DOE PRODUCTION PROJECTIONS FOR WESTERN COAL REGIONS
(million tons)
COAL
REGION
Western Interior
Fort Union
Powder River
Green River-Hams Fork
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
San Juan River
Denver Raton Mesa
Texas
Total (a)
1985 PROJECTION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
8.9
18.4
140.4
89.9
25.7
20.1
5.3
57.7
10.6
20.0
204.6
112.0
26.4
22.8
5.3
57.7
366.4 459.4
10.9
23.4
232.1
128.8
26.3
22.9
5.2
57.7
507.3
1990 PROJECTION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
9.6
21.9
173.7
105.9
25.1
34.5
5.4
62.3
10.3
20.6
396.1
149.5
28.3
58.4
6.8
79.6
9.6
34.5
602.9
177.7
27.9
72.5
6.6
104.1
438.4 749.6 1035.8
(^Excludes production from Arizona, Washington, and Alaska.
Note: The DOE estimates have been revised slightly for purposes of this
table.
Source: Reference Number 13.
m*m-~^ ■■'•'• 'I '"P ■>■
I
TABLE 2-19
EASTERN AND WESTERN CONSUMPTION OF WESTERN COAL
(million tons)
Western' Coal Consumed
in the East
Western Coal Consumed
in the West
Total Western Coal
1985
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
74.0 87.3 93.0
306.4 384.7 426.9
1990
380.4 472.0 519.9
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
75.6 136.0 299.0
378.2 627.3 750.4
453.8 763.3 1049.4
Source: Reference Number 13.
TABLE 2-20
1990 DOE MID-LEVFL
REGIONAL COAL FLOWS
PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
(millions of tons)
CONSUMERS
PRODUCERS
NORTHERN CENTRAL SOUTHERN EASTERN WESTERN TEXAS POWDER FORT GREEN ™TA- DENVER/ SAN
APPALACHIAN APPALACHIAN APPALACHIAN INTERIOR INTERIOR GULF RIVER UNION RIV ER/ S.W. RATON JUAN ; * '" EXPORTS TOTAL
HAMS FORK UTAH MESA RIVER 01HtK 0THER
Northern
Appalachian 1M,5 27.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.8 0.0 31.6 222.3
Central
Appalachian 60.5 29.7 11.9 4.5 2.1
Southern
Appalachian 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 1
Eastern
Interior 30.0 20.0 74.5 105.1 30 3
°-° °-0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 44.8 0.0 50.8 205.5
14.5
0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 53.2 0.0 0.4 312.5
I Western
£ Interl ° r °-° °-° °-° "- 1 3 - 6 2-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 10.1
Texas
Gulf 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 79.6
7-3 0.2 3.7 33.9 48.9 0.0 396.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 22.5
21 - 5 0'° 0-0 0.1 2.0 22.7 1.7 0.0 9.3 0.0 149.5
9.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.6 0.0 28.3
7.5
0.0 13.1 0.0 57.7
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.O
2-1 0.2 1.9 0.0 4.0 0.0 8.3
Powder
Rlver O- 1 34-9 23.6 24.9 50.9 111.2 27.6 19.4
Fort
Unlon °-° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.1
Green River/
Hams Fork 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 85.0
Uinta-South-
western Utah 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 O.O 0.0 0.0
Denver-
Raton Mesa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0
San Juan
River °-° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 1.5
East
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
West
0cher 0-° 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
157.7 172.0 251.8 27.6 39.5 10.1 22.2 28.9 13.4 196.7 80.3 89.0 1514.4
■-*"■ —■■*'- - »~~~ . I,. ftjWuilh In
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
tory on a nationwide basis with the survey method
used in California would take considerable time
and resources. But the preferred coal management
program designed by the Interior Department
contains a biennial examination of projections. If it
should prove desirable, it will be possible for the
Federal government to undertake the kind of end
use modeling carried out in California or other
alternatives to the DOE methods used for the
current projections.
2.7 WESTERN COAL SUPPLY SOURCES
The DOE forecasts of future coal production
were based on the assumption that Federal and
non-Federal coal reserves would be fully available
to meet demands for western coal. The forecasts
did not address the questions of which particular
reserves might be developed, and whether they
were already producing or were likely to be able to
enter into production.
2.7.1 Production Potential of Federal Coal
Future production of Federal coal reserves can
come either from already issued Federal leases or
from new leases. There are currently 534 outstand-
ing Federal coal leases which are estimated to
contain 17 billion tons of recoverable reserves (see
Table 2-21). Sixty-seven percent of existing lease
reserves are surface minable. The Powder River
Coal Region contains 58 percent of existing lease
reserves, most of which are surface minable and
are located in the Wyoming part of the region.
Leased surface minable reserves in the Powder
River Coal Region represent 82 percent of all
surface minable reserves in existing Federal leases.
The Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region has
the second largest amount of reserves in existing
leases, 4.5 billion tons. Sixty-nine percent of these
reserves are underground reserves located in the
Utah part of the region. The Powder River and
Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Regions together
account for 84 percent of existing lease reserves.
Estimates of recoverable reserves from existing
leases were made by U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) mining supervisors (75 percent of lease
reserves), by USGS area or district geologists
(eight percent), by the lessees (eight percent), or by
unspecified parties (four percent). The General
Accounting Office has criticized the Interior
Department's lease reserve estimates as not suffi-
ciently accurate, particularly on an individual lease
basis [16]. The Department is currently undertak-
ing to improve the accuracy of reserve informa-
tion, and plans to request lessees to provide new
reserve data in order to bring reserve estimates into
conformance with the standards for reserves in GS
Bulletin 1450B [17].
By 1977, annual production from existing
Federal leases reached 51.9 million tons. Substan-
tial further increases in production can be expected
from these leases by 1986, both from leases already
included in mine plans and from leases which are
not currently included in mine plans. After 1986,
further expansions in production of Federal coal
would have to come either through greater produc-
tion from already operating mines containing
Federal coal or through new Federal leasing. If
existing leases issued prior to 1976 are not in
production by 1986, under current regulations they
would be subject to cancellation for failure to meet
diligent development requirements. The Depart-
ment at present expects that the great majority, if
not all, such existing leases would be cancelled if
they are not producing by 1986. A few exceptions
would be possible to complete work on an
advanced technology process, to develop a very
large mine, or where there is a firm contract to buy
the coal later on (see discussion of diligence
requirements for existing leases in Section 3.2.10
and Appendix I).
2.7.1.1 Planned Production from Existing Leases
with Mine Plans. As of June 1978, the Department
had received 1 19 mine plans that were approved or
were pending approval. The 223 Federal leases
included in these mine plans contain 9.3 billion
tons of recoverable reserves, representing 54
percent of the reserves in all existing Federal
leases. In 1977, production from mines including
Federal leases was 96.3 million tons, representing
82 percent of total 1977 coal production in the six
western Federal coal states. Only a little more than
half of this production represented Federal coal,
since a number of the mines also include non-
Federal coal. Federal coal is expected to constitute
a much larger share of future planned production
from mines including Federal leases.
In Table 2-22, planned production from
approved and pending mine plans containing
Federal leases is shown. These planned production
estimates were reported in March 1978 by the U.S.
Geological Survey on the basis of lessee an-
2-35
TABLE 2-21
RECOVERABLE COAL RESERVES IN EXISTING FEDERAL LEASES
(b)
RECOVERABLE
RECOVERABLE
TOTAL
COAL REGION
NUMBER OF
ACREAGE
SURFACE
UNDERGROUND
RECOVERABLE
LEASES
LEASED
RESERVES
RESERVES
RESERVES
(million tons)
(million tons)
(million tons)
Fort Union
North Dakota
17
15,515
(a)
0.0
(a)
Montana
3
6,056
(a)
0.0
(a)
Total
20
21,571
540.0
0.0
540.0
Powder River
Montana
13
30,161
(a)
(a)
993.8
Wyoming
56
69
132,202
162,363
(a)
9,471.2
(a)
410.9
8,888.3
Total
9,882.1
Green River-Hams Fork
Wyoming
38
82,452
374.6
547.7
922.3
Colorado
34
72
33,946
116,398
289.8
198.3
746.0
488.1
Total
664.4
1,410.4
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Utah
199
271,326
267.0
3,089.3
3,356.3
Colorado
67
73,790
168.9
971.6
1,140.5
Total
266
345,116
435.9
4,060.9
4,496.8
San Juan River
New Mexico
25
40,757
273.1
(a)
(a)
(a)
Colorado
7
10,242
0.0
(a)
Total
32
50,999
273.1
127.5
400.6
Denver-Raton Mesa
Colorado
6
3,686
25.6
(a)
(a)
New Mexico
3
201
0.0
(a)
(a)
Total
9
3,887
25.6
22.8
48.4
Other Regions
66
534
90,482
74.2
235.6
309.8
GRAND TOTAL
790,816
11,484.4
5,603.7
17,088.1
(a) Cannot be disclosed because of confidentiality requirements.
(b) Includes leases issued prior to March, 1978.
2-36
mmm
TABLE 2-22
PLANNED 1985 PRODUCTION FROM APPROVED AND PENDING MINE PLANS
CONTAINING FEDERAL LEASES (a)
to
I
u>
COAL REGION
NUMBER OF
LEASES IN
MINE PLANS
Fort Union
Powder River
Green River-Hams Fork
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
San Juan River
Deuver-Raton Mesa
Other Regions
Total
4
35
49
114
8
1
12
223
RECOVERABLE FEDERAL
RESERVES
IN MINE PLANS
(million tons)
(b)
6,025
1,148
1,859
98
(b)
54
I
9,306
.(c)
1978
PRODUCTION
1985 PLANNED
PRODUCTION
(million tons/year)
(d)
10.2
71.5
18.5
14.0
8.3
4.3
126.8
5.
9
201.
5
42
9
43
3
10
.5
.002
4
.5
308.6
(a)
Estimates based on March 1978 Department of the Interior review of existing Federal leases, and
.lessee announced plans
( -'Cannot be disclosed because of confidentiality requirements.
(c) Includes total recoverable reserve in mine plans in Fort Union and Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Regions.
Production estimated made during 1978
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
nounced plans, submitted mine plans, discussions
with lessees, and other information. The total
production planned for 1985 from mines including
Federal leases is 308.6 million tons. Almost two-
thirds of the planned production is expected from
the Powder River Coal Region, which is consistent
with the large supply of low cost, surface minable
reserves in existing leases in this region. Although
not shown in Table 2-22, 82 percent of the total
production planned in the Powder River Coal
Region would come from Wyoming and only 18
percent from Montana.
The production planned for approved and
pending mine plans may not all occur. The most
important potential constraint is lack of demand;
the coal would only be produced if there is a
market for it. Some pending mine plans may never
be approved (for example, they could be located in
an alluvial valley, or require a new transportation
system with unacceptable environmental impacts).
Planned production may also not materialize if
other coal proves to be cheaper to mine or higher
in quality. Nevertheless, total production planned
from approved and pending mine plans provides a
good indication of the production potential of
these mines.
2.7.1.2 Likely Production from Existing Leases
Without Mine Plans. In addition to the 223 Federal
leases included in mine plans, there are an
additional 311 Federal leases, representing 46
percent of existing Federal reserves under lease, for
which no mine plans have been submitted to the
Department. In order to obtain an estimate of the
production potential of these leases, the U.S.
Geological Survey was requested as part of the
Department's coal policy review to give its best
judgment as to whether such leases were "more
likely than not" to be in production by 1986 in
time to meet diligent development standards.
These judgments were made in March 1978 by
USGS mining supervisors, taking into account
demand for the coal type, environmental problems
of the lease site, transportation availability, mining
costs, lease size, and other factors. Of the 7.8
billion tons of total reserves in existing leases
without mine plans, the USGS estimated that
leases containing 1.7 billion tons of reserves would
likely be in production by 1986 and leases
containing 6.1 billion tons of reserves would not
likely be in production by 1986. Reserves in leases
believed likely to be producing by 1986 would be
sufficient to sustain an annual production rate of
57.3 million tons a year. Leases containing other
reserves would be subject to cancellation in 1986
for failure to be diligently developed.
In Table 2-23 the likely regional production
from Federal reserves under lease which are not
now in mine plans but which are considered likely
to be producing by 1986 is shown. The Uinta-
Southwestern Utah Coal Region has the largest
share, 41 percent of likely production. In other
regions, there is only a small amount of likely
production from Federal leases beyond that
expected from already approved or pending mine
plans.
There are many possible reasons why an
existing Federal lease might not be put into
production by 1986. Many of the leases are small
and would require additional Federal leasing or
acquisition of other coal rights to form economi-
cally viable, or logical, mining units. Others are
located far from transportation routes or are in
areas with environmental problems. Coal quality is
poor and prospective mining costs high in some
cases, and there may not be a sufficient demand
for the types of coal contained in some leases.
In the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region,
for example, existing leases contain 4.5 billion tons
of reserves, most of them for underground mining.
These reserves would be sufficient to sustain mines
with an annual production rate of 150 million tons
per year. However, the DOE 1985 medium
production projection for the Uinta-Southwestern
Utah Coal Region is only 26.4 million tons (see
Table 2-18), some of which would be provided by
non-Federal coal. Even if the DOE projections are
low, a large part of the reserves in the existing
Federal leases in the Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Coal Region have very little chance of entering
into production by 1986. These nonproducing
reserves are likely to be the reserves with higher
mining costs, more distant from transportation
routes, and with other problems.
Similarly, in the Powder River Coal Region,
the one other region with major reserve holdings in
existing Federal leases, the 9.5 billion tons of
surface minable reserves in existing leases could
sustain production of 317 million tons per year.
The DOE medium projection for this region in
1985, however, is only 205 million tons and even
the high projection is only 232 million tons. The
2-38
mm-mmmm
TABLE 2-23
(a)
LIKELY 1985 PRODUCTION FROM EXISTING FEDERAL LEASES WITHOUT MINE PLANS
to
I
COAL REGION
NUMBER OF
LEASES
WITHOUT
MINE PLANS
Fort Union 16
Powder River 34
Green River-Hams Fork 23
Unita-Southwestern Utah 152
San Juan River 24
Denver-Raton Mesa 8
Other Regions 54
RECOVERABLE RESERVES R EC0VERABLE RESERVES PRODUCTION IN
RECOVERABLE ^KKVKj LEASES WITHOUT nnoc: „_,„ TFA c F c
IN FEDERAL LEASES pT T tufty to 1985 FR LEASES
WITHOUT MINE PLANS ^^ PLANS L t WITHOUT MINE PLANS d)
WITHOU1 MINI fLANb BE p R0DUCING IN 1985 f ,,,, tons/vear)
(million tons) (mi i liori tons) ( " llhon tons /y ear >
(b)
3,857
262
2,638
303
(b)
256
(b)
210
204
700
254
(b)
46
(b)
7.0
6.8
23.3
8.5
(b)
1.5
Total
311
7.782(c)
1.718(c)
57.3
(a) Estimates based on March 1978 Department of the Interior review of existing Federal leases.
(b) Cannot be disclosed because of confidentiality requirements
(c) Includes total recoverable reserves in mine plans in Fort Union and Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Regions.
(d) Assumes 30 year mine life.
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
low 1985 projection is 140 million tons. Hence, a
significant amount of existing lease reserves in the
Powder River Region also are unlikely to be
producing in time to meet the 1986 diligence
standard. Nonproducing reserves here would also
generally be the ones which are of relatively lower
quality, mostly located in Wyoming, where the
largest uncommitted reserves are found.
2.7.1.3 Preference Right Lease Applications. Anoth-
er important potential source of Federal coal
production is contained in preference right lease
applications (PRLAs). Until preference right leas-
ing was ended administratively in the early 1970's
(and statutorily by the Federal Coal Leasing
Amendments Act of 1976), the government issued
prospecting permits in areas where coal was not
known to exist in economically valuable deposits.
A holder of a prospecting permit discovering a
high quality deposit could apply for and obtain a
lease to mine the deposit by demonstrating that it
contained commercially valuable coal. Such leases
were called preference right leases and were issued
on a noncompetitive basis. There are currently 172
outstanding applications for preference right leases
remaining from prospecting permits issued mostly
in the late 1960's and early 1970's (see Table 2-24).
Total recoverable reserves in PRLAs are 9.9
billion tons, 3.5 billion surface minable and 6.4
billion minable by underground methods. Sixty
percent of PRLA reserves are located in the
Powder River Coal Region, all in the Wyoming
part. Seventy-three percent of Powder River Coal
Region PRLA reserves are underground reserves.
The Uinta-Southwestern Utah and San Juan River
Coal Regions each contain more than one billion
tons of PRLA reserves. The Uinta reserves are
mostly suitable for underground mining, whereas
55 percent of the San Juan River reserves are
recoverable by surface mining methods.
Some PRLA holders may be unable to obtain
leases because they have failed to meet all the legal
requirements for processing their applications.
Initial showings for some PRLAs were never
made, or were made after the legal deadline had
passed. Other PRLAs were improperly filed in-
cluding areas containing prior mining claims.
PRLAs also may have little development potential
'Indian coal is considered "non-Federal" coal in this environmental
impact statement. This coal would not be governed by the Department's coal
management program. Rather, the Department, through the Bureau of Indian
because they are located in areas where coal
development is now considered environmentally
questionable and where the Department would
want to exchange for or purchase any leases which
PRLA holders are rightfully due.
As part of the Department's coal policy review,
all PRLAs were examined to assess compliance
with filing deadlines and other legal requirements
and to assess potential environmental problems.
Table 2-25 shows PRLA production potential,
after excluding PRLAs for which there are legal
uncertainties and PRLAs in areas that are consid-
ered environmentally questionable.
Total PRLA production potential would be
25 1 million tons per year. However, 63 percent of
this production potential is for underground
mining, which has limited prospects in the next
decade except in the Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Coal Region. Forty-four percent of total PRLA
reserves and 57 percent of PRLA reserves without
legal or environmental questions are underground
reserves located in the Powder River Coal Region,
where DOE projections show no underground
mining occurring. There are also doubts as to the
desirability or feasibility of production from many
PRLA surface reserves. PRLAs in many cases are
located outside the areas of highest coal develop-
ment potential, because the Federal government
originally issued prospecting permits, which have
ripened into PRLAs, only in areas which were
outside the known prime coal locations. There also
was little attention given to environmental consid-
erations in the issuing of prospecting permits.
2.7.2 Coal Owned by Indian Tribes 1
Indian owned coal reserves in the West are
estimated to be 70 billion tons, 30 billion of which
are surface minable. These reserves constitute the
largest contiguous blocks of non-Federal coal and
are a very important potential source of supply for
future western coal production. Coal production
from Indian lands was 22.9 million tons in 1977,
13.8 percent of total western production. The
largest amount of Indian coal production in 1977
took place in Arizona, 11.5 million tons. Indian
coal production was 11.4 million tons in the six
western Federal coal states; 6.9 million tons in
New Mexico, and 4.5 million tons in Montana.
Affairs, exercises trust responsibility over coal development on Indian
reservations.
2-40
TABLE 2-24
OUTSTANDING PREFERENCE RIGHT LEASE APPLICATIONS
COAL
REGION
NUMBER OF
APPLICATIONS
APPLICATION
ACREAGE
RECOVERABLE
SURFACE
RESERVES
(million tons)
RECOVERABLE
UNDERGROUND
RESERVES
(million tons)
TOTAL
RECOVERABLE
RESERVES
(million tons)
Fort Union
North Dakota
Montana
4
14,673
0.0
(a)
0.0
(a)
0.0
(a)
Total
4
14,673
(a)
(a)
(a)
Powder River
Montana
Wyoming
60
96,149
0.0
1,604.3
0.0
4.308.3(d)
0.0
5,912.6
Total
60
96,149
1,604.3
4,308.3
5,912.6
Green River-Hams Fork
Wyoming
Colorado
14
5
43,401
9,130
(a)
(a)
100.5
25.0
(a)
(a)
Total
19
52,531
25.2
125.5
150.7
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Utah
Colorado
25
10
35
75,591
28,205
103,796
85.7
22.2
107.9
989.4
166.8
1,075.1
189.0
Total
1,156.2
1,264.1
San Juan River
New Mexico
Colorado
28
2
77,590
3,457
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
Total
30
81,047
824.3
680.0
1,504.3
Denver-Raton Mesa
Colorado
New Mexico
20
42,118
670.5
0.0
80.6
0.0
751.1
0.0
Total
20
42,118
670.5
80.6
751.1
Other Regions
4
5,954
(a)
(a)
(a)
GRAND TOTAL (c)
172
396,268
3.540.2(b)
6.366.4(b)
9.906.6(b)
(a) Cannot be disclosed because of confidentiality.
(b) Includes Fort Union and Other Regions reserves.
(c) Does not include four Alaska PRLAs.
(d) Main potential for use at present is coal gasification.
2-41
-P-
TABLE 2-25
PRODUCTION POTENTIAL FROM OUTSTANDING PREFERENCE RIGHT LEASE APPLICATIONS
(million tons)
Cc)
COAL REGION
Fort Union
Powder River
Green River-Hams Fork
Uinta-Southwestern
Utah
San Juan River
Denver-Raton Mesa
Other Regions
TOTAL
TOTAL PRLA RECOVERABLE
RESERVES
SURFACE
DEEP
(a) (a)
1,604.3 4,308.3
25.2 125.5
107.9 1,156.2
824.3 680.0
670.5 80.6
to
(a)
3,540. 2 (b) 6, 366. 4 (b)
RECOVERABLE RESERVES WITHOUT
LEGAL QUESTIONS (d)
SURFACE
DEEP
(a)
(a)
1,604.3
4,308.3
25.2
125.5
107.9
373.0
361.6
52.0
670.5
80.6
(a)
(a)
3,077.5 (b) 4,955.2
(b)
RECOVERABLE RESERVES WITHOUT
LEGAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL
QUESTIONS (e)
SURFACE
DEEP
(a)
(a)
1,454.0
4,308.3
8.1
19.3
55.4
340.7
337.8
50.5
549.4
78.4
(a)
(a)
2,712.7 (b) 4,813.0
(b)
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
POTENTIAL (f)
SURFACE
DEEP
(a)
(a)
48.5
143.6
0.3
0.6
1.8
11.4
11.3
1.7
18.3
2.6
(a)
(a)
on *(»•>
lft n *0>>
(a) Cannot be disclosed because of confidentiality requirements.
(b) Includes Fort Union and Other Regions.
(c) Estimates based on 1978 Department review of Preference Right Lease Applications.
(d) Eliminates reserves under applications which have not met Department procedural or legal requirements — Initial showings not made,
or filed past deadline, or the PRLA was filed for land already subject to a mining claim.
(e) Eliminates both PRLA reserves with legal problems and reserves which lie in areas judged by Department personnel to be
environmentally questionable for mining.
(f) Based on estimates of reserves without legal or environmental questions. Assumes a 30-year mine life.
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
The most important Indian coal owners are the
Crow and Cheyenne Tribes in the Powder River
Coal Region in Montana, the Navaho Tribe in the
San Juan River Coal Region, and the Three
Affiliated Tribes in the Fort Union Coal Region.
Except for the Cheyenne, these tribes have indicat-
ed an interest in developing their coal reserves.
Coal development has the potential for generating
a major infusion of income for these tribes. At
present, development of the Crow coal is being
delayed by a legal battle between the tribe and
previous purchasers of leases and holders of
prospecting permits.
The Cheyenne Tribe is seeking designation of
the Cheyenne Reservation as a Class I air quality
area. Such a designation would probably prevent
any further construction of power plants in the
areas within or immediately adjacent to the
reservation. Because of fugitive dust problems,
coal mining could also be affected.
In Table 2-26, approximate estimates of sur-
face minable reserves owned by Indian tribes are
shown including estimates of reserves not yet fully
delineated. The 1977 production level, 1985
planned production from existing and proposed
mines, and maximum production potential on
Indian lands are also shown. Planned production
for 1985 from Indian lands in the six western
Federal coal states is 25 million tons. Maximum
production potential would be more than 800
million tons per year. However, it would be
extremely unlikely that anything like full maxi-
mum potential production would occur at any one
time.
2.7.3 Non-Federal, Non-Indian Coal
In addition to coal owned by Indian tribes,
there are other substantial holdings of non-Federal
coal in the West. The states have large reserve
holdings, although typically scattered in isolated
state sections. Railroads retain large holdings of
coal in checkerboard areas which were originally
railroad land grants. The Federal Government did
not make it a general practice to retain coal rights
in its land disposals until the early twentieth
century, resulting in large-scale transfers of coal
ownership to the private sector in earlier years. In
Table 2-27, estimated non-Federal coal reserves
and the percentage of total reserves they represent
(excluding Indian coal) are shown for the western
coal regions. In the six regions shown, which
include 91 percent of western coal reserves, non-
Federal reserves are 28 percent of total reserves.
State governments have made large amounts of
coal available for development through state
leasing. States have issued 2,553 outstanding coal
leases for 2.2 million acres of land, almost three
times the Federal acreage currently under lease
(see Table 2-28). The State of Wyoming has issued
the largest number of leases for more than one
million acres of state-owned coal. Little production
has thus far come from state leases (see Table 2-
28), partly due to their small sizes and scattered
locations. State leases are most likely to be
developed in the future when state coal is located
amidst or adjacent to Federal or private coal that
is being developed.
Although there are substantial non-Federal
reserves, the development potential of these re-
serves generally is limited by the highly fragmented
coal ownership pattern in the West. In checker-
board areas, for example, development would have
to proceed one section at a time if the intervening
Federal sections were not available. This would
impose a high economic cost and would also have
undesirable environmental consequences. There-
fore, non-Federal coal in checkerboard areas
would have a poor development potential without
the addition of Federal coal (and vice-versa).
In order to assess the development potential of
non-Federal reserves by themselves, these reserves
were classified according to three categories: (1)
blocks of non-Federal coal possibly large enough
by themselves to support a viable mining operation
(with the minimum cutoff size set at 2,560 acres);
(2) non-Federal coal in checkerboard areas and
probably not developable alone; and (3) non-
Federal coal in scattered parcels probably too
small to support a viable mining operation (less
than 2,560 acres). The estimated distribution of
non-Federal reserves among these three categories
is shown in Table 2-29. Checkerboard areas alone
contain more than one-third of all non-Federal
reserves. In total, 55 percent of all non-Federal
reserves are in fragmented parcels too small to be
developed by themselves.
The coal regions with the highest percentages
of non-Federal reserves in large contiguous blocks
are the Fort Union, Green River - Hams Fork, and
Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Regions. The Uinta-
Southwestern Utah and the Powder River Coal
2-43
TABLE 2-26
INDIAN COAL RESERVES AND PRODUCTION PLANS, SIX WESTERN FEDERAL COAL STATES
I
COAL REGION
SURFACE MINABLE RESERVES ^
(million tons)
1977 PRODUCTION
1985 PLANNED PRODUCTION FROM.
EXISTING AND PLANNED MINES W
(million tons/year)
MAXIMUM ANNUAL PRODUCTION
POTENTIAL . .
(millions of tons)
Fort Union ( d )
Powder River ^ e ^
San Juan River
Other Indian holdings g '
3,000
15,000
4,000
5,000-7,000
4.5
6.9
14.0
11.1
100
500
133
166-233
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Recoverable reserve estimates based on Bureau of Indian Affairs Minerals Inventory Reports.
Based on DOE Leasing Policy Development Office projections of production in 1985 (Reference Number 13).
Assumes 30-year mine life.
Coal owned by Three Affiliated Tribes.
Coal owned by Crow and Cheyenne Tribes.
Coal owned by Navaho Tribe, includes only New Mexico reserves. The Navaho also owns another 1 billion
tons of surface reserves in Arizona.
Includes coal owned by Southern Ute, Ute Mountain, Jicarilla, Flathead, and Blackfeet tribes.
~- f ---^-...>^ .
^m
TABLE 2-27
ESTIMATED NON-FEDERAL RESERVES
COAL REGION
NON- FEDERAL RESERVES
ESTIMATED
MAXIMUM ANNUAL
AS PERCENT OF. ALL NON- FEDERAL RESERVES PRODUCTION POTENTIAL
RESERVES (million tons) (millions of tons)
I
Ln
Fort Union 61%
Powder River 20
Green River-Hams Fork 44
Uinta - Southwestern Utah 17
San Juan River 23
Denver-Raton Mesa 82
Total 28
14,092
28,505
6,839
1,014
958
3,169
54,577
470
950
228
34
32
106
1,820
(a) Breakdown between Federal and non-Federal ownership made by examination of coal ownership
rights in the six regions. Reserves are assumed to be distributed between Federal and non-
Federal ownership in direct proportion to the acreages of Federal and non-Federal sub-
surface coal ownership within Known Recoverable Coal Resource Areas (KRCRAs) located in
each region. Estimates were made under 1978 Interior Department coal policy review study
of coal ownership, as shown on BLM surface-subsurface minerals ownership maps ("color
quads"). Data do not include Indian-owned coal not in KRCRAs.
(b) Estimates based on Bureau of Mines reserve figures (see Table 2-1) (Reference numbers 2, 3).
(c) Assumes 30-year mine life.
TABLE 2-28
STATE COAL LEASES
i
STATE
Colorado
Montana
New Mexico
North Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
TOTAL
LEASES
(No.)
147
96
218
10
514
1,568
2,553
ACREAGE
LEASED
(Acres)
252,199
51,947
106,860
3,838
543,557
1,235,229
2,193,630
1977
PRODUCTION
(millions of tons)
0.2
5.1
1.3
0.3
0.7
7.i
Source: Reference Number 14.
TABLE 2-29
ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF NON-FEDERAL RESERVES
BY OWNERSHIP CATEGORIES (a)
(percent)
SOLID NON-FEDERAL
COAL RESERVES (POSSIBLY
REGION DEVELOPABLE) ( b ^
NON -FEDERAL
RESERVES IN
NON-FEDERAL
RESERVES IN
SCATTERED
CHECKERBOARD SMALL BLOCKS
(c)
FEDERAL
RESERVES
Fort Union 37.8%
Powder
River 6.8
Green River-
Hams Fork 23.3
Uinta-Southwestem 6.9
Utah
San Juan 14 . 2
River
Denver-Raton 62.8
Mesa
TOTAL 12 . 1
21.6%
7.9
1.7%
5.5
13.4
7.0
10.1
Cd)
8.5
19.5
9.3
5.6
39%
79.8
56.3
82.9
77.3
17.8
73.0
^Estimates based on the distribution of subsurface coal ownership in Known
Recoverable Coal Resource Areas (KRCRAs) in the regions shown.
^ Solid ownership was defined as reserves under non-Federal ownership in
contiguous blocks greater than or equal to 2,560 acres. In Regions 2 and
3, a portion of the reserves are found in areas of checkerboard ownership,
within which a number of 5-section blocks (3,200 acres) exist where the
center section is state-owned and the surrounding sections are privately
owned. These sections may be developable only if the center section (640
acres) is leased by the state to a private owner holding development
rights to the reserves in the surrounding sections. In Region 2, at least
55 percent of the total solid non-Federal block is composed of these five-
section blocks; in Region 3, at least 34 percent of the total solid
non-Federal blocks fall in this category.
Scattered small ownership blocks are defined as isolated sections of non-
Federal coal ownership less than 2,560 acres in size, outside checkerboard
areas.
(d)
Some railroad checkerboard lands are located in San Juan River Region.
However, as of March 1978 KRCRAs had not yet been defined for these lands,
2-47
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
Regions have relatively much smaller proportions
of non-Federal coal contained in large blocks.
Because of the importance of the Powder River
Coal Region in future coal production projections,
ownership patterns in this region are particularly
significant. In the Wyoming part of the region, the
areas along the Wyodak seam which are surface
minable and which have the highest coal develop-
ment potential contain almost entirely Federally-
owned coal. Other than Indian coal, the Montana
part of the Powder River Coal Region is composed
of a large checkerboard area and a large area of
Federally-owned coal. Only 6.8 percent of the
Powder River Coal Region reserves are non-
Federal and appear possibly large enough to be
efficiently developed.
Most of the coal included in the "possibly
developable" category in Table 2-29 is in fact not
likely to be developed in the near future. Much of
the non-Federal coal is outside the areas of lowest
production costs. A large part is suitable only for
underground mining. The alluvial valleys of the
West are typically privately owned and contain
sizeable non-Federal reserves which it may not be
desirable to develop. Non-Federal reserves may
also have other environmental problems. Even
though non-Federal blocks may be of sufficient
size to form a viable mining unit, these blocks may
have several different non- Federal owners. There
is no assurance that all owners would want their
coal developed or that it would be possible to
assemble the non-Federal coal into a developable
package. Finally, non-Federal coal owners may
not be able to gain surface owner consent in those
cases where there is a different surface owner and
consent is needed under state law.
Planned production from mine plans that
included Federal leases was shown earlier in Table
2-22. There are also a number of planned mines
which do not involve any Federal coal. In 1977,
excluding Indian lands, mines with no Federal coal
produced 10.7 million tons, or nine percent of total
production in the six western Federal coal states.
In Table 2-30, production planned for 1985
from mines that do not involve any Federal leases
is shown for the six western coal regions. Total
1985 production planned from these mines is 35.7
million tons. Forty-five percent of this planned
production would occur in the Fort Union Coal
Region, where there is extensive non-Federal coal
ownership.
2.8 THE NEED FOR NEW FEDERAL
COAL LEASING
The Department of the Interior imposed a
moratorium on further leasing of Federal coal in
1971 (see Chapter 1). At that time, a Department
study indicated that Federal reserves under lease
were rising rapidly, while production of Federal
coal was remaining at low levels. Most previous
acquisitions of Federal leases appeared to have
been largely for speculative purposes.
Subsequent efforts by the Department to
resume Federal coal leasing, including the decision
in 1973 to develop a leasing program and the
adoption of a leasing program in 1976, were widely
criticized on the grounds that the need to resume
Federal leasing had not been demonstrated. The
failure of the Department to show the need for
leasing was cited by the court in NRDC v. Hughes
as a principal defect in the previous coal leasing
programmatic environmental impact statement.
(See Chapter 1 for a more detailed discussion of
the recent history of Federal coal leasing.)
Certainly, a Federal coal management pro-
gram is required to govern a range of coal activities
other than competitive leasing: the application of
planning and land unsuitability requirements to
existing leases; the consideration of preference
right lease applications; the processing of lease
readjustments, relinquishments, cancellations, ter-
minations, and assignments and other transfers;
and the exchange of Federal coal and other
mineral leases and lease bidding rights for environ-
mentally unacceptable Federal leases and of
Federal coal for alluvial valley floor coal. Competi-
tive leasing would be only one, albeit critically
important, component of a Federal coal manage-
ment program. This component would be imple-
mented only if a resumption of competitive leasing
is determined to be necessary.
Resumption of Federal coal leasing would
have a number of both beneficial and adverse
impacts. If the Secretary of the Interior decides to
resume leasing, his decision would reflect a
determination that the need for leasing and the
associated benefits outweigh the adverse impacts.
Resuming leasing would provide to the Nation
four important benefits:
• The most important benefit is that it would
give the Nation greater assurance of being
able to meet its national energy objectives.
2-48
TABLE 2-30
1985 PLANNED PRODUCTION PROM EXISTING AND PLANNED MINING
OPERATIONS INVOLVING ONLY NON-FEDERAL, NON INDIAN COAL (a)
REGI0N 1985 PLANNED PRODUCTION
(million tons/year)
15 9
Fort Union ±J,:7
3 6
Powder River
ft 9
Green River-Hams Fork D ' 7
O Q
Uinta - Southwestern Utah J • ^
/
San Juan River
Denver-Raton Mesa 3.0
Total
35.7
(a) Based on DOE Leasing Policy Development Office compilations of
planned mine production in 1985 (Reference Number 13) .
2-49
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
• New leasing would also provide a means to
promote a more desirable pattern of coal
development. It may be possible to lower
overall production costs and reduce the
adverse environmental impacts resulting
from coal mining by altering coal develop-
ment patterns.
® A resumption of leasing would offer signifi-
cant legal and administrative advantages
for the Department of the Interior.
• Finally, the state of competition in the
western coal industry would be improved
by new leasing.
These benefits must be weighed against ad-
verse environmental consequences of new leasing
which are analyzed in Chapter 5.
2.8.1 Leasing to Meet National Energy Objectives
In leasing to meet national energy objectives,
the Department is not leasing to meet today's
needs but those many years in the future. Fore-
casts of future energy demands and supplies are
subject to many uncertainties. The uncertainties
increase the further in the future the forecast is
made. It is difficult to predict how energy users
and suppliers would respond to greater energy
scarcity, new energy and environmental legisla-
tion, and changing energy prices, or to what extent
users would adopt conservation measures or be
willing to change their previous behavior patterns.
Information about current and expected future
energy reserves often is not very accurate or
reliable. Changes in technology may substantially
alter the relative economics of different energy
sources. The most important factor determining
coal demand, electric power demand, is itself
subject to great uncertainty. Changes in govern-
ment regulations can also cause important shifts in
the relative desirability of one energy source
compared with another. For these and other
reasons, when examining the need for western coal
it is important to examine a range of possible
demand and supply levels, as was done by the
Department of Energy (DOE) in the generation of
high, medium, and low western coal production
projections.
Consideration of forecasts for a range of future
years is also required in energy planning. Thus, in
evaluating the need for new Federal leasing,
western coal production forecasts for 1985 and
1990 were prepared.
After a lease is issued, it would typically be
another one to three years before a mine plan is
submitted to the government. A government
decision on approval of the plan is likely to take up
to another year, and in some cases more. From the
point of approval, two to three years would then be
required to move a major western surface coal
mine into full operation. All told, actual produc-
tion of coal appears likely to occur four to seven
years after the sale is held and a lease is issued.
At each of these steps, the potential coal mine
could be found infeasible and have to be aban-
doned because of environmental, geologic, or
economic factors. Thus, not only the uncertainty
surrounding future levels of demand, but also the
uncertainty of any given tract passing through the
steps from potential tract to fully operational mine
must be taken into account in assessing leasing
needs.
If the decision is made to resume Federal
leasing, about one to two years would be required
to accomplish the full land use and environmental
planning for the first round of lease sales under the
preferred program. (Some earlier sales could be
held under special start-up procedures and later
sales would be able to make use of the planning for
the first sales.) Taking into account the time after
lease issuance, a decision at this time to hold a
lease sale is not likely to result in coal production
before 1985 to 1990. The planning horizon for this
programmatic environmental impact statement
includes decisions on whether or not to lease up to
as late as 1985. A decision in 1985 to hold a lease
sale is not likely to result in coal production until
the early 1990s and possibly as late as 1995. Hence,
the time horizon for a current assessment of the
need for a resumption of Federal coal leasing
extends as far as meeting coal production needs in
1995. DOE did not make production projections
beyond 1990 and such distant projections would
be subject to many uncertainties. The primary
focus in assessing leasing needs is on the year 1990.
It is unlikely that Federal leasing decisions
following completion of this programmatic envi-
ronmental impact statement could, or need to,
have a major influence on 1985 western coal
production levels.
Under current regulations, existing Federal
leases issued prior to 1976 and not in production
by 1986 would be subject to cancellation for failure
to be diligently developed. It is expected that, with
2-50
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
a few possible exceptions (see 43 CFR 3520.2-5),
existing leases not producing in 1986 will in fact be
cancelled. Hence, increases in production of
Federal coal after 1986 would essentially have to
come either from new Federal leasing or from
expansion of mines containing Federal coal which
are already operating by 1986. It is hard to know
precisely what the expansion potential of these
mines would be, or whether rapid expansion would
introduce inefficiences in their operation. But
beyond this expansion potential, if Federal coal is
to have .a role in increases in western coal
production after 1986, it would have to be through
development of Federal coal that is not now under
lease.
In Section 2.7 above, estimates were made of
planned and likely western production in 1985
from a number of possible sources. Table 2-31
summarizes these estimates. Total planned produc-
tion in Table 2-31 includes: (1) planned production
from non-Federal, non-Indian mines which do not
involve any existing Federal leases; (2) planned
production from Federal mine plans currently
approved or submitted to the Department; and (3)
planned production from mines on Indian lands.
Production already planned for 1985 from these
sources is 365 million tons. This estimate is
reasonably consistent with estimates of 1985
planned production within the six coal regions in
Table 2-31 previously compiled by the National
Coal Association and DOE's Leasing Policy
Development Office. The 1985 planned production
estimates obtained by these sources were 420
million tons and 357 million tons, respectively. For
comparison, total production in the six coal
regions in 1977 was 118 million tons.
As seen in Table 2-31, planned 1985 produc-
tion is more than the DOE low projection for 1985
of 300 million tons for the six regions located in the
six western Federal coal states. On the other hand,
planned production is less than the 1985 medium
and high production projections of 391 millon tons
and 439 million tons, respectively.
The addition of likely 1985 production from
existing leases currently without mine plans brings
the total for 1985 planned and likely production to
422 million tons, above the medium 1985 DOE
projection, although still below the high DOE 1985
projection.
As shown in Table 2-31, achievement of any of
the DOE 1985 projected production levels appears
unlikely in the Green River-Hams Fork Coal
Region. The total of already planned production
and likely production from existing leases without
mine plans in this region is only half the DOE
medium 1985 projected production. As seen in
Figure 2-3, the Green River-Hams Fork Coal
Region is the only region in which achieving 1985
DOE projected production levels appears to be a
substantial problem.
For 1990, which is the more important year
than 1985 in assessing the need for new Federal
leasing, currently planned production is less than
the DOE low, medium, or high projected produc-
tion levels (see Table 2-32). However, for low 1990
projections, which are actually less than the
medium 1985 projections, planned production is
just short of projected production. With the
addition of likely production from existing Federal
leases not now included in mine plans, there would
appear to be little difficulty in achieving the DOE
low 1990 projected production levels without
further Federal leasing if all planned production
occurs. As is the case for 1985, there would be
major problems in reaching any of the projected
production levels in one region, the Green River-
Hams Fork Coal Region (See Figure 2-4).
The fact that currently planned and likely
production exceeds 1990 low production projec-
tions does not resolve the question of the need for
new leasing in the low case. Current company
production plans are based on demand assump-
tions that in many cases are undoubtedly more
optimistic than the assumptions used by DOE for
the low projections. If DOE low assumptions prove
accurate, some part of currently planned produc-
tion would very likely not occur. There would not
be enough demand by 1985 to support it, which is
the time frame toward which most current plans
are oriented. If the planned production does not
occur by 1986, plans based on mining of Federal
leases would have to be abandoned entirely
because of failure to meet diligent development
requirements.
Even under low demand assumptions, in-
creases in western coal production would be
expected between 1986 and 1990. Significant
contributions to this growth in production could
not come from Federal coal without new leasing
because undeveloped leases would in all likelihood
have already been cancelled. In short, the only
forecast that leads to a wholly unambiguous
2-51
TABLE 2-31
SUMMARY OF PLANNED AND PROJECTED PRODUCTION, 1985
(million tons)
TOTAL
1985
PLANNED
PRODUCTION (a)
LIKELY
PRODUCTION
FROM EXISTING
LEASES WITHOUT
MINE PLANS (b)
TOTAL
PLANNED AND
LIKELY
PRODUCTION
1985
DOE PROJECTIONS
LOW
PROJECTION
MEDIUM
PROJECTION
HIGH
PROJECTION
Fort Union
21.8
(c)
21.8(d)
18.4
20.0
23.4
Powder River
219.1
7.0
226.1
140.4
204.6
232.1
1
Green River-Hams Fork
49.8
6.8
56.6
89.9
112.0
128.8
Unita- Southwestern
Utah
47.2
23.3
70.5
25.7
26.4
26.3
San Juan River
24.0
8.5
32.5
20.1
22.8
22.9
Denver-Raton Mesa
3.0
(c)
3.0(d)
5.3
5.3
5.2
TOTALS
364.9
57.3(e)
422.2(e)
299.8
391.1
438.7
(a) Includes planned production for mine plans including Federal leases (Table 2-22). planned production from
Indian Lands (Table 2-26) and planned production from wholly non-Federal mines (Table 2-30)
(b) See Table 2-23.
(c) Cannot be disclosed because of confidentiality requirements.
(d) Does not include likely production.
(e) Total includes likely production in Fort Union and Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Regions that is not disclosed on a
regional basis.
Source: Reference Number 13.
___
mm
to
I
232.1
L
M
H
1985 DOE PROJECTION
(L=L0W; H=MEDIUM; H=HIGH)
LIKELY PRODUCTION FROM EXISTING LEASES
WITHOUT MINE PLANS
y//////\ TOTAL 1985 PLANNED PRODUCTION
FORT UNION
POWDER RIVER
GREEN RIVER-
HAilS FORK
UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN
UTAH
SAN JUAN RIVER
WESTERN COAL REGIONS
(a) LIKELY PRODUCTION FROM EXISTING LEASES WITHOUT MINE PLANS CANNOT BE DISCLOSED BECAUSE OF CONFIDENTIALITY.
(b) DOES NOT INCLUDE LIKELY PRODUCTION.
C |'^ 5.35.35.2
DENVER-RATON MESA
SOURCE: TABLE 2-31
FIGURE 2-3
SUMMARY OF PLANNED AND PROJECTED PRODUCTION, 1985
TABLE 2-32
SUMMARY OF PLANNED, POTENTIAL, AND PROJECTED PRODUCTION, 1990
(million tons)
COAL REGION
TOTAL 1985
PLANNED
PRODUCTION 1 '
LIKELY PRODUCTION
FROM EXISTING LEASF
WITHOUT MINE PLANS
S
(b)
TOTAL PLANNED
AND LIKELY
PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION POTENTIAL
PRLA (c)
SURFACE RESERVES K '
TOTAL
PRODUCTION
POTENTIAL
1990
DOE PROJECTIONS
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
Fort Union
21.8
(d)
21.8 (e)
(d)
41.5(g)
21.9
20.6
34.5
Powder River
219.1
7.0
226.1
48.5
274.6
173.7
396.1
602.9
Green River-Hams
Fork
49.8
6.8
56.6
0.3
56.9
105.9
149.5
177.7
Uinta-Southwestern
Utah
47.2
23.3
70.5
1.8
72.3
25.1
28.3
27.9
San Juan River
24.0
8.5
32.5
11.3
43.8
34.5
58.4
72.5
Denver-Raton Mesa
TOTALS
3.0
(d)
3.0 (e >
(d)
23.6fg)
5.4
6.8
6.6
1
364.9
57.3 (£)
422. 2^ f '
90.5
512.7
366.5
659.7
922.1
production from i^E^"-*!^.!^^^ l^T^ ^^ ^^ 2 ~ 22) ' pla "" ed P"*-*- **» «•• 1— i (Table 2-
(b) Figures obtained from Table 2-23.
(c) Figures obtained from Table 2-25.
(d) Cannot be disclosed because of confidentiality requirements.
(e) Does not include likely production.
2 Total incurs sg ?s££z ™ s2PM.ar22si.r- °° al Regions that is not disciosed - a re « i<mai b - ie -
Source: Reference Number 13.
rife*
— '
600
550 -
400
300-
250
200
150-
50
(a.b)
41.5
602.9
7*3
396.1
274.6
48. 5 r
7.0
219.1
::::21.9
20.6
34J,
FORT UNION
1
M H
POWDER RIVER
177.7
149.5
105.9
0.3
6.8
49.8
56.9
1
M
,72.3
H
I , l M | u I 1990 DOE PROJECTIONS
I l|M |H 1(1-1 nu- M-MEDIUM; H-HIGH)
L«AAg8 LIKELY PRODUCTION FROM EXISTING
QUS&ZU LEASES WITHOUT MINE PLANS
P : | PRODUCTION POTENTIAL
I: : ■:•.•■■■ 4 ppi a SURFACE RESERVES
Y///A TOTAL 1985 PLANNED PRODUCTION
72.5
58.4
24.
34.5
GREEN RIVER- UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN
HAMS FORK UTAH
WESTERN CCAL REGIONS
1
SAN JUAN RIVER
M
(a.b)
23.6
5 4 6.8 6.6
-I - ITI H I
DENVER-RATON MESA
(a) LIKELY PRODUCTION FROM EXISTING LEASES WITHOUT MINE PLANS AND PRODUCTION POTENTIAL PRLA SURFACE RESERVES
CANNOT BE DISCLOSED BECAUSE OF CONFIDENTIALITY.
(b) TOTAL INCLUDES LIKELY PRODUCTION AND PRLA SURFACE PRODUCTION POTENTIAL.
SOURCE: TABLE 2-32
FIGURE 2-4
SUMMARY OF PLANNED, POTENTIAL, AND PROJECTED PRODUCTION, 1990
2-55
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
conclusion that there is no need for new leasing is
achievement of 1985 medium or high production
projections, followed by a sharp downturn in
demand resulting in little if any further increases in
production to 1990. If low projections are realized
in 1985 as well as 1990, production increases would
still be needed between 1985 and 1990 and the
only way for Federal coal to make a major
contribution to these increases would be through
new leasing in the 1980 to 1983 time frame.
Unlike the low 1990 case, currently planned
production is far less than the DOE medium 1990
projected production of 660 million tons. The
addition of likely production from existing Federal
leases without mine plans does little to alter this
conclusion. The only regions which would be able
to meet 1990 DOE medium projections from
currently expected production are the Fort Union
and Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Regions.
These regions have only seven percent of 1990
medium production. The Powder River Coal
Region has expected production totaling 226
million tons, far less than the DOE medium 1990
projected production of 396 million tons.
To achieve the DOE 1990 high production
projections for all western regions of 922 million
tons would require a level of production more than
two and one-half times currently planned 1985
production. In the Powder River Coal Region, the
1990 high projection is 603 million tons, compared
with 219 million tons in planned production.
Planned production is less than the 1990 high
projection in all regions except the Uinta-South-
western Utah Coal Region.
There is not a great likelihood that western
coal production would actually reach DOE's high
projected levels in 1990. However, the high 1990
production projection represents a reasonable
approximation of medium production projections
for 1995. Although DOE did not prepare 1995
projections for the purposes of this statement, such
projections have been made in the course of other
studies. In making an assessment of the need to
resume Federal leasing, as indicated above, the
time horizon extends beyond 1990 to consideration
of coal requirements expected as late as 1995.
It is unlikely that many PRLAs could be
processed, leases issued, and production begun
from these leases by 1985. The production poten-
tial of PRLAs is of importance mainly in consider-
ing 1990 production projections. In Table 2-30,
production potential of PRLA surface minable
reserves is shown. Because western mining is
expected to be almost entirely surface mining
except in the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal
Region, underground PRLA reserves are likely to
make an insignificant contribution to reaching
1990 production projections other than in this
region. In the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal
Region, there appears to be little problem in
reaching any of the DOE projected production
levels.
The addition of PRLA production potential
provides a source of new Federal coal development
between 1986 and 1990, when current Federal
leases either would have already been developed or
would have been cancelled. This potential produc-
tion could play a key role if new Federal coal
production is needed during this period to meet
1990 low production projections. Issuance of
preference right leases would still leave total
production potential from already indicated
sources far below medium and high 1990 projected
production. Only in the less critical Fort Union
and Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Regions does the
addition of PRLA production potential raise total
production potential above the 1990 medium or
high projected production.
An assessment of the need for new Federal
leasing based on projections of demand and supply
levels thus does not produce an unambiguous
picture. For 1985, there appears to be little need
for new leasing, except in one region, the Green
River-Hams Fork Coal Region. For 1990, there
could be some, but probably not a large, need for
new leasing to reach low projected production
levels. On the other hand, achievement of medium
and high 1990 production levels would require
extensive development of new sources of western
coal production, especially in the Powder River,
Green River-Hams Fork, and San Juan River Coal
Regions. Because more than 70 percent of the coal
in the six western Federal coal states is owned by
the Federal Government, new Federal leasing
would make a major contribution in achieving
such development.
The absolute need for new leasing to meet
national energy objectives thus depends on which
assumptions about future energy demands and the
role of western coal in supplying those demands
prove to be most accurate. Uncertainty also exists
about planned production estimates. How assured
2-56
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
is production currently planned or considered
likely and how much production in fact is likely to
occur but may not have been included in planned
production estimates? Since it is impossible to
know at this time which assumptions and estimates
are actually correct, government policy must be
flexible. An assessment must be made of the costs
of leasing too much Federal coal if current need
estimates prove too high, versus the costs of leasing
too little Federal coal if higher estimates should
turn out to be more valid.
In the past, the cost of leasing too much
Federal coal has been to fail to obtain full value
for the Federal coal, while also rewarding specula-
tive behavior. Without effective enforcement of
diligent development requirements, purchasers of
Federal coal leases could hold on to these leases
for long periods without developing them. Because
expected development was still far off and still
uncertain, sales of leases did not obtain prices
commensurate with the leases' later development
values. Moreover, the Federal Government lost
control over the land use and environmental
impacts of Federal coal development because the
location and timing of such development became
largely a matter for private initiative.
These problems would still exist in the future,
although in somewhat moderated form, if the
Federal Government were to lease too much coal
in relation to need. Strict enforcement of diligent
development requirements, mandated under the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976,
would prevent any future speculative holding of
leases for long periods. However, issuance of more
leases than can be developed would still act to
depress lease sale prices because of the resulting
uncertainty about development prospects within
the allowed diligent development period. Although
more leases would be sold, the lowered prices per
lease would probably more than compensate,
resulting in reduced overall leasing revenues. The
land use and environmental impacts of Federal
leasing would depend on which of the excess
number of issued leases are developed, making
Federal control of these impacts less secure.
Finally, a new problem would be introduced, in
that strict enforcement of diligent development
requirements might cause significant distortions
and inefficiencies if many leases were threatened
with cancellation. Coal companies might rush
leases into production prematurely, offering high
discounts and realigning coal shipments to find a
place to ship the early production from the leases.
In considering the possibility of overleasing, it
should be recognized that the amount of Federal
coal offered is not necessarily the same as the
amount actually leased. Fair market value require-
ments are likely to allow operators, especially the
more efficient ones, a certain degree of leeway in
their bid levels, but nevertheless would act to
discourage marginal operators from acquiring
tracts without sound market prospects. By insisting
on full fair market value, the Federal Government
could end up offering many more leases than are
actually issued if there is not much demand. To
some extent, the fair market value requirement
thus minimizes the risk of the government leasing
amounts of coal greatly in excess of market
requirements.
In order to assess the impact of no further
leasing of Federal coal, a special computer study
was made in which future western coal develop-
ment was limited to non-Federal coal and coal in
already issued Federal leases. In addition, non-
Federal coal dependent on unleased Federal coal
for its development was considered unavailable for
future mining. This study can be obtained on
request [25].
According to the study, the greatest impact of
no further Federal leasing would be experienced in
the Powder River Coal Region in 1990. Under
medium assumptions, production in this region in
1990 is projected to decline by 27 percent if there is
no further Federal leasing. The Wyoming portion
of the Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region
showed a projected decline of 54 percent under a
no leasing policy. Other western regions were
either not greatly affected or showed production
increases due to displacement of coal production
from the Powder River and Green River-Hams
Fork Coal Regions to these regions. Nationally,
coal production in 1990 was projected to decline
by 4 percent under a no leasing policy. For 1985,
the study concluded that a no leasing policy would
cause only minor impacts nationally and within
the West.
National oil and gas consumption was project-
ed to rise in 1990 by 300,000 barrels per day if
there were no further Federal leasing (medium
assumptions). According to the study, utilities
would experience on average an eight percent
national increase in delivered coal prices. This
2-57
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
would cause a 1.7 percent average national. rise in
electric utility rates. The estimated total resource
cost to the Nation in 1990 of no further Federal
leasing was projected to be $800 million per year.
The regions most adversely affected by a no
leasing policy would be in the West, reflecting the
fact that western coal supplies primarily western
markets. According to study projections, the
Rocky Mountain, West North Central, and Pacific
regions would experience increases in delivered
coal prices in 1990 of 29, 17, and 27 percent,
respectively, if there were no further Federal
leasing (medium assumptions). These coal price
increases would cause overall electric power rates
to rise by 6.4 percent in the Rocky Mountain
region, 5.9 percent in the West North Central
region and 1 percent in the Pacific region.
The principal consequences of leasing less
Federal coal than is needed to meet national
energy objectives would likely be to alter patterns
of coal development, both at national and regional
levels. At least on the basis of computer projec-
tions, it appears improbable that total national
coal production would be greatly reduced.
2.8.2 Leasing to Promote More Desirable Patterns
of Coal Development
The fact that currently planned and likely
production, together with the production potential
from PRLAs, is not sufficient to reach medium
and high 1990 DOE production projections does
not mean that these projected levels could not be
attained without new Federal coal leasing. As
shown in Tables 2-26 and 2-27, there are large
amounts of Indian and other non-Federal coal
reserves in western regions sufficient to meet
almost any conceivable 1990 production require-
ments.
It is probably not desirable or feasible to
emphasize development of this non-Federal coal.
Large amounts of it have high production and
environmental costs, due to uneconomically small
parcel sizes (see Table 2-27), high stripping ratios,
distances from transportation, and many other
factors. Non-Federal underground coal reserves
are not likely to make much of a contribution to
western coal for some time, since most western
coal is expected to be surface mined. Non-Federal
coal is of varying quality, some of it having less
desirable chemical composition or a low heat
content. The large supplies of non-Federal lignite
in the Fort Union Coal Region, for example,
would not experience rapid development without a
major expansion in coal use for gasification and
liquifaction. Some non-Federal coal is located in
less environmentally desirable locations such as
alluvial valleys, which were the first areas to be
acquired by early settlers. Indian tribes may
oppose major coal development on their reserva-
tions or choose to develop their coal gradually over
a lengthy period. Private surface owners above
non-Federal coal may refuse consent under state
surface owner consent laws or owners of non-
Federal coal simply may not want to develop it at
this time.
The difficulty of relying on non-Federal coal
for expanded future production varies from region
to region (see Tables 2-27 and 2-28). In the Powder
River Coal Region, there is not much potential for
production of non-Federal coal alone. In the
Wyoming part of the Powder River Coal Region,
the high quality, surface rninable reserves are
almost entirely Federally owned. In the Montana
part, the better quality coal is divided among areas
of solid Federal ownership, checkerboard owner-
ship, and Indian ownership. It would be difficult to
develop non-Federal coal in checkerboard areas
without new Federal leasing. The Indian coal
reserves would be sufficient for a large expansion
of non-Federal coal production (see Table 2-24).
However, the Cheyenne Tribe does not currently
favor development of its coal reserves and there
are many uncertainties about the future develop-
ment of coal owned by the Crow Tribe.
The Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region
contains a large checkerboard area in Wyoming in
which expanded production beyond planned levels
would be difficult without new Federal leasing.
Because coal in the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal
Region is largely owned by the Federal Govern-
ment, this region is also relatively more dependent
on Federal leasing for expanded production
beyond already planned or committed levels. On
the other hand, there are major holdings of non-
Federal coal which could be developed without
Federal leasing in the Fort Union Coal Region.
The Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Region similarly
has extensive non-Federal deposits. The San Juan
River Coal Region appears somewhat less depen-
dent on new Federal leasing because of the
presence of Indian coal and some substantial
blocks of developable non-Federal coal.
2-58
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
A decision by the Federal government not to
lease Federal coal could have a number of impacts
on future patterns of coal development. Produc-
tion might simply be shifted from Federal to non-
Federal coal within each region. The western
regions more dependent on Federal leasing, espe-
cially the Powder River Coal Region, could
experience declines in production which are
displaced to other western regions less dependent
on new Federal leasing, although a similar level of
coal development might result in the West as a
whole. It is also possible that western coal
production would decline significantly, eastern
production would rise correspondingly, and there
would be little change in overall national coal
production. Finally, there could be some declines
in total national coal production, with the losses
made up either by greater national energy conser-
vation or by greater production from other energy
sources.
It is impossible to predict with great confi-
dence to what extent these possibilities would
actually materialize. However, it appears that if
there were no further leasing of Federal coal by
1990 there would probably be a significant decline
in coal production below medium and high DOE
projected levels from the Powder River Coal
Region in Wyoming and Montana. This could be
avoided only by large scale increases in production
from Indian lands in that region. Less dramatic
declines below projected levels would probably be
experienced in the Green River-Hams Fork Coal
Region. In other regions, production would be
more likely to be displaced from Federal to non-
Federal lands within the region, or there would be
already adequate production potential for 1990
from mines — some including Federal leases —
currently producing or expected to be producing.
If new production within a given region is
forced to take place on the more limited non-
Federal lands, it becomes likely, although it does
not have to be the case, that some non-Federal
sites would be devoted to coal production that are
inferior to unleased Federal sites in their environ-
mental and economic suitability for coal mining.
Simply because the universe of sites to select from
would be much smaller, one would automatically
expect that it would be harder to find non-Federal
sites with the lowest environmental and economic
costs. Historically, purchasers of Federal lands and
settlers under the Homestead Acts naturally
gravitated toward the better and more productive
lands, leaving the least wanted lands to remain m
the public domain. Because of this, non-Federal
lands are more likely to be used for farming or
urban purposes and generally would have a higher
current use value and thus a higher opportunity
cost for coal mining.
If Federal coal is not available within a region,
mines of inefficient sizes and configurations would
likely have to be formed from non-Federal coal
alone. For example, in areas of checkerboard
ownership, pressures would be generated for
development of the alternating non-Federal sec-
tions and of the five-section non-Federal blocks
centered on state sections. If such development
occurred, the normal pattern of mining would be
distorted, mining costs would increase, and it
generally would not represent the most efficient or
environmentally satisfactory pattern of coal mm-
ing.
Without new Federal leasing, inefficient devel-
opment patterns could also result from bypassing
of unleased Federal tracts which lie in the path of
ongoing mining operations (operating on existing
Federal leases or non-Federal lands). Because it
would usually be easy for an existing operation to
mine a tract in its path, the bypassing of such coal
foregoes the opportunity to produce relatively low
cost coal. The coal bypassed would then generally
be uneconomical to produce and would effectively
be wasted.
If Federal coal is not available, some existing
operations would very likely have to shut down
because they could not obtain needed coal. In
addition to being socially disruptive, this result
might well cause coal development to move
elsewhere in the region at higher cost and, by
requiring new roads and other mining facilities and
new housing and public services, increase the
overall area in the region adversely affected by
coal mining.
New Federal leasing would be expected to
displace development of some existing leases and
PRLAs. Existing leases were issued with a mini-
mum of attention to land use planning and
environmental considerations. The locations of
PRLAs similarly reflect an absence of planning.
Displacement of coal development from the sites
of existing leases and PRLAs to sites of new
Federal leases which would be selected on the
basis of comprehensive land use and environmen-
2-59
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
tal planning almost certainly would result in an
economically and environmentally improved pat-
tern of development within a region.
A decision not to lease Federal coal would
alter development patterns by significantly increas-
ing the pressure to develop Indian lands, offering
both potential benefits and costs of coal develop-
ment to Indian tribes.
If Federal coal is unavailable, interregional
shifts in coal development patterns, as well as
intraregional shifts, would be expected to occur.
The resulting altered pattern of coal development
would have different environmental consequences
and would represent a different interregional
economic efficiency in coal production. For
example, because of the unusual thickness of
Powder River coal seams, on average more than
five acres of land in the East and 3.5 acres in the
Southwest would need to be mined and reclaimed
in order to obtain the same amount of coal that
could be obtained from one acre of land in the
Powder River Coal Region. On the other hand,
expanded production in the Denver part of the
Denver - Raton Mesa Coal Region would mini-
mize socioeconomic impacts, because this area,
alone among the western coal regions, already has
a large population with a highly capitalized public
service base in place.
A decision not to lease could also result in
somewhat less total coal production for the
Nation. If national energy use is not correspond-
ingly reduced, there would be greater demands on
nuclear power, oil imports, and other energy
sources. The foreign trade balance would be
adversely affected by increasing oil imports and
possibly by falling coal exports. The resulting
overall national pattern of energy development
might be less efficient and environmentally desir-
able than would the pattern which would result
from new Federal leasing.
The discussion thus far has been qualitative.
For some of the effects of Federal leasing on
development patterns, there is little possibility of
making precise quantitative estimates of their
magnitude. It would be very difficult, for example,
to predict how many bypass situations involving a
need for Federal coal might arise or how many
existing operations might have to shut down for
lack of Federal coal. Shifts within regions to non-
Federal coal if Federal coal would not be available
are also very hard to predict. The precise manner
in which such shifts would occur would depend on
many site specific considerations and the particu-
lar requirements of proposed mines. This program-
matic environmental impact statement does not
attempt to predict exactly how intraregional shifts
from Federal to non-Federal coal would occur
without new Federal leasing or what the precise
effects on coal production costs and environmental
impacts within a region would be. An analysis of
this nature would require a detailed examination of
each region which is more appropriate to land use
planning and an environmental impact statement
at the regional level. Future Department regional
lease sale environmental impact statements would
closely examine intraregional impacts of Federal
leasing actions.
In general, however, the clear expectation is
that new Federal leasing would improve intrare-
gional patterns of development. New leasing will
be undertaken only after comprehensive land use
and environmental planning is conducted. The
much greater availability of lands for development,
if Federal coal is available, offers much greater
scope for finding the least costly and least
environmentally damaging sites for coal develop-
ment.
In keeping with its focus on interregional
concerns, this programmatic environmental impact
statement assesses the consequences of Federal
coal management policy for the interregional
pattern of coal development. In Chapter 5,
estimates are shown of coal production in each
region under different Federal coal management
policies, including no new leasing. The environ-
mental impacts of different interregional produc-
tion patterns are analyzed. New Federal leasing
may be needed if interregional patterns of coal
development which result under a policy to resume
leasing are judged to be preferable to those which
would result if no leasing occurred.
2.8.3 Leasing for Legal and Administrative Purposes
As previously noted, new competitive leasing,
whether conducted or not, would be only one
component of a Federal coal management pro-
gram. The Department has little choice legally but
to process PRLAs and, for those applicants able to
show commercial quantities of coal under appro-
priate environmental controls, either to issue a
noncompetitive lease or to offer an exchange,
purchase, or other suitable compensation. A
2-60
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
resumption of Federal leasing, at least to the extent
of issuing noncompetitive leases for appropriate
PRLAs thus appears necessary. A formal leasing
program would be required at a minimum to
process the PRLAs, conduct land use planning
that is statutorily mandated before leases can be
issued, assess environmental impacts of PRLA
leasing, and consider whether exchange (where
permitted by statute, see discussion in Section
3.2.10 and Appendix I), purchase, displacement
through new competitive leasing or other ap-
proaches are most appropriate for dealing with
environmentally unsatisfactory PRLAs.
As part of its preferred coal management
program, the Department would take steps such as
exchange or purchase to prevent development of
existing leases as well as PRLAs in environmental-
ly unsuitable areas. As has been mentioned, many
existing leases and prospecting permits were
granted without much attention to their environ-
mental impacts. The pressures for development of
both existing leases and PRLAs would be height-
ened if new Federal leasing does not take place.
The likely administrative and financial burdens on
the Department to acquire leases in unsuitable
areas could therefore be reduced by new leasing.
Federal and state governments would benefit
from the added bonuses and royalties which could
be obtained from sales of new Federal leases. The
Federal Government is under no obligation to
preserve private rents and profits by refraining
from making alternative Federal coal supplies
available to the market.
2.8.4. Leasing to Increase Competition in the Coal
Industry
There are certain conditions which must exist
in order for private markets to function in the most
socially beneficial manner, making the best coal
available at the lowest prices. A particularly
critical requirement is that there should be a
sufficient number of buyers and sellers that the
markets are genuinely competitive and that no one
or few buyers can influence prices in a monopson-
istic or oligopsonistic fashion.
The national importance of the coal industry
has generated considerable concern about its
competitiveness. Studies of competition in the coal
industry have been issued in the past two years by
the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the
General Accounting Office [15, 26, 27].
A decision not to lease Federal coal would
tend to inhibit competition in the western coal
industry. Coal purchasers would have to obtain
coal from those companies holding existing Feder-
al leases or possessing non-Federal sources. In
regions such as the Powder River Coal Region,
where the great majority of mining sites are
dependent on the availability of Federal coal, new
entry into coal mining could be achieved only by
purchases of already existing leases from their
current holders. Because of such considerations,
the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department,
in a 1978 report, Competition in the Coal Industry
[15], recommended resumption of Federal leasing
to promote greater competition in the western coal
industry. The report concluded that: "Resumption
of the Federal leasing program with all deliberate
speed will have beneficial competitive effects."
2.9 OVERVIEW OF THE NEED FOR A
FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of
1976, and other recent legislation for the public
lands, lay a legal and policy foundation for the
Department of the Interior's management of coal
owned by the United States Government. The act
expresses the intent of the Congress that, through a
process of competitive lease sales, Federally owned
coal be sold for a fair price from the public domain
to coal operators at a rate meeting market needs
for new supplies.
The President, in his Environmental Message
of 1977 [12], directed the Secretary of the Interior
to take certain steps to improve the management of
Federal coal reserves, and to operate a coal leasing
program capable of responding to reasonable
production goals. The President's National Energy
Plan, which sets forth the national interest in the
substitution of coal for oil and gas as an energy
source, and the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel
Use Act of 1978 reflect the judgement of the
President and the Congress that the Federal
Government should encourage and foster the use
of coal [22]. The increased demand resulting from
the 1978 act would be felt most strongly in the
years between 1985 and 1990. The Department, in
considering the need for leasing, must plan for the
often considerable delay between the time when a
2-61
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
mining company acquires a coal reserve and the
time when production begins. Designing a mine
plan, assembling equipment and constructing the
mine, and studying and designing modifications
required to comply with state and Federal laws
takes from four to seven years. In some cases,
production from new leases may not begin for up
to 10 years, which is the maximum delay between
leasing and production allowed under the Federal
Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976.
Because of these time requirements, a leasing
program which results in some lease sales in 1980
could not be relied on to have a significant impact
on production until after 1985. Existing leases
provide an alternative to new leases as a source of
coal to meet demand for 1985, because on these
leases mining companies can begin now the
technical and economic work required to develop
production capacity. The consequences of this
planning are reflected in production plans reported
by those companies (see Table 2-22). Industry
plans for development of existing leases and of
non-Federal reserves help account for the general-
ly low level of new leasing assessed by the
Department's studies as needed to meet 1985
production targets.
To aid in considering alternative programs to
implement the President's directive that Federal
coal leasing be a tool to help achieve coal
production objectives, the Secretary has directed
that the Department's Federal coal policy review
include an analysis of the demand for Federal coal,
and a review of the probable production from
existing leases. As was explained, analysis of
potential production and analysis of probable
demand can not be done with precision because of
uncertainties and variables within both the broad-
er economy and the coal industry.
Almost all demand forecasts, however, point to
significant increases in the use of coal, with both
demand and production increasing at a faster rate
in the western United States than in other areas.
Such forecasts are reinforced by recent experience.
The rate of growth in production of coal in the
western states (see Table 2-7) has increased
suddenly and substantially over production growth
rates in the midwestern and eastern coal fields
during the past few years. The rate of growth for
production of coal from Federal leases, due in part
to diligence requirements, is even higher than the
overall western increase, making Federal reserves
the most rapidly growing source of coal in the
Nation.
After 1986, however, the Nation would not be
able to count on significant additional production
from existing Federal leases. The Department's
diligent development regulations under the Feder-
al Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 require
that pre-act existing leases not in production by
1986 be cancelled, with a few possible exceptions.
This means that the presently existing leases not in
production by 1986 will revert to Federal owner-
ship, and again become part of the general body of
unleased Federally- owned coal reserves.
Because actions taken by the Department now
will affect the potential for production of Federal
coal in 1990 and beyond, the Department must
consider present actions in terms of these uncer-
tain future demands. It is clear that, to whatever
degree existing Federal coal leases must be
considered as an alternative to new leasing in
meeting coal production needs, this alternative,
already made uncertain by the environmental and
economic weaknesses of earlier leasing, virtually
disappears when the Department meets its respon-
sibilities to both enforce diligent development and
to recognize that today's resource management
decisions would determine how much coal is
available for production in 1986 and years after.
Currently planned coal production appears
likely to be sufficient to meet most 1985 projected
needs in the West. However, there is not much
additional capacity to meet the considerably larger
1990 expected coal requirements. Unless the DOE
low projections for 1990 turn out to be the correct
ones, and the DOE medium or high projections for
1985 are met in 1985, a substantial expansion in
western coal production would occur between
1985 and 1990.
Because of the dominant Federal share in
western coal ownership, it is natural to expect that
Federal coal would play a major role in expanding
western coal production between 1985 and 1990.
As noted, the enforcement of diligent development
requirements would mean that, aside from expan-
sions in already operating mines, increases in
production of Federal coal after 1986 will have to
come from new Federal leases. Because of the
substantial time lag between the decision to hold a
lease sale and actual coal production, Federal
leases expected to come into production from 1986
to 1990 should be issued soon.
2-62
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
It is true that a resumption of significant
Federal leasing in the near future runs the risk
that, if low 1990 production projections are borne
out, there would be more coal under lease than
could be developed. However, the Nation's energy
and coal leasing policies cannot be predicated on
the assumption that future western coal production
would be lower than is currently considered likely.
The time lags between the decision to lease and the
occurence of actual production are such that an
assumption of this nature could well be self-
fulfilling.
Besides helping to meet national energy objec-
tives, new Federal leasing is needed to ensure that
future western coal development is carried out as
efficiently and with as little damage to the physical
and human environment as possible. Because of
the large Federal ownership of western coal, a
major expansion of western production without
the availability of Federal coal, even if it were
possible, would result in a distorted pattern of coal
development, almost certainly a less efficient and
environmentally satisfactory one. In many cases,
the key consideration in mine site selection would
become the ability to avoid the need for Federal
coal, rather than the basic economic and environ-
mental desirability of the site.
In many areas, patterns of land and mineral
ownership caused by early settlement policies have
created a complex division of ownership and
jurisdiction, with tracts of Federal coal inter-
spersed with private, state, and Indian coal.
Because individual tracts are often not large
enough to justify investments, development oppor-
tunities for non-Federal coal in many of these
areas would be limited unless adjacent Federal
coal could also be mined. These ownership
patterns add to the uncertainties about production
potentials, because theoretical production of much
non-Federal coal may not in fact be achievable
without development of Federal coal and, con-
versely, a decision favoring the leasing and
development of specific amounts of Federal coal
may in fact lead to production of greater non-
Federal reserves.
In addition to the planning and resource
management requirements of the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, future manage-
ment decisions about Federal coal would be
governed by the Federal Land Policy and Manage-
ment Act of 1976 and the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977. These acts, in
combination, create a management and regulatory
framework which provides detailed requirements
for determining where, and under what circum-
stances, Federal coal may be leased and mined.
Taken as a whole, these laws and related regula-
tions require that the Department of the Interior's
decisions about the management of Federal coal
reserves conform to, and be integrated with, a
broader public land planning and resource man-
agement process. The overall planning process
considers all Federally-managed resources, and the
interests of institutions and people who use the
resources or are affected by resource use decisions.
Consideration of these other resources and
interests has the effect of placing prohibitions or
limitations, some mandatory and some discretion-
ary, on the production of Federal coal. These
limitations, designed to protect human communi-
ties, agricultural resources, private property rights,
wildlife, natural habitats, recreation areas, and
diverse other resources and resource uses, are
reasonable and flexible enough to assure that
Federal coal can, in fact, be produced while the
other interests are protected. Most of the protec-
tive standards and procedures were put in place
within the last two years or less, long after almost
all existing Federal coal leases were issued.
This means that all future leasing must not
only conform to, but be a product of, a planning
and regulatory process designed to be protective of
the environment and of other resources and
interests. Coal production decisions resulting from
this process would be made in compliance with
agreed-on land use planning and environmental
protection requirements. However, there is no such
assurance that past Federal leasing decisions made
prior to the adoption of these new standards
would, if the leases were produced, meet the
planning and environmental requirements.
Hence, the Department, in trying to assess the
potential of existing leases to serve as an alterna-
tive to unleased Federal coal in meeting future
demand, must assign more uncertainty to produc-
tion potential from existing leases than would be
assigned to new leases. It is clear that, from an
environmental standpoint, existing leases cannot
be presumed to be a preferable alternative to
prospective new leases. Neither, of course, can the
Department assume that existing leases would fail
to meet present environmental standards. To
2-63
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
measure the possible contribution of coal from
existing leases toward future energy needs, the
Department must receive and review specific lease
development proposals, determine if the proposed
mines could be operated in conformance with
present standards, and forecast the production
from existing leases to compare that, and other
expected production, with predicted demand for
coal. A similar but, in many cases, less comprehen-
sive analysis by state and Federal agencies would
precede decisions allowing production of coal from
non-Federal reserves. As in the case of already-
leased Federal reserves, the Department cannot
assume that the production of non-Federal coal
would cause less (or more) environmental damage
than would be caused by development of new
Federal leases.
The decision before the Secretary at this time is
whether to adopt the preferred Federal coal
management program, or an alternative, as de-
scribed in this programmatic environmental im-
pact statement, which would be capable of consid-
ering specific leasing options, as a part of the
Department's responsibility for management of
Federal coal resources, within a process which
assures that both the need for and environmental
impacts of such leasing options are adequately
considered prior to a decision to hold lease sales.
Should the Secretary adopt such a program,
the need for leasing would be continually assessed
through an open, publicly accountable process
which compares likely production to likely de-
mand, determines where and when production
may fall short of demand, and decides how much
Federal coal should, within the limitations of
resource management and environmental stan-
dards, be leased to assure production sufficient to
meet demand. Evaluation of demand would
include the use of the best available techniques for
analysis of energy use. Evaluation of anticipated
production would include all information available
to the Department about the production plans for
Federal and non-Federal coal reserves.
Such a process would assure that individual
proposals for specific coal leasing would be
reviewed to determine their consistency with the
coal production objectives of the coal management
program. While such an assessment at this time
shows that some new leasing should be considered
now, and that the need for leasing would increase
significantly in a few years if coal production
forecasts for 1990 are to be achieved, the need to
operate a Federal coal management program does
not rest on the current assessment of future coal
supply and demand. Forecasts of energy consump-
tion and of available energy sources are based on
assumptions which are subject to change. Discov-
ery of additional or alternative energy sources,
advances in technology, successes in energy con-
servation programs, variations in the rate of
growth of electric power use, and many other
factors could cause coal demand forecasts to be
significantly revised, up or down. Sound long run
government policy must acknowledge this uncer-
tainty, and not assume that today's forecasts must
inflexibly govern resource production decisions of
the future.
The Federal coal management program de-
scribed in Chapter 3 is capable of such flexibility.
The process of analysis and review, which incorpo-
rates sound land use planning and environmental
protection with the identification of those coal
reserves most suitable for development, provides
both industry and the Department sufficient
opportunity to plan for increases in coal demand.
Should demand be significantly lower than was
projected, diligent development regulations would
assure that leases not put into production are
returned to Federal ownership. Moreover, regular
biennial reassessments of leasing needs as pro-
posed in the preferred program and several other
alternatives would allow frequent adjustments in
the amount of Federal coal under lease in response
to these needs. Any under-leasing or over leasing
which results from erroneous facts or assumptions
would be compensated by more or less leasing in
the next reassessment cycle. And, as the amount of
Federal coal under lease increases or decreases in
response to local, regional, and national demand
for coal, the preferred program would assure that
both site-specific and cumulative environmental
impacts of Federal coal production are adequately
considered.
As important as the consideration of any
particular leasing options is the need for the
Department to put a coal management program
into operation, so decisions about the management
of Federal coal can be incorporated into the land
use planning systems of the Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service. Just as decisions
about Federal coal can not be wisely made in
isolation from decisions about wildlife manage-
2-64
r I
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
meat, grasslands, water, community development,
and the many other resource management issues
which must be considered by the Department, so
those other decisions cannot be responsibly made
in isolation from consideration of how Federal
coal would be managed. As previously noted, these
management decisions concern many other actions
besides competitive coal leasing. They include
decisions on administration of existing leases; the
issuance of PRLAs; and the readjustment, relin-
quishment, cancellation, termination, assignment,
and any other transfer of leases.
The preferred coal management program
described in this programmatic environmental
impact statement, while largely the product of
intensive development during the past 18 months,
has been in the preparation and review stage for
five years. The operation of a complex program
designed to integrate Federal coal management
decisions with other Federal, state, and local
resource decisions is not a simple matter. If the
Nation is to be assured of meeting its future energy
objectives in the most efficient and environmental-
ly satisfactory way possible, a program for the
management of the Federal coal resource is
essential.
2.10 REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1960. Coal
Fields of the United States, Geological Survey,
Reston, Virginia.
2. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977. Miner-
al Industry Surveys-Coal - Bituminous and Lignite
(preliminary), Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.
3. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977. Dem-
onstrated Coal Reserve Base of the U.S. as of
January 1, 1976, Mineral Industry Surveys, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C.
4. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978.
KRCRA Surface/Subsurface Ownership Patterns,
BLM Coal Task Group 130 Report, Bureau of
Land Management, Washington, D.C. y
5. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977. Miner-
als Yearbook 1975, Volume I. Metals, Minerals,
and Fuels, Prepared by Bureau of Mines, Wash-
ington, D.C.
6. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1933 through
1976. Mineral Industry Surveys-Coal - Bituminous
and Lignite, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.
7. U.S. Department of Energy, 1977. Statistics
and Trends of Energy Supply, and Demand, and
Prices, Volume II and Volume III, Annual Report
to Congress, Energy Information Administration,
Washington, D.C.
8. National Coal Association, 1973. Bituminous
Coal Data, 1973 Edition, Washington, D.C.
9. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1975. Final
Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Feder-
al Coal Leasing Program, Bureau of Land Man-
agement, Washington, D.C.
10. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1976.
Projected Coal Production for Six Western States,
Division of Minerals Program Development and
Analysis, Bureau of Land Management, Washing-
ton, D.C.
11. American Gas Association, 1978. Annual
Report - December 31, 1977 Year-end Reserves of
Crude Oil and Natural Gas.
12. Executive Office of the President, 1977. The
Environment, The President's Message to the
Congress, April 23, 1977, Presidential Documents
Vol. 13, No. 22, pp. 782-794, 803-808.
13. U.S. Department of Energy, 1978. Federal
Coal Leasing and 1985 and 1990 Regional Coal
Production Forecasts, Leasing Policy Develop-
ment Office, Washington, D.C.
14. Cannon, J.S., 1978. Final Report: Western
State Coal Leasing Programs, Submitted to the
Department of Interior Under Contract AA-140-
4110-1127 on April 27, 1978. (Not for release until
August 30, 1978.)
15. U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Divi-
sion, 1978. Competition in the Coal Industry,
Washington, D.C.
16. Comptroller General of the United States,
July 1978. Inaccurate Estimates of Western Coal
Reserves Should Be Corrected, EMD-78-32, Re-
port to the Congress, Washington, D.C.
17. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1976. Coal
Resource Classification System of the United
-65
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
States Bureau of Mines and United States Geologi-
cal Survey, G.S. Bulletin 1450B, Washington, D.C.
18. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1976.
Bituminous Coal and Lignite Distribution Calen-
dar Year 1976, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington,
D.C.
19. Averitt, P., 1975. Coal Resources of the
United States-January 1, 1974, U.S. Department
of Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
20. McNeal, W.H. and G.F. Nielsen, 1974. 1974
Keystone Coal Industry Manual, McGraw-Hill
Inc., N.Y., N.Y.
21. C.F. Clark, J.P. Henry, Jr., M.A. Moore,
E.L. Capener, RG. Murray, A.J. Moll, J.B.
Kopelman, E.M. Kinderman, and C.W. Marynow-
ski, 1973. Energy Supply and Demand Situation in
North America to 1990, Volume 9: Energy
Technology. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo
Park, California.
22. Executive Office of the President, 1977.
National Energy Program. The President's Ad-
dress to the Congress, April 20, 1977, Presidental
Documents Vol. 13, No. 17, pp. 556-583.
23. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1975. The
Reserve Base of U.S. Coals by Sulfur Content, IC
860, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.
24. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1975. The
Reserve Base of U.S. Coals by Sulfur Content, IC
8693, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.
25. ICF, Inc., 1979. Effects of No Further
Federal Leasing on the Nation's Coal Markets,
Prepared for the Departments of the Interior and
Energy, Draft Report, January 1979. Washington,
D.C.
26. Federal Trade Commission, 1978. Staff
Report on the Structure of the Nation's Coal
Industry 1964-1974. Washington, D.C.
27. General Accounting Office, 1977. The State
of Competition in the Coal Industry. Washington,
D.C.
28. Hall, E.H., D.B. Peterson, J.F. Foster, K.D.
Kiang, and V.W. Ellzey, 1975. Fuels Technology -
A State of the Art Review, Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency by Battelle
Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio.
29. Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, U.S.
House of Representatives, 1977. Project Indepen-
dence: U.S. and World Energy Outlook Through
1990. Washington, D.C.
30. American Petroleum Institute, 1977. Re-
serves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas Liquids, and
Natural Gas in the Unitd States and Canada as of
December 31, 1976, Volume 31, Washington, D.C.
31. Council on Environmental Quality, 1974.
OCS Oil and Gas - An Environmental Assessment.
A Report to the President by the Council on
Environmental Quality, Volume 1. Washington,
D.C.
32. Potential Gas Committee, 1976. Potential
Supply of Natural Gas in the United States,
Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.
33. Congressional Research Service, 1978. Na-
tional Energy Transportation , Volume III. Issues
and Problems. Washington, D.C.
34. U.S. Department of Energy, 1978. Draft
Environmental Readiness Document - Small Scale
Low Head Hydro Commercialization Phase III
Planning, Washington, D.C.
35. Congressional Research Service, 1978. U.S.
Energy Demand and Supply 1976-1985 - Limited
Options, Unlimited Constraints, Washington, D.C.
36. U.S. Department of Energy, 1978. Working
Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Eastern
Gas Shale Project and Possible Ensuing Commer-
cialization of the Devonian Gas Shale Resource,
Washington, D.C.
37. Potential Gas Committee, 1977. A Compari-
son of Estimates of Ultimately Recoverable Quan-
tities of Natural Gas in the United States,
Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.
38. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1973. Final
Environmental Statement for the Prototype Oil
Shale Leasing Program. Volumes I-VI. Washing-
ton, D.C.
39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1977. Western Energy Resources and the Environ-
ment: Geothermal Energy, EPA 600/9-77-010,
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry, Washing-
ton, D.C.
2-66
"^-•• , "'™~"~"~~ - ^ - ~"~'^^ - ^~^ ,, ~ ,-, ~» M^n^MBB^BM MMllllrf" '
ROLE OF WESTERN AND FEDERAL COAL
40. National Energy Conservation Policy Act, 3206, Titles III, IV, VI.
Public Law 95-619, November 9, 1978, 91 STAT.
2-67
: ., ■-■ :
—Tj^^^rsz^j^-
HOUHBHaHHHH
CHAPTER 3
THE PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AND ALTERNATIVES
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 3 - THE PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES 3-1
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 3-2
3.1.1 The Preferred Program 3-2
3.1.2 No Federal Leasing 3-10
3.1.3 Processes Outstanding Preference Right Lease
Applications 3-10
3.1.4 Emergency Leasing 3-11
3.1.5 Lease to Satisfy Industry's Indications of
Need 3-12
3.1.6 State Determination of Leasing Levels 3-12
3.1.7 Lease to Meet DOE Production Goals 3-12
3.1.8 Other Alternatives Not Considered 3-13
3.2 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN COMPONENTS
OFTHE PREFERRED PROGRAM AND ITS
DEVELOPMENT 3-13
3.2.1 Development of the Preferred Program 3-13
3.2.2 Land Use Planning 3-17
3.2.3 Activity Planning 3-54
3.2.4 Setting Regional Production Goals and Leasing
Targets 3-57
3.2.5 Pre-Sale and Sale Procedures 3-60
3.2.6 State, Local, and Industry Participation 3-65
3.2.7 Special Leasing Opportunities 3-67
3.2.8 Emergency Leasing System 3-67
3.2.9 Post Programmatic Environmental Analysis 3-68
3.2.10 Administration of Existing Leases and PRLAs ... 3-68
3.2.1 1 Special Start-Up Considerations 3-72
3.2.12 Other Aspects of the Preferred Program 3-73
3.3 REFERENCES 3-74
CHAPTER 3
THE PREFERRED FEDERAL COAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 requires the preparation of an environmental
impact statement on "any major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment". A principal task of the one and a
half year old interagency Federal coal policy
review has been the selection of the proposed
action for this programmatic environmental im-
pact statement. A series of issue option papers was
prepared on the alternatives and subalternatives
which would affect the substance and procedures
of a Federal coal management program. Prefer-
ences for specific policy options among those
presented in the issue option papers were expressed
by the Secretary of the Interior or the Under
Secretary between October 1977 and March 1979.
The procedures followed in the coal policy review
to determine the policy option preferences are
described in Section 3.2.1 and the various options
presented to the Secretary and Under Secretary,
the pros and cons associated with each option, and
the preferences expressed by the Secretary or
Under Secretary are summarized in Table 3-2
accompanying Section 3.2.1. These numerous
policy option preferences have been integrated into
a complete proposed Federal coal management
program which is the proposed major Federal
action in this statement. This proposed program,
composed of the preferred policy options, is
termed the preferred program and is presented in
Section 3.1.1 and discussed in greater detail in
Section 3.2.
The principal policy options not preferred by
the Secretary form the six major alternatives to the
preferred program:
• No new Federal leasing until at least 1985.
• Process and lease only outstanding prefer-
ence right lease applications.
e Lease only bypass coal and coal needed to
maintain existing operations (emergency
leasing).
o Lease to meet the coal industry's indica-
tions of need.
• Allow state determination of leasing levels.
© Lease to meet Department of Energy coal
production goals. Other policy options not
preferred by the Secretary form the major
subalternatives analyzed in Chapter 5,
Section 5.4.
Each alternative focuses on a different admin-
istrative and policy limitation on the determination
of the level of Federal coal leasing to be achieved.
They were selected to bracket the range of leasing
activity that could result from a Federal coal
management program. Because of the stringent
statutory and policy restrictions under which the
Federal coal policy review is being conducted, any
alternative to the preferred program which might
be adopted would be similar in most of its details
to the structure described for the preferred pro-
gram. Some of the alternatives would remove
certain components of the preferred program (i.e.,
eliminate new competitive leasing fully for the first
two alternatives and effectively for the third
alternative), while others would merely shift the
responsibility, in whole or in part, for the final
decision on how much and which coal will be
offered for lease sale (from the Department to the
industry in the fourth alternative, to the states in
the fifth alternative, and to the Department of
Energy in the sixth alternative). Various alterna-
tives also differ from the preferred program in the
sequence of, and extent of data required for,
decisions in a coal management program. Each of
the alternatives is_ described in Sections 3.1.2
through 3.1.7. Other alternatives not analyzed in
this statement and the reasons for excluding them
are briefly discussed in Section 3.1.8. The descrip-
tions of the six major alternatives are not as
detailed as the description of the preferred pro-
gram since, as previously noted, most of the
components of the preferred program would be
incorporated in the various alternatives. The more
3-1
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
detailed description of the preferred program in
Section 3.2 contains an explanation of which
components of the preferred program are compat-
ible or incompatible with the other major alterna-
tives.
In order to accommodate the reader with a
complete visualization of the Federal coal manage-
ment program, and provide insights on Depart-
mental policy and planning, this document pro-
vides in Appendix A, the proposed regulations for
that program. If the Secretary upon review of this
statement, decides that a program is needed, and
actually selects a Federal coal management pro-
gram that reflects his earlier policy preferences
(i.e., preference for the preferred program), then
the later regulations that were officially proposed
on March 19, 1979 (44 Federal Register 16800-
16845) would govern the operation of that pro-
gram. Both the detailed discussion of the preferred
program in Section 3.2 and the proposed regula-
tions in Appendix A should permit the reader to
make more specific the comments he or she may
wish to offer on this statement and the proposed
action. All comments received by the Department
on this statement will be considered in the
selection by the Secretary of the coal management
program the Department will establish and the
development of the program's final regulations.
Adoption of any one of these alternatives as
the new Federal coal management program would
likely result in coal leasing, coal production, and
coal-related development activity levels for each
coal region different from those which would occur
under the preferred program. Taken together, the
preferred program and the six major alternatives
are intended to cover a full range of coal leasing,
coal production, and coal-related development
possibilities. The estimated levels of leasing,
production, and development which would result
from these alternatives are presented in Chapter 5
of this statement and are the basis of that chapter's
assessment of the environmental impacts from coal
development under each alternative. Chapter 5,
Section 5.4 also discusses the impacts of the series
of subalternatives which, if adopted, could be
incorporated into one or more of the major
alternatives.
3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE
ALTERNATIVES
In this section, the preferred program and
other alternatives are described.
3.1.1. The Preferred Program
At the outset of the Federal coal policy review,
the Secretary established four primary goals the
Department must meet for management of the
Federal coal resource. These primary goals are:
® Employ land-use planning and effective
enforcement of environmental laws to
assure that Federal coal is committed to
production and produced in an environ-
mentally acceptable manner which is re-
sponsive to local communities and land
owners affected by Federal coal develop-
ment.
® Assure that sufficient quantities of Federal
coal are produced to help meet the objec-
tives of the National Energy Plan.
• Assure that Federal coal is produced in an
economically efficient manner, with a fair
economic return to the United States for all
coal produced.
© Emphasize consultation and cooperation
with state governments in planning the
leasing and development of Federal coal.
The preferred Federal coal management pro-
gram would incorporate these goals; the expres-
sions of preference for certain policy options by
the Secretary and Under Secretary; the require-
ments of the appropriate statutes, principally the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977; and the direction provided by the
President in his 1977 Energy and Environmental
Messages to the Congress.
The preferred program includes eight major
elements:
® A planning system, involving close consul-
tation with state and local governments,
industry, and the public (1) to decide which
areas of Federal coal reserves would be
considered acceptable locations for coal
production, and (2) to delineate, rank, and
select for sale specific tracts of coal.
■
3-2
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
• A system for evaluating the national de-
mand for coal and for determining produc-
tion which should be stimulated by the
leasing of Federal coal.
• Procedures for conducting sales and issuing
leases.
• Post-lease enforcement of terms and condi-
tions.
• Procedures for management of existing
leases issued prior to implementation of the
new program.
• Procedures for processing existing prefer-
ence right lease applications.
• A strategy to integrate the environmental
analysis requirements of the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act of 1969 in the new
program.
• Procedures to start-up the new program
and to offer lease sales in emergency
situations.
Set forth below is a general overview of the
eight major elements of the preferred alternative
for a Federal coal management program. Figure 3-
1 displays a simple flow chart for the preferred
alternative.
The draft version of this statement published
on December 15, 1978, contained in its Appendix
A a set of example regulations for the preferred
program. The example regulations were meant to
indicate to the reader what type of regulations the
Department might propose if the Secretary, after
reviewing this final statement, were to select the
preferred program. Example regulations were
provided in order to respond to one of the
principal public and judicial criticisms of the 1975
final environmental impact statement for the last
proposed Federal coal management program (see
Sections 1.2.4 and 1.2.6), namely, that the pre-
ferred program was not adequately described.
Simultaneous with the publication of the draft
version of this statement, the Department gave
notice of intent to propose rules (43 Federal
Register 58776). The example regulations were
modified after review of the testimony and written
comments received on the draft statement and
were published as proposed rules on March 19,
1979 (44 Federal Register 16800-16845). By sched-
uling the proposed rulemaking between the publi-
cation dates for the draft and final environmental
impact statements, the Department sought to
provide the public with sufficient time to comment
on the proposed rules without the burden of being
asked to address simultaneously the varied issues
discussed in either the draft or final statement. The
lengthy overview of the preferred program in this
section, the more detailed discussion of certain
aspects of the program in Section 3.2, and the
proposed rules set forth in Appendix A should
provide the reader with a complete picture of how
the preferred program would operate.
For a similarly detailed understanding of all
the Department's coal-related activities, the reader
may wish to review the regulations of the United
States Geological Survey under 30 CFR Part 211,
as revised by rulemaking published in 43 Federal
Register 37181-37196 on August 22, 1978; the final
regulations of the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement under 30 CFR
Chapter VII published in 44 Federal Register
14902-15463 on March 13, 1979, and proposed
planning regulations for the Bureau of Land
Management under 43 CFR Part 1600 published
in 43 Federal Register 58764-58774 on December
15, 1978. Finally, the reader may also wish to
consult the Forest Service's proposed planning
regulations under 36 CFR 219 published in 43
Federal Register 39046-39059 on August 31, 1978.
3.1.1.1 Planning Systems. In the preferred program,
the Department would rely on the land manage-
ment agencies' land use planning processes and the
Bureau of Land Management's activity planning
process to provide the initial forums for the
making of the principal decisions in the Federal
coal management program. Activity planning
would then take place through an entirely new
structure.
Land Use Planning. The critical decision during the
land use planning process of the land management
agencies (prinicipally the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment and the Forest Service) would be, under the
preferred program, the identification of areas
acceptable for further consideration for coal
leasing. The areas acceptable would be identified
by screening out areas that:
• Are considered not to contain coal reserves
of high to moderate development potential.
• Are considered unsuitable for leasing under
the provisions of Section 522 of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA) and the President's Environmen-
3-3
LAND USE PLANNING:
a) Identify Coal Lands
b) Unsuitability Findings
c) Resource Tradeoffs
d) Surface Owner Consultation
MANAGEMENT OF:
ACTIVITY PLANNING:
a)
Existing Leases
a)
Preliminary
b)
PRLAs
Tract Identi-
c)
Emergency Leases
«-►
fication
d)
Exploration
b)
Tract Ranking &
Licenses
Proposed Tract
e)
Exchanges
c)
Selection
Scheduling
within Regions
Regional Sale
EISs
REGIONAL PRODUCTION
GOALS AND
LEASING TARGETS
SALES:
a)
Decision by Secretary on Selection
and Scheduling of Tracts for Sale
b)
Notice of Sale
c)
Lease Sale
(See Figures 3-2, 3-4 and 3-5 for more detailed presentations
of the preferred program.)
FIGURE 3-1
SUMMARY OF THE PREFERRED PROGRAM
3-4
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
tal Message through the application of
lands unsuitability criteria.
• Are considered to be of higher value for
other uses as determined by multiple-use,
resource management trade-off decisions.
• Include split estate lands where the coal
would be recovered by surface mining
methods and a significant number of
surface owners (as defined in SMCRA)
have indicated a preference against surface
mining of their land, except in the rare case
in activity planning where the Bureau of
Land Management determines that no
other areas acceptable for further consider-
ation for coal leasing could produce suffi-
cient tracts for lease sale to meet the
regional leasing target. The Department is
also considering a procedure which would
permit an individual surface owner to
remove his particular land from further
consideration for leasing by means of
expressing a firm intent not to provide
consent to mine during the lifetime of the
land use plan (up to 15 years).
The land use plan could also limit development
levels or rates within the areas identified as
acceptable for further consideration for coal
leasing. This use of development levels or rates is
called the threshold concept; it would be an
integral part of the land use planning process. As
examples of the manner in which this concept
could be employed, in acceptable areas a maxi-
mum threshold for mining employment might be
established in response to state government re-
quests for planning to affect community growth
rates, or a minimum threshold on the area of
habitat for a particular wildlife specie might be
established for resource conservation reasons.
Then, the Federal land manager or the responsible
official would not lease coal if the additional
development could be expected to push total mine
employment in the area over, or the total area of
the particular species' habitat under, the specified
threshold levels. Thresholds would be used to
control impacts which depend on an overall
development level rather than on site-specific
effects.
All potential resource users would be invited
and expected to participate actively in the land use
planning process. Each potential user — whether a
coal company, a livestock operator, or an environ-
mental organization — should voice its opinion
concerning the uses to which the land should be
put and should provide sufficient information to
support that opinion. The land use planning
process provides numerous opportunities for such
participation. The expertise of, and information
available to, the potential users is needed by the
land management agency to ensure that an
adequate land use plan is prepared. For example,
coal company data may show coal which can be
regarded as high or medium potential of which the
land use planner is not aware; an environmental
organization may know of a situation, not dis-
closed in the planning data, which requires the
application of an unsuitability criterion; or the
coal company may be able to demonstrate condi-
tions or potential mining techniques, not known to
the planner, which qualify for an exception to the
application of an unsuitability criterion.
Activity Planning. Activity planning for each
Federal resource — coal, timber, forage, etc. — in
the planning area follows completion of the land
use plan. Under the preferred program, coal
resource activity planning would be conducted by
the Bureau of Land Management and would
involve the delineation, ranking, selection, and
scheduling of tracts for lease sale from the land
identified in the land use plan as areas acceptable
for further consideration for leasing.
The first step in activity planning would be to
delineate preliminary tracts from within the ac-
ceptable areas. Delineation efforts could take place
beginning about 30 to 60 days after a land use plan
is filed. The boundaries of the preliminary tracts
would be drawn primarily on considerations of
technical coal data, resource conservation consid-
erations, and surface ownership patterns. Read-
justments of boundaries to reflect environmental
or social considerations would occur as the tract
ranking and selection process proceeds.
Before tracts are delineated, the Bureau of
Land Management would publish a call for
submissions by industry of expressions of interest
in leasing possible tracts. In addition to the request
for industry expressions of leasing interest, the
states would be encouraged to suggest possible
tracts, particularly tracts of importance to the
leasing of state-owned coal. These submittals
would be the critical element in the decisions on
delineation and subsequent ranking of tracts, since
3-5
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
the interest of companies or the states in those
areas would normally reflect important data
collected by both parties and market judgements
by the companies.
Once the land management agency has identi-
fied preliminary tracts, it would begin analyzing
the potential environmental impacts and geology
related to each tract. The agency would work
closely with other Federal agencies, state and local
governments, and other interested parties during
this process.
All three of the above steps - submission of
expressions of leasing interest, tract delineation,
and site-specific analysis - are designed to follow
the completion of individual land use plans and to
be conducted in the land use plan areas. The
following steps are designed to precede the setting
of a four-year lease sale schedule and to be
conducted in multistate regions.
As the next section discloses, the Department
has divided the country into coal regions to
develop regional leasing targets. In cooperation
with all involved land management agencies and
the affected state and local governments, the
Department would rank all delineated Federal
coal tracts within a production region. Generally,
ranking would take place every four years. Select-
ed from these ranked tracts would be those tracts
to be included in a proposed four-year lease sale
schedule. The number of tracts selected and the
proposed timing of their sale would be determined
by considering the leasing target for the region
established by the Department. Should the region-
al leasing target appear to exceed greatly the
producible coal in the more highly ranked Federal
tracts, the target itself could be reevaluated and
modified. The tract delineation, ranking, and
selection decision would be discussed in an
environmental impact statement which would
consider the site specific impacts and cumulative
regional impacts which would ultimately result
from the sale of leases for all the selected tracts in
the region over the four-year period.
The participation of state and local govern-
ments would be sought actively during the tract
ranking and selection process, particularly to
ensure consideration of social and economic
impacts and problems associated with potential
coal development. State participation would be
ensured by the establishment of regional coal
teams composed of BLM personnel and state
governors' representatives to oversee the tract
ranking process, to conduct the tract selection and
scheduling procedures, and to make the lease sale
recommendations to the Secretary. The public
would also participate in this process. Regardless
of any additional public participation procedures
which may be employed, public hearings would be
held on the environmental impact statement
prepared on the regional tract delineation, ranking,
selection, and scheduling process.
From among the tracts selected for lease sale,
the Secretary would designate, where appropriate,
specific tracts to be offered for sale only to small
businesses and to public bodies (Federal and state
agencies, municipalities, and rural electric cooper-
atives and similar organizations, and nonprofit
corporations controlled by any of those entities).
The decision on these two types of set-aside sales
would be made after the Secretary reviews the
information provided by public bodies through
submissions of expressions of interest in the
activity planning process and consults with the
Small Business Administration.
Stipulations would be attached to the proposed
leases for the tracts selected for lease sale to
mitigate adverse environmental and social impacts.
These stipulations would incorporate measures
which the Department considers necessary as a
result of the general environmental analyses
conducted in the land use planning and site-
specific activity planning processes. It is expected
that many of these stipulations would be based on
the application of the unsuitability criteria and
their exceptions. The leases would also require
compliance with the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977.
No tract of Federal coal which includes a
surface estate owned by a private surface owner as
defined in SMCRA and which, if leased, would be
mined by surface mining methods would be
offered for lease sale unless that owner has given
his or her consent to mine. It would also be
removed from any activity planning procedures
until the governing land use plan is revised if the
surface owner files with the local BLM office a
written notice of refusal to give consent.
Before making a final decision on which, if
any, tracts to offer for lease sale, the Secretary
would formally consult with the governors of states
in which tracts are being proposed for sale. Should
a governor object to the offering of any proposed
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
. .
'
\
tract within his state, he would be given a period of
time in which to prepare and present his arguments
to the Secretary.
3.1.1.2 Production Goals and Leasing Targets. The
major coal bearing areas of the country have been
divided into 12 coal regions. Eight of these regions
contain significant reserves of Federal coal and the
six westernmost of these regions are expected to
play the principal role in any Federal coal leasing
scenario. In the preferred Federal coal manage-
ment program, each region would be managed
largely as a separate coal production unit with
many of the management responsibilities delegated
to regional Department/state teams. Within each
of these eight regions, a total regional production
goal and, based on an assessment of new leasing
needs, a regional leasing target for new logical
mining units containing Federal coal leases would
be formulated.
Regional production goals and leasing targets
would be derived every two years through the
following procedure:
1. The Department of Energy would circulate
proposed national and regional production goals.
2. The Secretary would provide DOE with his
comments, emphasizing possible conflicts between
the proposed goals and the Interior Department's
missions.
3. The Department of Energy would promulgate
its final regional production goals.
4. The regional Department/state coal teams
established for activity planning would recom-
mend to the Secretary adjustments to the goals and
possible preliminary regional leasing targets after
receiving public comments from within their
respective regions.
5. On the basis of the teams' recommendations
and other information and comments available to
the Department and with consideration for the
missions of the Department, the Secretary would
adjust the DOE goals as necessary and adopt the
adjusted goals for the long-term planning guidance
of the Department and for the use of states and
other agencies. He also would propose the four-
year regional leasing targets to be used by the
regional coal teams in the formulation or revision
of a schedule of sales. (Each schedule would be set
for four-years with a revision considered during
the second year of its term.)
6. The Secretary would publish his determina-
tions and request comments from the public. He
also would consult with the governor of each state
to acquire his views of appropriate leasing target
levels for the state and region.
7. Finally, on the basis of the comments he
receives, the Secretary would adopt regional
leasing targets, expressed as tonnages of coal
reserves, for the guidance of the regional coal
teams. These targets would be made available to
the regional coal teams at about the time they
begin their task of selecting tracts to propose to the
Secretary for lease sale.
In developing its four-year lease sale proposal,
a regional coal team may propose a lease sale
schedule that does not meet the regional leasing
target, but at least one of their alternative sched-
ules should be for the Secretary's regional leasing
target. Any recommended divergence from a
regional leasing target would not become official
unless and until the Secretary formally accepts the
recommendation at the time he decides on the
lease sale schedule for that region (after comple-
tion of the regional lease sale environmental
impact statement). Thus, the process of adopting
production goals and establishing leasing targets
would include consideration of the full range of
Federal land management responsibilities and
applicable statutory requirements and policies of
the states. In considering new regional production
goals and leasing targets, the Department would
review the analyses in this programmatic environ-
mental impact statement (updated when neces-
sary) and any post-programmatic lease sale envi-
ronmental impact statements for each region. It
would also assess the success of the previous tract
delineation, ranking, and selection process in each
region; industry surveys; and information devel-
oped by other institutions and organizations.
Although the final regional production goals
adopted by the Secretary would not be used
directly in making Federal leasing decisions during
the tract selection process, these regional goals
would guide both the Federal and state govern-
ments in setting data gathering and planning
priorities. These priorities would be established to
ensure that a sufficient number of tracts are
delineated and enough site-specific information is
generated to make the regional tract ranking and
selection process workable and to enable the
3-7
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
Department to meet the regional leasing targets
derived from those production goals.
The analysis completed on the tracts available
but not selected in the previous ranking and
selection process for the regions would assist the
Department in projecting cumulative impacts of
future lease sales. These impacts could then be
considered when the Department again considers
regional leasing targets. Using this process, the
setting of regional leasing targets would supply
guidance to the tract ranking and selection process
which, in turn, would supply guidance for the next
update of the targets.
3.1.1.3 Lease Sales. Each tract selected by the
Secretary for lease sale would be analyzed to
determine the appropriate fair market value of the
coal and the maximum economic recovery require-
ments. Comments on the fair market value and
maximum economic recovery would be taken
before the sale.
The method for conducting the sales could
vary from sale to sale. One of the main sale
differences would be between single tract and
intertract sales. In intertract sales, more tracts are
offered for sale than would be awarded. The
intertract sale is designed to encourage competi-
tion over all the tracts when competition for each
tract viewed individually may be lacking. At a
minimum, this form of sale would be employed for
sales involving tracts which would be mined by
surface mining methods and which contain a
surface estate owned by a surface owner as defined
by SMCRA who gave nontransferable consent to
mine prior to the enactment of SMCRA.
The responsibility for promulgating regulations
concerning the bidding systems to be employed in
lease sales belongs to the Department of Energy.
In no case would bids for less than fair market
value be accepted.
Particular tracts may have been set aside in
activity planning for public body or small business
special lease sale opportunities. These tracts would
be sold in separate sales with only qualified public
body and small business firms permitted to bid. In
these set-aside lease sales, no bids for less than fair
market value would be accepted and no special
variation in calculating fair market value would be
used. Set aside tracts on which no successful bids
are received would be released for the subsequent
general sale, if one is scheduled.
The Attorney General would review all suc-
cessful high bidders for antitrust implications
before the leases could be issued. Each lease issued
would contain provisions in accordance with
regulations promulgated by the Department of
Energy to ensure diligent development of the coal
and continued operation of the mine.
3.1.1.4 Post-Lease Enforcement of Terms and
Conditions. After a lease has been issued, the Office
of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
or, if a cooperative agreement has been signed with
the state, the appropriate state agency, would
largely be responsible for enforcing the environ-
mental stipulations set forth in the lease and in the
mining permit. The mining permit would have to
be issued to the lessee jointly by the state agency
and the Department of the Interior before mining
operations begin. To obtain the permit, the lessee
would be required to have a mining plan approved
by the Secretary. The lessee would have to file
bonds both to ensure that certain financial com-
mitments to the Federal Government are met and
to cover the cost of reclamation by the Federal
land management agency should the lessee fail to
meet all his reclamation requirements. The general
post-lease program is discussed in the Final
Environmental Statement for the Permanent Reg-
ulatory Program under SMCRA [1] and set forth
in the permanent regulations of the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (44
Federal Register 14902-15463, March 9, 1979).
3.1.1.5 Management of Existing Leases. The De-
partment would apply the same land use planning
and unsuitability standards to existing nonproduc-
ing leases as would be applied to new leases. Such
application would respect valid existing rights and
substantial financial and legal commitments and
other exemptions in SMCRA and other laws.
Criteria would be applied to nonproducing existing
leases during land use planning. If, however,
criteria have not been applied to a nonproducing
existing lease prior to submission of a mine plan,
they would be applied directly to the lease tract in
the mine plan review process.
Under this approach, except where land use
planning is conducted, leases on which there is no
attempt to achieve production would lapse for
failure to meet diligence requirements without the
application of criteria. When a mining plan is
submitted, the Department would review both
■
3-8
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
whether the plan is consistent with the reclamation
standards of SMCRA and whether coal develop-
ment is consistent with current planning and
unsuitability requirements and stipulations.
Should the review indicate no major problems,
the Department would process the mining plan
under normal procedures. If major problems exist,
however, the Department would seek to work them
out with the lessee or reject the mining plan for
failure to comply with SMCRA.
Finally, as part of the process of determining
the need for new leasing, and in setting the
regional production goals and leasing targets, the
Department has evaluated, and would continue to
evaluate, the production potential from existing
producing and nonproducing leases. This evalu-
ation, however, is not as detailed as, nor can it
substitute for, the mining plan review for consis-
tency with current planning and unsuitability
requirements and reclamation standards.
3.1.1.6 Processing of Preference Right Lease Appli-
cations. As with existing leases, the Department
would adopt a policy of applying to preference
right lease applications the same unsuitability and
planning requirements as those applied to new
leases. The Department would integrate the deter-
mination of consistency with current requirements
in the process for determining lease entitlement in
which the applicant must show the existence of
commercial quantities of coal.
Needed environmental stipulations would be
derived after the applicant submits the initial
commercial quantities showing. If the final com-
mercial quantities showing is then successfully
made, the Department would issue the lease. If
not, the application would be rejected.
3.1.1.7 Meeting the Requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act. A regional environmen-
tal impact statement would be prepared on a four-
year schedule of lease sales in each coal production
region shown in Figure 1-1 for which sales of
Federal coal are projected. Each regional lease sale
statement would include analysis of both the site-
specific and intraregional cumulative impacts of
the proposed leasing actions. Additionally, mine
plan reviews, coal lease exchanges, and other
Federal coal management actions might be includ-
ed where timely and appropriate. The regional
leasing target, the tract delineation and ranking
process, the proposed selection of tracts to be
leased, and the proposed lease sale schedule would
be discussed and analyzed. The tract rankings and
sales schedule would be reconsidered two years
later when the next biennial process of establishing
new regional production goals and leasing targets
is completed. If, during this reconsideration in any
region, substantial differences are found in tract
ranking (because of the preparation of additional
land use plans or changed environmental, social,
or economic conditions) or if there is a new
regional leasing target requiring a major change in
the tracts proposed for sale, a two-year supplement
to the regional lease sale statement would be
prepared. At the time of the second consecutive
biennial consideration of regional leasing targets
and ranking of tracts, new four-year regional lease
sale environmental impact statements would be
prepared.
National and interregional impacts of the
Federal coal management program are analyzed in
this programmatic environmental impact state-
ment. The document would be updated when
conditions change sufficiently to require new
analyses of those impacts.
It is expected that additional environmental
impact statements would also be prepared on the
individual land use plans of the Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service. As each land use
plan addresses all public land resources and uses,
not just coal and coal development, the environ-
mental impact statement on the plan would be
comprehensive. Concerning coal, the statement
would include an environmental impact analysis of
any decision in the plan to identify lands as
acceptable for further consideration for coal
leasing, including the application of the unsuitabil-
ity criteria and the resource trade-offs which led to
the decision.
Presently, the Department is preparing envi-
ronmental impact statements on eight regions with
high coal development potential. These regions are
considerably smaller than the coal regions for
which the regional coal lease sale environmental
impact statements would be prepared under the
preferred program (compare Figures 1-1 and 1-2).
These ongoing regional statements discuss mining
plans for existing leases and related developments.
They do not address any renewed competitive
leasing which would result from the determination
of a need for leasing under the preferred program.
Where, however, the analyses in these regional
3-9
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
statements would be applicable to analyses needed
in the new regional lease sale statements, they
would be incorporated in the new statements.
3.1.1.8 Emergency Leasing and Start-up of the
Program. Should any leasing be contemplated in
the near future the entire program would be
phased in gradually during the first few sales
schedules. This phasing -in would be necessitated
by budgetary constraints and personnel ceilings.
The principal differences between a mature pro-
gram and start-up procedures would be that, first,
the unsuitability criteria would be applied directly
to lands which have already been found acceptable
for further consideration for coal leasing in
existing land use plans and, second, the regional
lease sale environmental impact statements would
not necessarily include a full four-year sales
schedule.
Once the program is in full operation (which
could be as early as 1985), situations might arise in
which the full planning-through-sale cycle of
decisionmaking could not respond quickly enough
to avoid causing unfair losses for existing coal
operations or the economies of certain locations.
To meet these situations, an emergency leasing
system, which would develop leases for sale
individually, would be a component of the pro-
gram. This system would use existing land use
plans or land use analyses where appropriate and
shorten greatly the activity planning stage. No
tract, however, would be offered for lease sale
under this system that had not been the subject of
an environmental assessment, including the appli-
cation of unsuitability criteria. Emergency lease
applications would be considered in cases where
Federal coal would be by-passed, where Federal
coal is needed to continue existing production or
meet existing contract requirements, where failure
to lease Federal coal would create a hardship, or
where Federal coal would be mined to gain access
to other coal deposits. It is expected that the need
for emergency leasing would diminish over time.
Emergency leasing would not be permitted to
substitute for the procedures required in the full
preferred program decisionmaking cycle. Emer-
gency applications which are not compatible with
existing land use plans would be rejected.
3.1.2 No Federal Leasing
Under this alternative, no new Federal coal
would be leased until at least 1985. All preference
right lease applications would be rejected where
cause for rejection exists, not processed during this
period, exchanged for leases for other minerals, or
purchased. There would be no leasing for bypass
situations or to maintain existing operations. The
supply of Federal coal available for development
would consist of that coal already under lease,
including coal which may have been previously
leased under the consent agreement in NRDC v.
Hughes .
Selection of this alternative implies that the
government has decided that leasing is not needed
within the planning horizon to 1985. The produc-
tion under this alternative could reach the same
levels as the preferred program or the alternative of
leasing to meet DOE production goals since these
programs could have outcomes of no leasing in one
or more of the study regions.
Compared to the preferred program and other
alternatives, the no leasing alternative would likely
stimulate the largest number of proposals for
development of existing leases for which no mining
plans have been submitted. In each such proposal,
and after the mining plan is filed, the leasehold
would be examined in light of the lands unsuitabil-
ity criteria. This examination would be carried out
through the land use planning system in a fashion
similar to that previously described for determin-
ing areas acceptable for further consideration for
coal leasing. Those leases which are found unsuit-
able would be revoked using the appropriate,
available legal tools. This alternative would also
stimulate the largest number of proposals for
development of non-Federal coal.
3.1.3 Process Outstanding Preference Right Lease
Applications
Under this alternative, the Federal government
would process preference right lease applications
(PRLAs) and issue leases for those applications
which meet the commercial quantities test. How-
ever, no other Federal leasing would occur until at
least 1985.
Existing leases would be managed as described
under the no leasing alternative. The PRLAs
would be processed as rapidly as would be
administratively feasible. If it were necessary to set
3-10
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
priorities in the processing of PRLAs, the follow-
ing general guidelines would be applied:
• First, PRLAs in the least environmentally
damaging areas.
• Second, PRLAs in areas where coal devel-
opment needs are greatest as determined by
a regional coal needs analysis.
• Third, PRLAs which have been on file for
the longest period.
Choice of this alternative would require that
those PRLAs in areas which are determined
environmentally unacceptable, but which still meet
the commercial quantities test (with proper envi-
ronmental stipulations applied), would either have
to be purchased or otherwise acquired (e.g.,
through lease exchanges permitted by statute).
As with the no leasing alternative, this alterna-
tive is not necessarily inconsistent with the pre-
ferred program or with the alternative of leasing to
meet DOE production goals; leasing level targets
under those alternatives could be met with coal
from PRLAs.
The surface owner consent provisions of
SMCRA do not apply to PRLAs. Environmental
analysis to comply with NEPA could be done on a
case-by-case basis.
3.1.4 Emergency Leasing
This alternative would provide for limited
competitive leasing. Emergency leases would in-
clude the relatively small amounts of Federal coal
which could be leased to avoid bypassing Federal
coal or to maintain existing operations. Bypass
situations arise where Federal coal occurs in small
blocks which adjoin areas where mines are already
operating and which, if not leased, are not likely to
be mined at all. Leasing of PRLAs would be
permitted only if they meet either the bypass or
existing operations criteria. These limited leasing
criteria would be similar to current criteria for
short-term leasing under the modified order in
NRDC v. Hughes . The maximum amount of
bypass coal eligible for any single lease under this
alternative would be that agreed to under the court
order (i.e., five years of production at existing
rates). Similarly, the maximum amount of coal that
would be leased to maintain an existing operation
would be defined by that order (eight years of
production at existing rates). As with the two
previous alternatives, this alternative precludes
other new competitive Federal coal lease sales, at
least until 1985, with a review of the need for new
leasing anticipated then. Existing leases would be
managed as described under the no leasing
alternative.
In specifying this alternative, the elegibility of
existing operations to lease additional Federal coal
to maintain production would have to be restrict-
ed. The restrictions decided on were that the
mining operation must have been in existence at
least five years and must not have previously
obtained a new Federal lease in order to maintain
the existing operations. This decision, however,
will have to be reviewed if the Secretary elects this
alternative. It should be noted that these restric-
tions in some respects are tighter than the
comparable short-term leasing criteria under the
NRDC v. Hughes order, wherein mines must only
have been operating by September 1977 to be
eligible to lease Federal coal on a short-term basis.
The surface owner consent provisions of
Section 714 of SMCRA would apply and, where
appropriate, lands unsuitability criteria and gener-
al planning analysis would be required. Site
specific environmental analysis would be carried
out separately and not included in any regional
environmental impact statements.
3.1.5 Lease to Satisfy Industry's Indications of
Need
This alternative is effectively the Energy
Minerals Activity Recommendation System
(EMARS II), as proposed by the Department in
the September 19, 1975, final environmental
impact statement on the Federal coal leasing
program. Certain changes must be made to bring
the program into compliance with the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976,
and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977.
Under this alternative, during the early stages
of land use planning industry would first be asked
to nominate those tracts it is interested in leasing.
At the same time, the public would be asked to
indicate those areas where leasing should be
restricted. Coal demand estimates formed from the
sum of the industry nominations would serve as a
development restriction. Such information would
then be processed through the land management
agencies' planning systems to determine whether
the specific tracts are environmentally acceptable
3-11
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
and whether coal development represents an
efficient and proper use of the land. Tracts which
are judged acceptable would then be offered in a
future lease sale. Each tract receiving a high bid
equal to or above fair market value as determined
by the Department would be leased to the high
bidder.
Major differences between this alternative and
the preferred program are that land use planning
would not be required to precede tract delineation,
regional environmental and socio-economic con-
cerns would not weigh as heavily in the location of
tracts for sale, and more leasing than needed by
the market might take place because of speculative
interest in leases.
Existing leases and PRLAs would be managed
as described earlier. This alternative would also
include procedures for emergency leasing of small
tracts as described earlier. NEPA compliance
could proceed as under the preferred program. The
surface owner consent provisions of Section 714 of
SMCRA would apply. Regional environmental
impact statements would not be prepared, and the
tracts would be analyzed in the environmental
impact statements on land use plans.
3.1.6 State Determination of Leasing Levels
Under this alternative, the states would have
the responsibility to determine the timing and
extent of new Federal leasing. There are many
procedural structures that could be used to
implement this alternative. The states, rather than
the Secretary with state consultation, could select
and rank tracts from areas acceptable for further
consideration for coal leasing as determined
through the Federal land management agencies'
land use planning systems. States would determine
a lease sale schedule; thereafter, the appropriate
BLM state office would conduct the sale. The
states would have veto power over which leases
would finally be issued.
A second possible structure would be to
transfer all land use planning and environmental
analysis functions to the appropriate state plan-
ning office. The Department would retain only the
responsibility to conduct lease sales and to issue
leases. Both structures would require Congressio-
nal action to amend the governing statutes,
especially FLPMA and SMCRA.
Existing leases and PRLAs would be managed
as described before, but the states could have a
final veto on the acceptability of any area for coal
mining and could have responsibility for approval
of mining plans for Federal coal. Furthermore, it is
assumed that this alternative would include an
emergency leasing component. States would be
delegated the responsibility to obtain appropriate
surface owner consents.
The Department chose this alternative and its
variations for analytical purposes only. The alter-
native and its variations have not been formally
requested by the states themselves, although they
were consulted to assess the comparative impacts
of the alternative. To conduct an environmental
impact analysis of this alternative it was necessary
to solicit statements of present preferences for
leasing levels from the states. The Department
requested each western state with substantial
reserves of unleased Federal coal to specify what
production levels it would like to see analyzed for
1985 and 1990. All but two states provided their
own production levels to be used for the analytical
purposes of this environmental impact statement.
The State of Colorado chose to specify production
levels equivalent to the DOE mid-level estimates.
The State of Utah preferred not to specify any
production levels and indicated that the DOE
estimates for Utah are extremely suspect.
3.1.7 Lease to Meet DOE Production Goals
Under this alternative, DOE regional produc-
tion goals would drive the tract selection system.
DOE would select the regional leasing targets.
Although the same amount of leasing might result
from some of the previously described alternatives,
this alternative would focus specifically on the
DOE national production projections and would
not allow for any adjustment in those projections.
Areas acceptable for further consideration for coal
leasing would be defined in the land use planning
processes as described in the preferred program.
New leasing needs in a region would be calculated
by first estimating for a future period the differ-
ence between DOE production goals and currently
committed coal production. Estimates would then
be made of the amount of coal needed to fill
potential production gaps that could be supplied
from existing Federal leases and non-Federal coal.
Estimates of the potential production from existing
leases and non-Federal coal would take into
account the application of unsuitability criteria to
existing leases and the relative costs of mining both
3-12
MiriMimiiiMiTiWBTiMiiioiiManiWMrriiiiF
iMiMiiiriaimmiMiMiiiBiniinirinHtflMirr
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
sources of production. The remainder of the gap
would then have to be met by coal production
from new Federal leases.
Under this alternative, PRLAs would be
processed as described under the preferred pro-
gram. The amount of new competitive leasing
planned for regions would be adjusted for the
amount of reserves in PRLAs expected to be
leased. The adjustment would take into account
whether PRLA reserves were the least costly to
mine, the type of coal needed, environmentally
acceptable locations, and other factors.
This alternative would include an emergency
leasing component. Environmental impact state-
ments would be prepared as under the preferred
program. The surface owner consent provisions of
Section 714 of SMCRA would apply.
3.1.8 Other Alternatives Not Considered
The EMARS I proposal is not separately
analyzed as an alternative in this statement. The
basic principal of EMARS I, that coal develop-
ment on Federal lands should stem from govern-
ment interests, is a primary factor in the lease to
meet DOE production goals alternative and in the
preferred program, which relies on both coal need
projections and ways to modify these projections
in response to environmental, state government,
and other concerns. Other EMARS I elements
were either never articulated or superceded by
subsequent legislative changes.
The alternative of development of Federal coal
resources by the Federal government is not
discussed in this statement. Although such an
alternative was mentioned in the 1975 program-
matic environmental impact statement, it is unlike-
ly the Congress would approve legislation remov-
ing the responsibility for developing coal on
Federal lands from the private sector. The alterna-
tive is unreasonable and does not need to be
analyzed.
3.2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
CERTAIN COMPONENTS OF THE
PREFERRED PROGRAM AND ITS
DEVELOPMENT
This section provides a more detailed presenta-
tion of certain components of the preferred
Federal coal management program. It also in-
cludes a discussion of the process of developing the
preferred program and certain statutory require-
ments which have affected the program's design.
Figures 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4 display fully the major
steps in the preferred program.
Each discussion of a component of the pre-
ferred program in this section notes where the
component is unique to the preferred program and
where it is compatible with other alternatives.
3.2.1. Development of the Preferred Program
Shortly after assuming the post of Secretary of
the Interior, Secretary Andrus requested a review
of the status of Federal coal leasing, including the
lack of new leasing, the 1975 proposed leasing
program, the new statutory base for leasing, and
the NRDC v. Hughes suit. The reviewers found that
the 1975 program had been outdated by the new
statutes and, furthermore, was not compatible with
the policy objectives of the new Administration;
that the plaintiffs' arguments in the law suit were
likely to prevail; and that significant, new Federal
leasing probably could not and, moreover, should
not begin until a new Federal coal management
program which complies with the law and meets
Presidential and Departmental policy objectives is
prepared and the need for renewed leasing is
assessed.
Responding to these findings, the Secretary
ordered a full-scale interagency coal policy review
which, among other things, would assess the need
for leasing and initiate the development of a new
Federal coal management program. A review
committee, composed of the Solicitor and Assis-
tant Secretaries of the Department was formed.
The Office of Coal Leasing, Planning, and Coordi-
nation was established at the Departmental level to
coordinate the review. Three events in 1977 gave
impetus to the review: the April 29 publication of
the National Energy Plan which emphasized coal
as the principal domestic fuel to reduce our
dependence on imported oil and gas and called for
a doubling of coal production by 1985; the
President's May 23 Environmental Message to the
Congress and May 24 Memorandum to the
Secretary which called upon the Secretary to
develop an environmentally sound coal manage-
ment program; and the September 27 decision in
NRDC v. Hughes enjoining the Department from
engaging in major leasing activity until certain
conditions were met (see Chapter 1 for a discussion
of these events).
3-13
1
PREPLANNING
ANALYSIS
REGIONAL PRODUCTION
TARGETS
(solely to schedule planning
activities—not to affect
substance of plans)
^
IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH AND
MEDIUM POTENTIAL COAL LANDS
APPLICATION OF
UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA
1
f + Jr
LAND
USE
PLANS
A
RESOURCE TRADEOFF
DECISIONS
^
■
k f
SURFACE OWNER
CONSULTATION
THRESHOLD SETTING AND LEASE
AREA PRIORITIES RECOMMENDATIONS
1
r
AREAS ACCEPTABLE
FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
FOR COAL LEASING
(T(
] ACTIVIT
(FIGUR
Y PL/5
E 3-4
NNING
)
PREFERRED PROGRAM:
FIGURE 3-2
BLM LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS
3-14
.... :i^_^ i: :: ,::
(LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS)
(FIGURE 3-2)
I
PRELIMINARY TRACT
DELINEATION
COAL DATA
PROGRAMMATIC IMPACT
STATEMENT DETERMINATIONS
EXISTING REGIONAL PRODUCTION
GOALS AND LEASING TARGETS
EXPRESSIONS OF
INTEREST
GEOGRAPHIC COAL REGIONS
BIENNIAL DOE NATIONAL
PRODUCTION GOALS
REGIONAL TEAMS TO ASSESS
DOE GOALS AND PROPOSE
LEASING TARGETS BY
COMPARISON WITH KNOWN
FEDERAL/NON- FEDERAL
MINING PLANS, SURVEYS, ETC.
SECRETARY ASSESSMENT OF
COAL POLICY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECRETARY ADOPTS GOALS AS
MODIFIED, ESTABLISHES
PRELIMINARY REGIONAL
LEASING TARGETS
TRACT SITE
SPECIFIC ANALYSIS
REGIONAL RANKING
BY TRACT
PROPOSED TRACT
SELECTION AND SALES
SCHEDULING
RANKING
PROCEDURES
SECRETARY ADOPTS
FINAL REGIONAL
LEASING TARGETS
REVIEW WITH STATES THE
PRELIMINARY REGIONAL
LEASING TARGETS
COMMENTS FROM INDUSTRY
AND PUBLIC ON GOALS AND
TARGETS
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
PUBLIC HEARING
(TO SALES PROCEDURES)
(FIGURE 3-5)
FIGURE 3-3
PREFERRED PROGRAM: ACTIVITY PLANNING PROCESS
3-15
(FROM ACTIVITY PLANNING (FIGURE 3-4)
J
1
CONFIRMATION OF
WRITTEN SURFACE
OWNER CONSENT
'
1
r^
FORMAL CONSULTATION
WITH STATE GOVERNORS
APPROVAL BY SECRETARY
OF TRACTS
,
SURFACE MANAGEMENT
AGENCY CONSULTATION
SECRETARY'S DECISION
TO LEASE
NOTICE OF LEASE SALE
CONTAINS: DATE AND PLACE OF SALE
DESCRIPTION OF LANDS
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON FAIR MARKET VALUE
STATEMENT ON AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL INFORMATION
BIDDER QUALIFICATIONS
BOND INFORMATION
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
SALE
CONVENE SALE REVIEW
PANEL
1
'
REVIEW BIDDER
QUALIFICATIONS
1
f
CONSULT WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL
ON ANTITRUST PROVISIONS
J
7
ISSUE LEASE
FIGURE 3-4
PREFERRED PROGRAM: SALES PROCEDURES
3-16
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
The process of selecting the preferred new
Federal coal management program began in
October 1977 and continued through March 1979.
The first step in the process was the convening of
task forces assigned to specific issue areas. These
task forces were staffed with coal, land use
planning, and other specialists drawn mostly from
the Bureau of Land Management, the Geological
Survey, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Office of Policy Analysis. Each task force pro-
duced a background issue paper which was made
public and continues to be available from the
Bureau of Land Management upon request. The
Office of Coal Leasing, Planning, and Coordina-
tion reviewed these papers and from them pre-
pared concise issue option papers which were
submitted to the Secretary or Under Secretary.
(These issue option papers, listed in Table 3-1,
were also made public and continue to be available
from the Bureau of Land Management upon
request.) The Secretary or Under Secretary circu-
lated the issue option papers to the Assistant
Secretaries and the Solicitor for comments and
recommendations on which issue options should
be selected. After all comments and recommenda-
tions were also circulated among the Assistant
Secretaries and the Solicitor, they or their repre-
sentatives met and discussed the comments and
recommendations with the Secretary or Under
Secretary. The Secretary or Under Secretary
subsequently selected the option he preferred
under each issue presented to him in the issue
option paper or papers then under consideration.
On October 26, 1977, the Secretary considered
the general question of when in the planning
process should the Department solicit information
from the coal industry regarding where they would
prefer to have leases offered. On June 30, 1978, the
Secretary addressed numerous issues of which the
principal one was how should the need for leasing
and the levels of leasing be determined and by
whom. The six options not preferred by the
Secretary became the basis of the six alternatives
to the preferred program which are analyzed in
this statement. Also selected on that date were
options under issues concerning single tract and
intertract sale methods, bidding systems, state and
public participation procedures, site specific analy-
sis and lease stipulations requirements, the defini-
tion of "maximum economic recovery", regulation
of the end uses of Federal coal, a program for
public body leasing, and the management of non-
producing existing leases and preference right lease
applications. The Under Secretary selected options
on issues concerning procedures in land use and
activity planning on July 28, 1978, and on issues
concerning the preparation of environmental
impact statements and the implementation of the
statutory surface owner consultation and consent
requirements on September 15, 1978. On October 3
and November 2, 1978, the Under Secretary
selected preferred criteria (and exceptions) for
designating Federal coal lands unsuitable for
mining. Finally, on March 2, 1979, in response to
public comment on the draft version of this
statement and further analysis in the coal policy
review, the Under Secretary expressed a preference
for the use of Department/state regional coal
teams in activity planning and for certain changes
in surface owner consultation and consent proce-
dures. (The issues and options considered by the
Secretary and the Under Secretary, the benefits
from and the detriments to each option, the issue
option papers which set forth the options and
contain the discussion of the benefits and detri-
ments, the option preferred, and the date the
preference decision was made are summarized in
Table 3-2.)
The preferred program described in Section
3.1.1. and discussed in greater detail below was
developed by the Office of Coal Leasing, Planning
and Coordination from the policy options per-
ferred by the Secretary or the Under Secretary.
Further work in determining procedural details for
the preferred program and several of the other
alternatives is being accomplished by 23 task
forces composed of representatives of various
agencies of the Department and of the Office of
Leasing Policy Development of the Department of
Energy. These task forces were established shortly
after the publication of the draft version of this
statement on December 15, 1978, and most of their
work is already reflected in the proposed regula-
tions set forth in Appendix A and in changes in the
text of this chapter from Chapter 3 in the draft
statement.
3.2.2. Land Use Planning.
As previously noted, in the preferred program
the land management agencies' land use planning
systems and The Bureau of Land Management's
coal activity planning process are to provide the
3-17
TABLE 3-1
ISSUE OPTION PAPERS PREPARED TO IDENTIFY
PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
Issue Option Papers'
Paper Date Decision Date
Option Paper for the Secretary:
Departmental Approach for the Long-
Term Coal Leasing Program
Need for Leasing/Leasing Systems
Choice
Bidding Systems
Setting of Environmental Conditions
and Lease Terms
State and Local Government
Participation
Public Participation
Maximum Economic Recovery
Coal Leasing: Surface Owner Consent
Leasing for Limited End Uses
Public Body Leasing
Management of Preference Right
Lease Applications
Management of Existing Leases
Intraregional Matters Affecting
Design of a Leasing Process
Environmental Analysis Strategy
Split Estate Leasing Implementation
Land Unsuitability Criteria
Proposed Additional Unsuitability
Criteria
State Participation in Activity
Planning in Preferred Coal Management
Program
Surface Owner Consent Procedures
Sept. 20, 1977 Oct. 26, 1977
June 23, 19 78 June 30, 1978
June 23, 1978
June 23, 1978
June 30, 1978
June 30, 1978
June 23, 1978 June 30, 1978
June 23, 1978
June 23, 1978
June 23, 1978
June 23, 1978
June 23, 1978
June 23, 1978
June 23, 1978
July 18, 1978
Aug. 31, 1978
Aug. 31, 1978
Sept. 22, 1978
Oct. 30, 1978
June 30, 19 78
June 30, 1978
June 30, 1978
June 30, 1978
June 30, 1978
June 30, 1978
June 30, 1978
July 28, 1978
Sept. 15, 1978
Sept. 15, 1978
Oct. 3, 1978
Nov. 2, 1978
Feb. 27, 1979 March 2, 1979
Feb. 27, 1979 March 2, 1979
All issue option papers are available from the Department upon request.
3-18
TABLE 3- 2
POLICY OPTIONS - SECRETARY'S PREFFHFNCE
ISSUES AND OPTIONS (a)
When during the planning process should the Department
solicit information from the coal Industry regarding
where thev would nrefer to have leases offered?
1. before multiple-use tradeoff
decisions are made.
□t solicit any information.
3. no not use industry information until areas
acceptable for further consideration for leasing
have heen Identified, then use industry information
in tract delineation, ranking, and selection process-
Is new coal leasing needed; if so. what should
the flfneral structure of a new Federal coal
management program?
1. No Federal leasing until at least 1985.
2. Vo Federal leasing, hut process preference
right lease applications.
3. Fmergencv leasing only (bypass and maintain
existing production) (Suboption would allow
limited new mine leasing).
it. Lease D
gptiflfv industrv needs
PROS AND CONS (h)
PAPER AND DATE/COMMENTS
land
(+) Incorporates market information int
use planning.
(+) Incorporates industry's resource Informa-
tion into land use planning.
(-) Eliminates some coal resource areas which
otherwise would pass unsultahility and
tradeoff screens hut in which industry is
not interested
C-) Overbalances tradeoff decision in favor of coal.
(_) Government would have to seek out resource
and market information Industry has already.
(-) Mines likely to he located at sites that are
not efficient for the industry.
(-) Could bias BLH planning toward noncoal
surface resources.
(+) Industry will have strong voice in selection
of tracts, hut only in areas known to he
acceptable for further consideration for
Paper: "Option Paper for the Secretary:
Departmental Approach for the Long-Term
Coal Leasing Program," September 26, 1977.
Decision: Option 3; October 26, 1977.
le
sing.
(+) Incorporates market information into activity
planning.
(-) BLM multiple-use resource decision cannot he
made for coal without coal "demand" estimate.
(+) Low administrative hurden.
(-) Low assurance of meeting M, \P goals.
<-) Low assurance of leasing least-cost coal.
(-) Shifts environmental impacts to non-
Federal lands.
(c)(0) Shifts coal production to East.
(+) Moderate to low administrative burden.
(-) Low assurance of meeting W EP goals.
(-) Low assurance of leasing least-cost coal.
(-) Low capability to incorporate environ-
mental considerations.
(c)(0) Shifts coal production to East.
(+) Moderate to low administrative hurden.
(-) Low assurance of meeting HEP goals.
(-) Low assurance of leasing least-cost coal.
(-) Low capability of incorporating regional
environmental considerations.
(-) Restricts new-entrants to coal industry.
(+) High assurance of meeting NEP goals.
(+) "igh assurance of leasing least-cost coal.
(+) Low administrative burden.
{-) Low capability to incorporate regional
environmental considerations.
(-) Low capability to mitigate social ard
fiscal Impacts.
Secretary Indicated, however, that BLM
should accept Industry comment at any
time in process.
Paper: "Heed for Leasing Systen. Choices,
June 23, 1978.
Decision: Option 7; June 30, 1978.
(See also Sections 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9 of
this statement.)
e-, where an advantage of one option is a disadvantage
e Assistant Secretaries developed pros or cons which
(a) The options have heen edited to clarify their presentation in this Tahle.
(b) Note the pros and cons have, in some cases, been reduced by deleting repttious arguments
nf nrher options because it is lacking from them. Also in a few cases where the comments o
of the Interior.
(c) Neutral, neither pro nor con from a national perspective.
3-19
TABLE 3-2
(Continued)
POLICY OPTIONS - SECRETARY'S PREFERENCE
ISSUES AND OPTIONS
5. Let States determine level of leasing directlv
through final veto.
6. Lease to meet or exceed HOE productio
prelections.
7. Merge DOE production projections with Inputs
from States, local governments, industry, and
interest grouns to derive HOI regional productio;
targets.
What sale system should the Department adopt?
1. Lease using single tract system ("require
separate sales for each tract).
2. Lease using intertract system (offer
several tracts in a sale, lease only those
with highest hid) .
3. Retain discretion to use either.
Should
the
current
def erree
h.
nus hidding
svsten
be
jsed exc
usivelv
or
DeDartment
experim
•nt with
ott
er honus
hidding systems?
1. Continue to use deferred honus bidding
system exclusivelv.
2. Experiment with alternative bidding
systems and adopt those successful.
What form of final pre-sale State consultation
should the system adopt (cho ices in addition to
consultation o ccurring during planning and tract
election) ?
1. Only consult if tract is for surface mining
In National Forest (statutory requirement).
2. Consult on all tracts with an optional
response period of from 30 to 60 days except
for mandatory period on National Forest.
PROS AND CONS
(-) High administrative hurden.
(-) No assurance of meeting national priorities without
central decision maker.
(-) Secretary abandoning resource responsibilities.
(0) High weight on mitigating local fiscal and social
(+) High assurance of meeting NEP goals.
(+) High assurance of leasing least-cost coal.
(-) Moderate ability to mitigate social, fiscal, and
environmental impac ts .
(-) Secretary abandoning resource responsibilities.
(+) High assurance of meeting national NEP goals.
(+) High assurance of leasing least-cost coal .
(+) High ability to mitigate social, fiscal, and
environmental impac ts .
(-) Moderate-to-high administrative burden.
(+) Easiest system to administer.
(+) Allows for more definitive activity planning and
sale schedule proposal.
(■+•) Creator assurance of leasing where the Department
feels is best.
(-) Where little competition involved, puts heavv
reliance on fair market value.
(+) Maximizes revenue by maximizing competition.
(+) Offering large numher of tracts lessens chance
of appearing to favor anv nnr partv,
(+) Greater opportunity for operation of industry
preference-
(-) More complex to administer.
(-) Proposal action difficult to define for EIR.
(-) Time, monev, and manpower spent on tracts not
sold, but these tracts can be used in later sales.
(+) Allows Department to gain experience with
intertract concept.
(+) Clves Department means to deal with various owner-
ship patterns.
(-) Department expends effort on developing two
systems rather than one, complicates program.
(+) Administratively simple.
(+) Department has experience with system.
(+) Risk factor in coal not as great as in ncs.
(-) Might increase front end cost hurden on coal
companies.
(-) Deferred honus bidding mav favor large over
small companies.
(+) Allows greater flexibility to meet varving
situations.
(-) Complicates administration of program.
(+) Easiest option to administer.
(+) Follows letter of statute.
(-) Would reduce consultation from current
practice.
(-) Artificially stresses National Forest coal.
(+) Allows Secretary to respond when serious
concern seems likely, but otherwise to
proceed with timely sale. '
(+) Assures States will be allowed to present
case to Secretary.
(-) Greater administrative burden then #] ,
(-) Introduces delay into sales.
PAPER AND DATE/COMMENTS
Paper: "Bidding Svst
June 21, 1978.
Decision: Option 3;
June 30, 1978.
Paper: "Bidding Systems,
June 23, 1978.
Decision: Option 2;
June 30, 1978.
Paper: "State and Local
Government Participation,'
June 23, 1978.
Decision: Option 2;
June 30, i«78.
3-20
TABLE 3- 2
(Continued)
POLICY OPTIONS - SECRETARY'S PREFERENCE
ISSUES AND OPTIONS
Extend statutory privilege to all lands.
'■That should he the role and, scope of the site
spcci f i c analys i s and t he resulting stipulations?
1. Analysis and stipulations based onlv on
planning data should he included at the time of
lease sale. Rely on mining clan to develop
specific site stipulations.
2. develop sufficient information prior to
leasing to answer basic environmental and
economic questions (i.e., reasonable certainty
that tract will meet SMCRA standards) but may
proceed with less Information than needed for
mining plan. Stipulations are to be detailed,
must reauire compliance with" SMCRA, and he sub-
ject to change in response to new information
from mining plan.
3. All lease stipulations should be formulated
at the time of lease sale and detailed data must he
available then.
When should mandatory public hearings occur in
system?
1. Prior to adoption of land use plan,
and /or
2. After draft regional environmental assessment,
and/or
3. After final environmental impact analysis and
before sale.
j*ow should the Department define and apply the
phrase "Maximum frconomi c Re covery" ( MER) ?
PROS ANT) CDNS
1 . Calculate maximum economic recovery on a
seam-by-seam basis (If seam is profitable it
must be mined) .
2. Calculate maximum economic recovery on basis
of all seams in land (all seams which collectively
are profitable must he mined) with consideration
for social and environmental costs.
3. Use engineering practice to guide determinatio
Should stipulations on the end uses for the coal be
part of the process?
1. Use stipulations to restrict technology or
location of final use permitted for coal mined from
Federal tracts.
2. Use end-use stipulations only in support of
special opportunity bidding programs.
3. Defer for furtht
(+) Maximizes state opportunity for participation.
(-) Potential to introduce delay into system great
(up to H months) and would have delayed even if
States did not desire it.
(+) Applicant bears data cost.
(+) May shorten time to go from land use plan to sale
(-) Increases risk to bidder of non-operable or
expensive lease.
(-) Could result in PIS heing needed for mining plan.
(+) Reduces risk of offering for sale deficient
tract.
(+) Clarifies pre-lease and mining plan analysis
objectives.
(-) Imposes additional cost and time on system.
(-) May inhibit mining plan manager from adding
needed additional stipulations.
(+) Gives industry greatest assurance that mining
will be permitted under lease without new costs
to meet later stipulations.
(_) very high data costs before certain tract
will be sold,
(-) Lengthens time for tract selection significantly.
Generally, the Department should maximize public
comment opportunity. However, effectiveness of
public hearings decreases as more hearings are
held. Probability of comments causing change in
material presented declines the further into the
PAPER AND/DATE COMMENTS
uring i!
held.
(+) Bonus bids will be higher than for Option 2 since
less cost to operate.
+) Lower suceptibil ity to coal price decrease.
-) May "lose" marginal seams from supply.
-) More acreage leased.
-) Increases potential for double opening of same
ground.
+) Less acreage disturbed.
+) C.reater conservation of resource.
) Potential for subsidence is high because of
deep mining that may he required.
) Increased economic cost to society.
) High administrative hurden-
'+) Uses expertise of mining suoervisor.
+) Pre-lease analysis is simplified.
-) Could result in lower production rates.
■) Could result in litigation.
■) Judgments could be of varying quality and probably
not consistent.
(+) Gives program additional means to mitigate social/
fiscal /environmental impacts.
) Legal basis has not heen adequately researched.
) Greater administrative burden.
+) Strengthens statutorily required program without
extending Into new areas of regulation.
) Legal basis has not been adequately researched.
+) Allows for more study needed of this question.
i) Poses some risk to programmatic EIS.
Paper:
'Setting of Environmental
Conditio
ns for Lease Terms ,
June 23,
1978.
Decision
: Option 2
June 3D,
1978-
Paper: "Public Participation,
June 23, 1978.
Decision: Options 1 and 2;
June 30, 1978.
Paper: "Maximum Economic Recovery.
June 23, 1978.
Decision: Option 2;
June 30, 1978.
Paper: "Leasing for Limited End
Uses," June 23, 1978.
Decision: Option 3;
June 30, 1978.
3-21
TABLE 3- 2
(Continued)
POLICY OPTIONS - SECRETARY'S PREFERENCE
ISSUES AND OPTIONS
What policy posture should the Department take toward
public bodv leasing?
1. Keep "public body" leasing program to the minimum
size possible while still satisfying the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976.
2. Treat "public body" leasing as a major component
of the system and encourage "public body" participa-
tion, but do not modify fair market value requirements
or provide other financial incentives.
3. Treat "public body" leasing as a major component
of the coal leasing program and encourage use-
PROS ANn C ONS
How sho uld the Department manage pr efer ence right
lease appli cations; (P RLAs)?
1. Continue current practive (no review for
consistency with land use plans or unsuitability
criteria) .
2. Reprocess PRLAs in J ight of land use
planning and unsultahi] ity criteria prior to en-
gaging in commercial quantities determination.
3. Reprocess PRLAs and determine ' commercial
quantities simultaneously. Review each
application to decide whether it meets current
planning and unsuitability criteria. Use
appropriate tools CO avoid undesirable
development.
How should the Department manage no n-producing
existing leases? "
1. Review all non-producing leases
(regardless of production plans) to decide if
the leases could be operated In an environ-
mentally acceptable manner. Use appropriate
tools to avoid undesirable development.
2. The Department would await the fulfillment by
the lessee of the legal obligations required to
initiate mining (submission of a mining plan)
before reviewing the desirability of lease
development. (This does not preclude evaluation
as part of the normal planning process.) The
new planning requirements and unsuitability criteria
would be applied to all non-producing leases. The
mine plan would be reviewed in light of the unsuit-
ability criteria to determine which, if any, apply.
If any criterion applies, the specific criterion and
any exception to it which the conditions permit to
be applied would be identified. If a criterion does
not apply and the conditions do not permit an excep-
tion, a further decision would be made on whether
the land is exempt from the criterion because of the
source of the authority for the criterion.
(+) Least program cost and complexity.
(+) The larger operations of private
coal operators are easier to adopt to
environmentally desirahle operations.
(-) Lose benefits of "public body"
participation.
(+) Presents competition for private coal
operators.
(+) Can be accomplished without any major
adjustments to system timing.
(-) BLM would have to maintain two separate
leasing systems and continually audit
public bodv coat use.
(+) Ensures relatively low cost coal to
"public bodtea."
(-) Risks appearance of favoring "public
body" leasing without adequate mandate.
(-) Higher administrative costs.
(+) Least administrative hurdeti.
(+) Avoids possible controversy.
(-) Could result in mining in areas that
would be unsuitable under new coal
management program .
(-) Postpones desirability auestion to
mining plan stage.
(-) Roes not satisfy President's
request to scrutinize PRLAs.
(+) Uould develop better understanding
of how much coal would he forthcoming
from PRLAs.
(+) Meets President's request.
(+) Assures consistent review.
(-) Faces probable legal challenge bv
present holders of applications.
(-) Adds to administrative complexity of
coal management program.
(-) May study applicants that cannot make
showing.
(+) Meets President's request.
(+) By combining work should be less costly
than under Option 2.
(+) Offers increased chance of timely production.
(-) Open to possible legal challenges.
(-) Adds to administrative complexity of program.
(+) Gives the Department best estimate of how
much coal might be produced and need for
new leases.
(-) High administrative costs.
{-) May process some leases that would not be
developed .
(-) Uncertain legal environment.
(+) Maintains consistency with new leasing where
possible.
(+) Moderate administrative costs.
(-) Does not resolve planning uncertainty sur-
rounding existing leases.
(-) High cost to lessee.
PAPER AND DATE /COMMENTS
Paper: "Public Rodv
June 23, 1978.
Decision: Option 2;
June 30, 1978.
Paper: "Management of Prefe
Right Lease Applications,"
June 23, 1978.
nocision: Option 3;
June 30, 3978.
(The Secretary also indicated that
the Department should proceed to identify
the least harmful twenty PRLAs and pro- '
ceed to process them under the NRDC v.
Hughes agreement.)
Paper: "Management of Existing
Leases",
June 23, 1978.
Decision: Option 2; June 30. 1978.
Expanded by:
Paper: "Land Unsuitability Criteria"
September 22, 1978.
Decision: October 3, 1978.
3-22
TABLE 3-2
(Continued)
POLICY OPTIONS - SECRETARY'S PREFERENCE
ISSUES AND OPTIONS
How will regional targets be used In the management
system?
1. Targets enter planning process at MFP stage and
serve as constraint for resource tradeoffs.
2. Targets used at point of regional tract
selection.
3. Targets with safety factor multiplier enter at
land use plan level and goals used at regional
level.
How should industry tract interest information be used?
PROS AND CONS
1. Used to delineate tra
areas are identified.
boundaries only after "best
2. Used to select "best" leasing tracts from areas
acceptable for further consideration for leasing.
Should lands unsuitability criteria be adopted by
Department?
1. Criteria should be adopted by Department.
2. Criteria should not be adopted so that maximum
discretion is exercised at field level.
Should regional comparisons be based on areas or
specific lease tracts?
1. Rank by areas.
Rank by tracts-
3. Rank by both areas and tracts "Ranking factors
will include many values, including environmental".
PAPER AND DATE/COMMENTS
(+) Provides explicit guidance for tradeoff planning
decisions.
(+) Makes coal consistent with planning for other
resources being managed.
(-) No flexibility for regional tradeoffs.
(-) Makes least use of Industry information.
(-) Might require more frequent cycling of land use
plans.
<-) Intertract sales would not be possible.
(+) Allows maximum flexibility for intraregional
tradeoff.
(+) Does not require frequent recycling of land use
plans.
(+) Allows intertract bidding.
{-) Places heavy emphasis on untried unsuitability
concept .
(-) Changes BLM resource decision process-
(+) Target available for guiding land use plan decision
(+) Develops pool of possible tracts for possible use in
intertract sales.
(-) Could be seen as developing unneeded tracts-
(-) Disaggregation of targets to planning unit level
difficult.
(+) Department could not be seen as reacting to
industry.
(-) Ignores opportunity to use valuable Industry
information.
(-) Hay result in development of tracts that are
not least cost or that are of no interest to
Industry.
(+) Allows the party who ultimately will be mining
a bigger role in Identifying areas for lealse.
(+) Assures consistency among field units.
(+) Provides local land managers a standard.
(+) Provides a mechanism for assessing cumulative
Impacts of statutory regulation and policy.
(+) Higher level of public visibility.
(+) Provides greater compatibility with State
programs.
(-) Decreases flexibility at local level.
(_) May require administrative changes and costs.
(-) Rigid application might restrict tract
availability.
(+) No changes needed in existing planning pro-
cedure.
(+) Risks of new system avoided.
(-) Secretary has less assurance lrcal land trade-
offs reflect major national preferences.
(-) No consistent mechanism for use on PRLAs and
existing leases.
(+) Ranking process is more meaningful with larger
geographic area .
(+) Less open to charges of favoritism to any one
company.
(-) More diverse information to assess.
(-) Requires all plans on same schedule.
(+) Allows use of Industry information.
(+) Ranking should cost less.
(-) Requires all plans on same schedule.
(-) Closer Identification with specific coal
companies .
(+) Does not require all planning to be on same
schedule.
(+> More flexibility to field managers.
(-) Some loss in consistency of ranking-
Paper: "Intraregional Matters
Affecting Design of a Coal Leasing
Process",
July 18, 1978.
Decision: Option 2;
July 28, 1978.
Paper: "Intraregional Matters
Affecting Design of a Coal Leasing
Process",
July 18, 1978.
Decision: Option 2;
July 28, 1978.
(See also decision of October 26, 1978)
Paper: "Intraregional Matters
Affecting Design of a Coal Leasing
Process"
July 18, 1978.
Decision, Optio
July 28, 1978.
(See October 3,
1978, Decision).
Paper: "Intraregional Matter
Affecting Design of a Coal
Leasing Process,"
July 18, 1978.
Decision: Option 3;
July 28, 1978.
3-23
TABLE 3-2
(Continued)
POLICY OPTIONS - SECRETARY'S OPTIONS
ISSUES AND OPTIONS
Should coal leasing be restricted to areas identified
in CRO/CDP maps?
1. Require only that coal leases be Issued within KRCRAs.
2. Lease only in areas identified as high or medium
coal development potential by the CRO/CDP maps.
3. Require only that coal leases be issued within KRCRAs
but retain coal quality as a ranking factor and use CRO/
CDP maps for information.
Should the Department adopt a policy of preferring either
clustered or dispersed leasing patterns within a region?
1. Adopt policy preference prior to leasing for either
(a) clustered lease pattern or (b) dispersed lease
pattern.
PROS AND CONS
2. Leave decision to local land managers, requiring
only that social impacts be one of the factors con-
sidered in ranking tracts and that local land managers
consider interdependence of tracts on ranking.
Should assured access to Federal lease tracts be
obtained prior to sale?
1. Lease only those tracts with known assured access.
2. Adopt full-scale access acquisition program.
3. Status quo (access responsibility of winning bidder),
4. Offer assured access on an experimental basis.
5. Attempt to "acquire" access together with surface
owner consent, otherwise proceed as for Option 1.
(+) Would make the widest area available for con-
sideration.
(-) Department might end up trying to lease tracts
with inadequate knowledge of value of coal
deposit.
(+) Ensures consistent coal data.
(-) Pressure would be applied to increase CRO/CDP
effort, increasing costs.
(+) Makes widest area available for consideration.
(+) Encourages use of CRO/CDP data for consistency.
(-) Possibility for inconsistency in coal data use.
(+) Ensures Secretary that possibility for
strategic arrangements of tracts will be
studied.
(+) Ensures Secretary regional and local "carrying
capacity" will be studied.
(-) Does not allow for dynamic approach and reduces
state and local Input.
(— ) Concerns mentioned in the two "pros" above
can be met In ranking process and, therefore.
flexibility is surrendered without gain,
(+) Maximum flexibility for local land managers.
(+) Maintains integrity of ranking system design
and of leasing process.
(-) Moves this decision from programmatic EIS to
regional EIS, lowering visibility.
(+) Avoids manpower and dollar costs of new access
program.
(+) Fosters competition.
(+) Confines access to existing corridors or
corridors government has strong control over.
(-) May be seen as unfair to companies Interested
In areas that would not qualify and to con-
senting surface owners.
(-) Eliminates an unknown number of tracts.
(+) Likely to increase the number of bidders and
level of bids on certain tracts.
(+) Would allow better job of planning for
environmental impacts of access.
(-) Would involve new program and new costs.
(-) Benefits of guaranteed access are not clear yet.
(-) Could add time to leasing schedule and lower
number of available tracts.
(+) No additional manpower or costs.
(+) No risks of untried new program.
(-) May lower competition on certain tracts.
(-) May risk post-sale failure to mine where access
blocked.
(+) Department could ascertain benefits of program
without committing manpower and costs.
(-) Adds to complexity of program management.
(+) Gives lessees assurance of access.
(+) Would Integrate with split-estate program,
taking advantage of conceptual similarities.
("' BLM may not be party selected to directly
acquire surface owner consents.
(-) Adds complexity to very delicate split-estate
program,
PAPER AND DATE/COMMENTS
Paper: "Intraregional Matters
Affecting Design of a Coal
Leasing Process,"
July 18, 1978.
Decision: Option 3;
July 28, 1978.
Paper: "Intraregional Matters
Affecting Design of a Coal
Leasing Process,"
July 18, 1978.
Decision: Option 2;
July 28, 1978.
Paper: "Intraregional Matters
Affecting Design of a Coal
Leasing Process,"
July 18, 1978.
Decision: Option 3;
July 28, 1978.
3-24
TABLE 3- 2
(Continued)
POLICY OPTIONS - SECRETARY'S PREFERENCE
ISSUES AND OPTIONS
What approach should the Department adopt for an ongoing
environmental analysis strategy?
1. Prepare a national coal sale EIS covering all proposed
sales to occur in a specified period of time in all
production regions. The one EIS would cover all potential
site-specific, regional. Interregional, and national
impacts'.
2. A regional, site-specific EIS would be prepared on a
four year schedule of lease sales in each region
delineated In the programmatic EIS. Each regional E15
would include analysis of both the site-specific and
intraregional cumulative impacts of the proposed leasing
actions. Lease sales schedule would be reconsidered two
years later when the next biennial process of establishing
new regional production targets is completed. If, in any
region, substantial differences are found in tract ranking
(because of the preparation of additional land use plans
or the updating of existing plans or because of changes
in environmental, social, or economic conditions) or the
relevant new regional production target which requires
a change in the tracts proposed for sale, a supplement
to the regional statement would be prepared. National
and interregional impacts of the Federal coal management
program would be analyzed in the programmatic EIS. The
document would be updated when conditions change suf-
ficiently to require new analysis of those Impacts,
(Suboption: Include all pending mining plan approval
actions in regional statement.)
Should the Secretary condi t ion his decision to proceed
with leasing based on exis ten ce of split estate
(surface/minerals under dif feren t ownership) In lease
area?
1. Do not lease where "surface owner" restrictions
of Section 714 of'SMCRA apply.
2. Same as Option 1, but encourage coal companies to
purchase split estates.
3. Attempt to lease all coal regardless of ownership but
decline to lease where compensation payments exceed a
Standard amount.
4. Attempt to lease all coal regardless of surface
ownership with passive compensation safeguards through
fair market value computation,
5. Lease all coal regardless of surface ownership and
compensation.
Who should acquire surface owner consents and when?
PROS AND CONS
(+) No update of programmatic needed.
(+) All possible levels of impact in one document.
(-) Administratively complex.
(-) Dilutes capability to make specific comments.
(-) If statement challenged entire program may
be delayed.
(+) Better compatibility with existing BLH
organization.
(+) Takes maximum advantage of existing analysis
in programmatic.
(+) Regional schedules could be adopted to
regional situations.
(-) Several statements would have to be prepared
instead of one.
(-) Possible controversy over when a programmatic
update is needed.
PAPER AND DATE/COMMENTS
Paper : "Environmental
Analysis Strategy,"
August 31, 1978.
Decision: Option 2;
September 15, 1978.
1. Industry would acquire consent or options during the
development of their expressions of interest and file
them with these expressions. Options would be trans-
ferable. Terms of the consent options would have to be
presented to the Department with the expressions of
interest in an area.
2. Industry would have the responsibility in the Federal
coal management program of acquiring surface owner consent.
Consents would have to be filed with the BLM prior to the
sale announcement. The consents would be required to
be transferable. If no filing of consent is made on a tract
priot to the sale announcement, the tract would be removed
from the sale schedule (and, if necessary, another tract sub-
stituted for it), unless the BLM determines that the tract
should nevertheless be offered for lease sale. Should
such a determination be made, the successful bidder on that
tract in the sale would be given a period of time after
the sale to obtain consent.
NOTE: Under Secretary added option to have consent acquired
after sale.
(+) Avoids adverse social impact.
(+) Implementation easy-
(0) Shifts location of environmental damage away
from Northern Great Plains.
(-) By restricting supply of coal may raise cost
to consumer.
(Same as Option 1, moderated somewhat)
(-) Outright purchase costs may raise price of
coal.
(-) Dislocates surface owner permanently.
(+) Minimizes cost to consumer.
(-) Difficult implementation.
(-) Subject to legal challenges.
(+) Tend to minimize cost to consumer.
(+) Implementation straightforward.
(+) Should not inhibit development of split estate
coal significantly.
(-) Fair market value not easily determined.
(+) Minimal cost for implementation.
(-) Possibly raises cost to consumer.
(-) Loss of government income.
(+) Direct government involvement not required.
(+) Leasing can proceed without risk of surface
owner consent refusal.
(-) High cost burden on Industry, not all con-
sents will result In leasing.
(-) Surface owner faces possible long period of
uncertainty regarding use of his land.
(-) Surface owner does not have full information
available to assist him in making decision.
(+) Direct Government involvement not required.
(+) Gives industry most time to negotiate.
(+) Allows Industry to judge better degree of
risk involved in financing consents because
of information developed from tract analysis
is available.
(-) Government bears risk of going through site-
specific analysis without surface owner
consent.
(-) Puts cost burden on industry.
Paper: "Coal Leasing: Surface
Owner Consent,"
June 23, 1978.
Decision: Option 4;
June 30, 1978
Modified by:
Paper: "Split Estate Leasing
Implementation , "
August 31, 1978.
Decision: Option 4;
September 15, 1978.
(Subject to Solicitor's review.)
(Suboption considered would
have reduced cost allowed for
split estates compensation In
fair market value computation to
zero.)
Paper: "Split Estate Leasing
Implementation,"
August 31, 1978.
Decision: Option 2;
September 15, 1978.
3-25
TABLE 3-2
(Continued)
POLICY OPTIONS - SECRETARY'S PREFERENCE
ISSUES AND OPTIONS
3. Industry would acquire consents after lease sale announce-
ment but consents must be filed before the actual sale. Con-
sents would be transferable to a third party and consent pay-
ments would be contingent on successful sale. Date of actual
sale may be held up pending receipt of indication of consent
on tract to be offered.
4. Company would acq
lease sale; the conse
is executed.
re consent after it is successful in
would have to be filed before lease
5 At the time the surface owner is consulted by BLM in the
planning process, he or she would be offered the opportunity
to agree to a written consent to surface mining or to agree
to an option for such a consent. The Department would bind
the eventual successful bidder to the terms of the consent,
including all payments at the time of lease execution. If
consent were not forthcoming the area would be dropped from
further consideration until the next round of planning —
5 to 10 years later. Alternatively, if consent were not
forthcoming, but the surface owner indicated a preference
for allowing surface mining, the area would remain in the
leasing process and a second opportunity would be given the
surface owner by 8LM prior to offering the tract for lease
sale.
6. BLM would begin to directly seek surface owner consents
at the time of tract ranking and would continue to acquire
consents through completion of site-specific analyses. Pay-
ment would be by the successful bidder at time of lease
execution. Third party consents would be negotiated.
7. BLM would negotiate surface owner consents following
completion of site-specific analyses and before tracts
are offered for sale.
WhaL should the Department's policy be toward pre-existing
consents?
1. Offer tracts which are covered by nontransferable con-
sents in intertract sales only.
2. Decline to lease tracts with pre-existing consents that
are not transferable.
3. (Combination of 1 and 2) Tracts which are selected
for lease sale and which include areas covered by pre-
existing consents would be offered for sale if the consents
are determined to be transferable. If any pre-existing
consent is determined to be nontransferable the tract
would not be offered for sale unless it is included in an
intertract sale.
Should the Department require compensation be paid to
companies for consents they acquire?
1. A surface owner consent agreement would be considered
transferable only if it provides that (1) the payment for
the consent is to be made by the successful bidder after the
lease sale in which the lease for the tract to which the
consent applies is sold or (2) after the lease sale, the suc-
cessful bidder is permitted to reimburse the company which
first obtained the consent for the purchase price of the
consent.
2. Foster the sharing of risk of losing consent costs by
encouraging the development of industrial groups for the
purpose of acquiring consent options.
3. Take the position chat loss of consent costs is a
normal business risk in which the government should not
be involved.
PROS AND CONS
(■+■) Direct government Involvement not required.
(+) Industry will be aware of terms of sale
before paying for consent.
(-) Short time allowed for negotiation.
(-) Continues uncertainty regarding consent for
tract to last moment, putting all government
at risk.
(-) Puts cost burden on industry.
£+) Direct government involvement not required.
(+) Avoids question of who should negotiate.
(+) Avoids unneeded consents.
(+) Surface owner has full information.
(+) Minimizes direct administrative expenses.
(-) Puts previous expenditures of time and funds in
preparing tract in jeopardy.
(-) Surface owner in very strong bargaining
position.
(-) Uncertainty of acquiring consents may reduce
competitiveness of sale.
(-) Puts cost burden on Industry.
(-) Government would not know If split-estate
tracts would be mined until after costs of
sale.
(+) Possible reduction in costs of program.
{+) Leasing program could proceed without
uncertainty caused by consent power.
(-) May be seen as unfair to split estate owners.
(-) Makes consultation more complex,
(-) Relatively lower chance of successfully getting
consent.
(-) Government bears cost of consent.
Same as Option 2 except government bears cost of con-
sent acquisition,
(+) Government could keep program more in phase with
tract ranking process.
(-) May require new authority to pay for consent.
Same as Option 3 except government bears cost of con-
sent acquisition.
(+) Surface owner gets maximum Information.
(-) BLM would be in difficult negotiating position
because of costs sunk in tract analysis and
selection.
{+) Meets Secretary's policy regarding transfer-
ability of consents.
(-) Requires BLM to institute new program.
(+) Minimizes administrative cost of pre-existing
consent process.
(-) Subject to possible legal challenge.
(+■) Processes greatest number of consents.
(-) Greatest administrative burden.
PAPER AND DATE/COMMENTS
(+) Low administrative costs.
(+) Encourages companies to acquire consents by
ensuring they would not be bound to pay cost or
consent On the tr.icts they do not obtain.
(-) Complicates negotiations between coal
companies and surface owners.
(+) Reasonably low administrative costs.
(-) May be seen as anti-competitive by
encouraging grouping of would-be lessees
in future sales.
(+) No administrative costs.
{-) Would discourage industry from acquiring
consent unless they had competitive edge.
(-) One company might end up paying for another'
consent acquisition.
Paper: "Split Estate
Leasing Implementation,
August 31, 1978.
Decision: Option 3;
September 15, 1978.
Paper; "Split Estate
Leasing Implementation,
August 31, 1978.
Decision: Option 1;
September 15, 1978.
3-26
TABLE 3-2
(Continued)
POLICY OPTIONS - SECRETARY'S PREFERENCE
I SSUES AND OPTIONS
Where will the unsuitability criteria be appl ied? How will
the unsuitability criteria be applied?
(nATE: Paper presented application procedure that appears in
Section 3.1 of this statement.)
1. Accept
2. Defer
3. Reject
4. Modify
Wha t specific criteria should the Secretary adopt?
Criteria in the following areas were considered:
1. Federal land systems.
2. Right-of-way and easements.
3. Buffer zones along rights-of-way and adjacent to
communities and buildings.
4. Wilderness study areas.
5. Scenic areas.
6. Land used for scientific study.
7. Historic lands and sites.
8. Natural areas.
9. Federally-listed endangered species.
10. State listed endangered species.
11. Bald and golden eagle nests.
12. Bald and golden eagle roost and concentration areas.
13. Falcon cliff nesting sites.
14. Migratory birds.
15. State resident fish and wildlife.
16. Wetlands.
17. Floodplains.
18. Municipal watersheds.
19. National resources.
20. Alluvial valley floors.
21. Prime farm lands.
22. Reclaimability.
23. State lands unsuitable.
24. State-proposed criteria.
25. Rare vegetation.
PROS AND CONS
No pro/con analysis developed.
No pro/con analysis developed.
(Development and analysis of the
criteria are described in the final
report of Task Force 2 available
from the Department.)
PAPER AND DATE/COMMENTS
Paper: "Land Unsuitability
Criteria," September 22, 1978.
Decision: Option 1;
October 3, 1978.
Paper: "Land Unsuitability
Criteria," September 22, 1978.
Decision: Accept 19 criteria;
October 3, 1978.
Reject criterion on rare vege-
tation (25), defer state lands
unsuitable and state-proposed
criteria, and accept all others.
Additionally, Assistant Secre-
tary Energy and Minerals was
asked to recommend criteria for
alluvial valley floors,
reclaimability, and prime
farm lands.
Paper: "Proposed Additional
UnsuitabiJ ity Criteria,"
October 30, 1978.
Decision: Accept Criteria 20
through 24; November 2, 1978.
(Accepted criteria are set
forth in Table 3-7.)
3-27
TABLE 3-2
(Concluded)
POLICY OPTIONS - SECRETARY'S PREFERENCE
ISSUES AMD OPTIONS
Should the Department establish Federal/State teams
to review all tract delineation and site specific
analysis work and be responsible for the tract
ranking, selection, and scheduling processes
and to serve as the forum for federal - State
discussions ?
1. Concur
2. Do not concur.
3. Concur, but with changes.
4. Defer.
Should the exception allowing continuation of
tracts past sales notice without prior evidence
of written surface owner consent be deleted ?
1. Delete the exception.
2. Retain the exception.
3. Modify the exception.
4. Defer.
Should the Department adopt the following policy?
If, after publication of a land use plan, a surface
owner on land acceptable for further consideration
for coal leasing submits a statement that he has not
previously given consent to mine and will not give
such consent in the foreseeable future, the Federal
f.oal underlying tha t surfa ce would no t be considered
further in the ongoing activity planning process
or any such processes conducted in the future until
the land use plan is revised or until the ownership
of the surface estate changes.
1. Concur.
2. Reject.
3. Modify.
4. Defer.
Should the discretion granted the local land manag er
to continue an area in the process if a firm preference
against leasing is expressed during consultation be
dropped and the exclusion of such lands from further
PROS AND CONS
(+)
(+)
(+)
<-)
(+)
(+)
(-)
<-)
(-)
consideration be made mandatory? The owner would have
to indicate on the consultation form that he has not
given an earlier consent and will not consent for the
life of the plan .
1. Agree.
2. Agree as modified.
3. Disapprove.
4. Defer.
(-)
(+)
(+)
C-)
Enhances major program
goal of federal-state
coordination
Allows state governors less
formal input to program than
the required consultation process.
Would provide citizens of state
with authoritative forum for
airing interests.
Possibly confuses where decision
authority resides in Department
Exception is valid under law.
Good public policy from efficient
land use management standpoint.
Perceived by many commenters as
potentially placing undue pressure
on surface owners-
May have appearance of putting BLM
and coal company in tandem against
surface owner.
Arguably violates "spirit" of Section
714.
Allows a surface owner to give a definite
no, a feature not previously in the process.
Surface owner would not be forced to continue
to submit to exploration and other tract
preparation work and would not continue to
receive consent purchase overtures even if
he firmly does not want to consent.
Advances "spirit" of Sec. 714.
Makes the activity planning processes
more efficient.
Converts consent pressure to sales pressure
for the surface owner.
PAPER AND DATE/ COMMENTS
Paper: "State Participation in Activity
Planning", February 27, 1979.
Decision: Option }; March 2, 1979
Paper: "Surface Owner Consent Proce-
dures", February 27, 1979.
Decision: Option 1; March 2, 1979
Paper: "Surface Owner Consent Proce-
dures", February 27, 1979.
Decision: Option 1; March 2, 1979
Answer argument advanced by many commentors
that discretion at this point was not
intended.
Extends the coverage of the "definite no"
process set out in issue above.
Confuses consultation and consent processes.
Presents possibility of having to process plan
amendments when ownership changes.
Introduces rigidity into process by going from
a policy preference to firm direction to local
land manager.
Paper: "Surface Owner Consent Proce-
dures", February 27, 1979.
Decision: Option 4 (but publish in
preliminary rulemaking and request
comments); March 2, 1979.
3-28
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
initiative and the forums for making decisions in
the Federal coal management program. This
emphasis on planning is fully consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 3(A)(i) of the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976,
amending Section 2 of the Mineral Leasing Act of
1920, directs that "no lease sale shall be held unless
the lands containing the coal deposits have been
included in a comprehensive land-use plan and
such sale is compatible with such plan." The
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
established the basic planning authority for the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the
Multiple-Use Sustained- Yield Act of 1960 and the
National Forest Management Act of 1976 provid-
ed planning guidance for the Forest Service. The
guidelines for planning in the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act include:
• Inventory public lands, their resources, and
other values.
• Apply an interdisciplinary approach.
• Give priority to the designation and protec-
tion of areas of critical environmental
concern.
• Consider present and potential uses of the
land.
• Consider the relative scarcity of the values
involved and alternative means and sites for
realization of those values.
• Consider both long-term and short-term
benefits.
• Provide for compliance with applicable
pollution control laws.
• Coordinate inventory, planning, and man-
agement with other Federal agencies and
state and local governments.
The products of both the Bureau of Land
Mangement's and Forest Service's land use plan-
ning processes are comprehensive, multiple-use
land use plans for discrete areas of Federal lands.
These plans are now called Management Frame-
work Plans (MFPs) by the Bureau and Unit Plans
by the Forest Service. The planning systems of the
two land management agencies are broadly similar
and are expected to be even more closely related
when new planning regulations under the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the
National Forest Management Act of 1976 are
promulgated.
The Forest Service's proposed National Forest
System Land and Resource Management Planning
Rules were published on August 31, 1978 (43
Federal Register 39046-39059). The BLM's pro-
posed planning regulations were published on
December 15, 1978 (43 Federal Register 58764-
58774). Under the proposed regulations, the unit
plans of the Forest Service would be renamed
National Forest Plans and the Management
Framework Plans of the BLM would be termed
Resource Management Plans.
Both sets of proposed regulations would permit
the continued use of existing plans as bases for
resource development decisions until new plans
are developed under the new procedures. There-
fore, both existing plans under present procedures
and new plans under changed procedures may be
used in future coal management decisions. How-
ever, as a matter of practice and program policy,
the Department of the Interior will give consider-
able priority to preparation of new Resource
Management Plans in the most critical high value
coal areas. Some Resource Management Plans
may be finished as soon as late 1984. In the
meantime, existing Management Framework Plans
would be examined closely and modified as
necessary to ensure compliance with the proposed
unsuitability criteria and surface owner consulta-
tion procedures (see Sections 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.2.4).
The results of this examination and modification
would be published in supplements to the Manage-
ment Framework Plans.
The BLM planning system, under the proposed
regulations, will call for the completetion of nine
required steps. These are the same steps prescribed
in the proposed Forest Service planning system.
This should enhance common understanding of
these processes. There will be substantial differ-
ences in how these steps are accomplished and
documented, both between the BLM and Forest
Service and from plan to plan within each agency,
based on variations in issues, concerns, data, and
legal authorities.
The required steps in each agency's proposed
new land use planning system are listed in the left-
hand column below, in the general sequence they
are to be initiated. The existing BLM planning
system components are listed in the right-hand
column below to indicate which components of the
existing system include the same general objectives
and scope as the steps in the proposed system. The
new steps are designed to improve substantially the
quality of land use plans and are explained in
3-29
"■-..■:- . ■/■•"/-■ ■ . ; ...-. ... m .-
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
detail in the proposed planning regulations. (The
existing BLM system procedure was described in
more detail in the draft version of this statement.)
Steps in the. New ELM
Planning System Presented
In the Proposed
Regulations
1. Identification of issues,
concerns, and
opportunities.
2. Development of planning
criteria.
Existing BLM Planning
System Components
Including the Sams General
Objectives and Scope as the
Steps In the Proposed
Regulations
Portions of the Planning
Area Analysis
3. Inventory data and
information collection
4. Analysis of the
management situation.
5. Formulation of
Alternative Plans.
6. Estimation of the
effects of
alternatives.
Selection of
Preferred Alternative
and filing the draft EIS.
8. Selection of preferred
plan and filing
the final EIS.
Portions of the
Preplanning Analysis.
No comparable requirement,
since existing system uses
available information.
Portions of Unit Resource
Analysis, Planning Area
Analysis, and first step
of the Management
Framework Plan.
Management Framework
Plan Step Two.
Management Framework
Plan Step Two.
MFP Step Two (no
requirement in existing
system for preparation
of an EIS).
9. Monitoring and
evaluation of plan.
MFP Step Three (no
requirement in existing
system for preparation
of an EIS).
No similiar requirement
in existing system.
The manner in which the Forest Service's
planning process will relate and contribute to the
coal management program will be set forth in
Memoranda of Understanding now being negoti-
ated by the Forest Service and the BLM. The first
of these is to be on unsuitability criteria. (As the
Secretary is required by section 522 of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act to make the
determination of which land is unsuitable for
surface coal mining on all Federal lands, in order
for the Forest Service to conduct the application of
unsuitably criteria on national forest system
lands, the Secretary must delegate the authority to
do so to that agency.) It is expected that the Forest
Service will adopt the unsuitability criteria which
the Secretary selects when he makes his program
decisions except where modifications are necessary
to reflect the Forest Service's missions and pro-
grams and the Secretary approves such modifica-
tions. The land use plans which are the products of
both the existing and proposed land use planning
systems identify preferred land uses, or combina-
tions of uses, for the planning areas and serve as
guides to the Federal land managers. The land use
plans establish the nature, extent, and objectives
for future actions and programs on lands adminis-
tered by the two agencies. Under the Secretary's
preferred alternative, the principal coal resource
decision in the land use plans would be the
determination of which areas are acceptable for
further consideration for coal leasing (see Figure 3-
2). These areas would be identified after placing all
lands in a planning area through four screens,
integral to the planning process:
1. Areas would be eliminated from any further
coal development consideration if they do not have
high to medium coal potential (see Section 3.2.2.1).
2. Additional coal areas would be eliminated if
they are judged unsuitable under the Department's
unsuitability criteria (see Section 3.2.2.2).
3. Additional coal areas may be eliminated on
multiple use grounds if other Federal resource
values are determined to be superior to coal (see
Section 3.2.2.3).
4. Additional coal areas where the Federal
government owns the coal, the coal would be
surface mined, and the surface is owned by
ranchers or farmers may be eliminated after
consultation with those surface owners (see Section
3.2.2.4).
The remaining areas after application of these
screens would be identified in the land use plan as
areas acceptable for further consideration for coal
leasing, subject to areawide constraints and multi-
ple use coordination requirements to guide coal
program activities. (Note: Any leasing which is
conducted would not involve all the land in these
areas. Those lands not leased would, of course,
continue to be available for any other uses, (e.g.,
livestock grazing) permitted by the land use plan.)
These constraints and requirements could include
such actions as: (a) establishment of threshold
3-30
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
development levels over the planning area (see
Section 3.2.2.5); (b) identification of unique stipu-
lations to be placed in any potential coal lease on
an area which the land use plan might identify as
acceptable for further consideration for leasing;
and (c) recommendations of preferred coal leasing
areas if the areas acceptable for further consider-
ation for coal leasing clearly are larger than may
be needed for leasing (see Section 3.2.2.6). The
proposed planning regulations would require
review of a plan every five years, and full revision
of a plan in 15 years, or earlier if necessary.
All potential resource users — ranchers, coal
companies, timber purchasers, environmental or-
ganizations, etc. — should participate actively in
the land use planning process if the process is to
allocate uses of the Federal lands in the best
possible manner. For example, the coal industry
would be expected to help identify high and
medium potential coal resources and no area
would be excluded in the first screen that is shown
by a company to contain coal which possesses a
medium or high potential for development. Indus-
try would also be expected to argue forcefully in
favor of coal development over other uses in the
resources trade-off screen and provide any data it
might have which would permit the making of
exceptions to the application of unsuitability
criteria. Environmental organizations would be
expected to assist the planning team in identifying
situations which require the application of unsuita-
bility criteria, critique information which suggests
exceptions may be made, and advocate non-
commodity uses of the land. Ranchers, timber
purchasers, and other users should voice their
desire to see sufficient land allocated to their
respective uses, provide the planning team with
information as to their needs, and argue forcefully
for the allocation to their uses of specific areas for
which other users are competing in the resources
trade-off screen. Throughout the land use planning
process, opportunities are provided for this type of
participation and public participation is given
special emphasis in the proposed new planning
regulations of the Bureau of Land Management
(43 Federal Register 58764-58774) and the Forest
Service (43 Federal Register 39046-39059).
3.2.2.1 Coal Potential. Only a portion of the coal
resources within a land use planning area is likely
to be potentially economic to mine or to become so
over the life of the land use plan. Rather than
apply all the screens in the land use planning
process to uneconomic coal, the first screen to be
applied would identify high or moderate develop-
ment potential coal. Lands with less than moderate
development potential would be dropped from
further consideration until their potential for
development is judged to be higher, perhaps the
next land use planning cycle.
The major source of information for this
screening would be the coal resource occur-
rence/coal development potential (CRO/CDP)
maps and other related coal potential analysis of
the U.S. Geological Survey. Where CRO/CDP
maps are not available, other sources of informa-
tion such as information from the Geologic Survey
of the states and other available U.S. Geological
Survey data would be used. It should be empha-
sized that this screen is only the first of four in the
land use planning process and its application does
not have as its result the designation of any land as
an area to be included in a lease sale (a decision
taken only later in activity planning after land use
planning has been completed) or even to be
determined acceptable for further consideration
for possible leasing (a decision to be made at the
end of land use planning after all four screens have
been applied). With this in mind, coal companies,
the states, or members of the public may submit
non-confidential coal geological and economic
data during the earlier inventory phase of plan-
ning. Where such information is determined to
indicate significant development potential for an
area not shown to be of medium or high potential
in the CRO/CDP maps, the area would not be
excluded from further consideration and applica-
tion of the remaining screens in the land use
planning process.
3.2.2.2 Unsuitability Criteria. The key activity
added to the land use planning process as a result
of the requirements of Section 522 of SMCRA and
other policy directives is the application of lands
unsuitability criteria. It is the second of four
screens applied to Federal coal lands in the land
use planning process.
The President, in a May 24, 1977 memoran-
dum implementing his Environmental Message of
May 23, 1977, instructed the Secretary of the
Interior to lease "only those areas where mining is
environmentally acceptable and compatible with
3-31
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
other land uses." The President further directed
that the Department "scrutinize existing Federal
coal leases (and preference right lease applications)
to determine whether they show prospects for
timely development in an environmentally accept-
able manner, taking steps as necessary to deal with
nonproducing and environmentally unsatisfactory
leases and applications."
In addition, on August 3, 1977, the President
signed into law the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Section 522 of this
Act requires the Secretary to review Federal lands
to determine whether they contain areas which are
unsuitable for surface coal mining operations.
SMCRA also contains a requirement for the states
to undertake a similar program for non-Federal
lands if they wish to assume primary regulatory
authority under the Act. A list of standards to be
used by the states is identified in Section 522(a)(3)
of the Act. These same standards are also required
to be applied to Federal lands (private surface
lands overlying Federal coal are considered to be
Federal lands for the purposes of the application of
the standards).
Under the preferred program, unsuitability
criteria have been developed in response to Section
522 of SMCRA and the directives in the Presi-
dent's Environmental Message. The criteria are to
be applied to medium and high potential coal
lands in the land use planning process to identify
those areas with key features, principally environ-
mental, which make them unsuitable for all or
certain methods of coal mining and thus should
not be leased for that purpose. Accordingly, these
areas would be removed from the activity planning
process of delineation, ranking, selection and
scheduling of tracts for lease sales or continued for
only certain stipulated methods of mining. A
principal purpose of the unsuitability criteria is to
ensure that the responsibility of determining
Federal lands unsuitable for coal mining is fulfilled
in as consistent, uniform, and objective a manner
as possible so that all parties— public officials, coal
companies, environmentalists, and the public— can
have confidence in the unsuitability decisions. As
Federal land planners have not had to follow any
such national standards before, their very existence
would fulfill the purpose of limiting the incidence
of divergent, subjective land use decisions. Cer-
tainly, because of the vast differences in topogra-
phy and other conditions in Federal coal lands, no
set of criteria can be designed to eliminate entirely
the necessity, or indeed the advisability, of subjec-
tive, site-specific decisions by the planners. How-
ever, the proposal to include the procedures for
applying the criteria and the criteria themselves in
regulations (see Appendix A), and the proposed
application procedures which emphasize public
accountability for application decisions and limit
the situations in which exceptions to criteria are to
be considered, would greatly reduce the range and
number of subjective judgments the planners
might otherwise make lacking firm policy guid-
ance.
Section 522 does not require that the Federal
lands unsuitability review be completed prior to
leasing or even prior to issuance of a mining
permit, although several individual criteria selected
by the Under Secretary incorporate mandatory
requirements of section 522 of SMCRA and other
statutes and would have to be applied prior to
permit issuance. However, the Department has
proposed to apply all the criteria at the mining
plan stage. In addition, the Secretary chose to
apply the criteria not just at the mine plan stage
late in the coal management decision making
process but also at the beginning of the process in
land use planning. He expressed this preference for
several reasons: to provide greater predictability
for all interested parties in the coal management
program, to ensure that lands which clearly should
not be mined are excluded from leasing consider-
ation as promptly as possible, and to avoid the
costly situation for both a coal company and the
Federal government of taking a tract all the way
through lease sale and mine plan development
only to find it is either unminable or would require
such restrictive stipulations in the mine plan or
mining permit as to make mining uneconomic.
An intensive Department-wide effort was
made to develop the 24 unsuitability criteria and
their exceptions selected by the Under Secretary
for inclusion in the preferred program and set forth
in Table 3-3. Between November 1977 and March
1978, a task force representing ten agencies and
offices in the Department of the Interior and the
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, con-
ducted a comprehensive review of existing legisla-
tion, Presidential and Secretarial Orders, and
Departmental policy and prepared a set of draft
unsuitability criteria with, in many cases, alterna-
tive criteria and exceptions. These criteria (set
3-32
TABLE 3-3
PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
AND DESIGNATING FEDERAL LANDS UNSUITABLE FOR
ALL OR CERTAIN TYPES OF COAL MINING OPERATIONS*
(a) Federal Land Systems
(b) Rights-of-Way and
Easements
CRITERION
All Federal lands Included in the
following land systems or categories
and an appropriate buffer zone, if
necessary, as determined by the
land management agency, shall be con-
sidered unsuitable for coal mining:
National Park System, National Wild-
life Refuge System, National Systems
of Trails, National Wilderness Pre-
servation System, National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System, National Re-
creation Areas, lands acquired with
money derived from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, Custer Na-
tional Forest, and Federal lands in
incorporated cities, towns, and
villages. All Federal lands which
are recommended for inclusion in
any of the above systems or cate-
gories by the Administration in
legislative proposals submitted to
the Congress or which are required
by statute to be studied for in-
clusion in such systems or cate-
gories shall be considered
unsuitable.
Federal lands that are within
rights-of-way or easements or
within surface leases for resi-
dential, commercial, industrial,
or other public purposes, or for
agricultural crop production on
Federally owned surface shall be
considered unsuitable.
EXCEPTIONS & EXEMPTIONS
Exception : A lease may be
issued and mining operations
may be approved within the
Custer National Forest with
the consent of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture as
long as no surface coal
mining operations are
permitted.
Exemptions : The application
of this criterion to lands
within the listed land
systems and categories
is subject to valid existing
rights. The application of
the buffer zone portion of
this criterion does not
apply to lands: to which
substantial financial and
legal commitments were made
prior to January 4, 1977; on
which operations were being
conducted on August 3, 1977;
or which include operations
on which a permit has been
issued ,
Exceptions : A lease may be
issued, and mining operations
approved, in such areas if
the surface management
agency determines that :
(i) all or certain types of
coal development (e.g.,
underground mining) will
not interfere with the
purpose of the right-of-
way or easement; or
(ii) the right-of-way or
easement was granted for
mining purposes; or
(iii) the right-of-way or
easement was issued
for a purpose for which
it is not being used;
or
(iv) the parties involved in
the right-of-way or
easement agree to
leasing; or
(v) it is impractical to
exclude such areas due
to the location of coal
and method of mining and
such areas or uses can
be protected through
appropriate stipulations.
Exemption : This criterion
does not apply to lands on
which mining would result in
substantial loss or reduction
of long-range productivity
of food or fiber products,
and it does not apply to
lands: to which the operator
made substantial financial
and legal commitments prior
to January 4, 1977; on which
operations were being con-
ducted on August 3, 1977; or
which include operations on
which a permit has been issued.
*See Table 5-88 for the draft unsuitability criteria field-tested in the summer of 1978.
3-33
TABLE 3-3 (continued)
(c) Buffer Zones Along
Right s-of -Way and
Adjacent to Commu-
nities and Buildings
(d) Wilderness Study
Areas
(e) Scenic Areas
CRITERION
Federal lands affected by section
522(e) (4) and (5) of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 shall be considered
unsuitable. This includes lands
within 100 feet of the outside
line of the right-of-way of a
public highway or within 100
feet of a cemetery, or within
300 feet of an occupied public
building, school, church, com-
munity or institutional building
or public park or within 300 feet
of an occupied dwelling.
Federal lands designated as
wilderness study areas shall be
considered unsuitable while
under review by the Admini-
stration and the Congress for
possible wilderness designa-
tion. For any Federal land
which is to be leased or mined
prior to completion of the
wilderness inventory by the
surface management agency, the
environmental assessment or
impact statement on the lease
sale or mine plan must con-
sider whether the land possesses
the characteristics of a wil-
derness study area. If the
finding is affirmative, the land
shall be considered unsuitable.
Scenic Federal lands designated
by visual resource management
analysis as Class I or II (an
area of outstanding scenic qual-
ity or high visual sensitivity)
but not currently on the
National Register of Natural
Landmarks shall be considered
unsuitable.
EXCEPTIONS & EXEMPTIONS
Exceptions : A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved for
lands:
(i) used as mine access roads or
haulage roads that joing the
right-of-way for a public road;
(ii) for which the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforce-
ment has issued a permit to
have public roads relocated;
(iii) for which owners of occupied
buildings have given per-
mission to mine within 300
feet of their buildings.
Exemption : The application of this
criterion is subject to valid
existing rights.
Exception : A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved if
authorized by the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976.
Exemption : The application of this
criterion to lands for which the
Bureau of Land Management is the
surface management agency is sub-
ject to valid existing rights.
Exception : A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved if
the surface management agency
determines that mining operations
will not significantly diminish or
adversely affect the scenic quality
of the designated area.
Exemption : This criterion does not
apply to lands: to' which the
operator made substantial financial
and legal commitments prior to
January 4, 1977; on which opera-
tions were being conducted on
August 3, 1977; or which include
operations on which a permit has
been issued.
3-34
TABLE 3- 3 (continued)
(f) Lands Used for
Scientific Studies
(g) Historic Lands and
Sites
(h) Natural Areas
CRITERION
Federal lands under permit by
the land management agency for
scientific studies involving
food or fiber production,
natural resources, or tech-
nology demonstrations and
experiments shall be con-
sidered unsuitable.
All districts, sites, build-
ings, structures, and objects
of historic, architectural,
archaeological, or cultural
significance which are in-
cluded in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Re-
gister of Historic Sites, and
an appropriate buffer zone
around the outside boundary
of the designated property
(to protect the inherent
values of the property that
make it eligible for listing
in the National Register) as
determined by the land manage-
ment agency, in consultation
with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation or by
procedures approved by the
Advisory Council, shall be
considered unsuitable.
Federal lands designated as
natural areas or as National
Natural Landmarks shall be
considered unsuitable.
EXCEPTIONS & EXEMPTIONS
Exceptions : A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved:
(i) with the concurrence of the
principal scientific user or
agency ; or
(ii) where it would be stipulated
that the mining would be done
in such a way as not to jeo-
pardize the purpose of the
study as determined by the
surface management agency.
Exemption : This criterion does not
apply to lands: to which the operator
made substantial financial and legal
commitments prior to January 4, 1977;
on which operations were being con-
ducted on August 3, 1977; or which
include operations on which a permit
has been issued.
Exceptions : A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved if
the surface management agency
determines :
(i) with the concurrence of the
state, that the site, structure,
or object is of regional or local
significance only; or
(ii) in consultation with the
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, that the direct
and indirect effects of all or
certain stipulated methods of
coal mining on a property in
or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Sites will
not result in significant ad-
verse impacts to the site,
structure, or object.
Exemption: The application of this
criterion is subject to valid
existing rights.
Exceptions : A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved in an
area or site if the surface manage-
ment agency determines that :
(i) with the concurrence of the state,
the area or site is of regional or
local significance only;
(ii) the use of appropriate stipulated
mining technology will result in
no significant adverse impact to
the area or site; or
(Hi) the mining of the coal resource
under appropriate stipulations
will enhance information
recovery (e.g., paleontological
sites) .
Exemption : This criterion does not
apply to lands: to which the operator
made substantial financial and legal
commitments prior to January 4, 1977;
on which operations were being
conducted on August 3, 1977; or which
include operations on which a permit
has been issued.
3-35
TABLE 3-3 (continued)
CRITERION
(i) Federally Listed
Endangered Species
(j) State Listed
Endangered Species
(k) Bald and Golden
Eagle Nests
Federally designated critical ha-
bitat for threatened or endangered
plant and animal species, and
habitat for Federal threatened or
endangered species which is
determined by the Fish and Wild-
life Service and the surface manage-
ment agency to be of essential
value and where the presence of
threatened or endangered species
has been scientifically documented,
shall be considered unsuitable.
Lands containing habitat deemed
critical or essential for plant or
animal species listed by state
pursuant to state law as endan-
gered or threatened shall be con-
sidered unsuitable.
A bald or golden eagle nest that
is determined to be active and a
buffer zone of land in a 1/4
mile radius from a nest area
which shall be considered
unsuitable. Consideration of
availability of habitat for prey
species shall be included in the
determination of buffer zones.
EXCEPTIONS & EXEMPTIONS
Exception : A lease may be
issued and mining operations
approved if, after consultation
with the Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, the surface management
agency determines the species
and its habitat will not be
adversely affected by all or
certain stipulated methods of
coal mining operations.
Exception : A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved
if, after consultation with the
state, the surface management
agency determines that the
species will not be adversely
affected by all or certain
stipulated methods of coal
mining.
Exemption : This criterion does
not apply to lands: to which
the operator made substantial
financial and legal commit-
ments prior to January 4, 1977;
on which operations were being
conducted on August 3, 1977; or
which include operations on
which a permit has been issued.
Exceptions :
(i) A lease may be issued and
mining operations approved
if:
(A) they can be conditioned
in such a way, either
in manner of period of
operation, that eagles
will not be disturbed
during breeding season;
or
(B) golden eagle nest sites
will be moved with the
concurrence of the Fish
and Wildlife Service.
(ii) Buffer zones may be de-
creased if the surface
management agency deter-
mines that the active
eagle nests will not be
adversely affected.
3-36
TABLE 3-3 (continued)
(1)
Bald and Golden Eagle
Roost and Concentra-
tion Areas
(m) Falcon Cliff Nesting
Sites
(n) Migratory Birds
(o) State Resident Fish
and Wildlife
CRITERION
Bald and golden eagle roost and
concentration areas used during
migration and wintering shall be
considered unsuitable.
Federal lands containing falcon
cliff nesting sites with active
nests and a buffer zone of Fed-
eral land in a 1/4 mile radius
from the nest to provide needed
prey habitat shall be considered
unsuitable. Consideration of
availability of habitat for prey
species shall be included in the
determination of buffer zones.
Federal lands which are high pri-
ority habitat for migratory bird
species of high Federal interest
on a regional or national basis,
as determined jointly by the
surface management agency and
the Fish and Wildlife Service,
shall be considered unsuitable.
Federal lands which the land
management agency and the state
jointly agree are fish and wild-
life habitat for resident
species of high interest to the
state and which are essential
for maintaining these priority
wildlife species shall be con-
sidered unsuitable. Such lands
may Include appropriate buffer
zones as determined jointly by
the surface management agency
and the state. Such lands shall
include:
(i) active dancing and strutting
grounds for sage grouse,
sharp-tailed grouse, and
prairie chicken;
(ii) the most critical winter
ranges for deer, antelope,
and elk; and
(ill) migration corridors for
elk.
EXCEPTIONS & EXEMPTIONS
Exception : A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved if
the surface management agency
determines that all or certain
stipulated methods of coal
mining can be conducted in such
a way, and during such periods of
time, to ensure that eagles shall
not be adversely disturbed.
Exception : A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved
where the land management agency,
after consultation with the Fish
and Wildlife Service, determines
that all or certain stipulated
methods of coal mining will not
adversely affect the migratory
bird habitat during the periods
when such habitat is used by the
species.
Exception : A lease may be
issued End mining operations
approved where the surface
management agency, after con-
sultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service, determines that
all or certain methods of coal
mining will not adversely affect
the migratory bird habitat during
the periods when such habitat is
used by the species.
Exceptions : A lease may be
issued and mining operations
approved if the surface manage-
ment agency, in consultation
with the state wildlife agency,
determines that:
(i) complete mitigation is
possible; or
(ii) the species being protected
will not be adversely af-
fected by all or certain
stipulated methods of coal
mining.
Exemption : This criterion does
not apply to lands : to which the
operator made substantial finan-
cial and legal commitments prior
to January 4, 1977; on which
operations were being conducted
on August 3, 1977; or which
include operations on which a per-
mit has been issued.
3-37
TABLE 3-3 (continued)
(p) Wetlands
CRITERION
Federal lands containing:
(1) Inland lakes, impound-
ments, and associated
wetlands;
(ii) inland shallow, predo-
minantly vegetated wet-
lands; or
(ill) riverine wetland systems,
lower and upper peren-
nial systems with flow
greater than 5 cubic
feet per second, and
riparian zones in a
"relatively undisturbed"
state that are larger
than one linear mile
along a riverine system
shall be considered
unsuitable.
(q) Floodplains
Riverine, coastal, and special
floodplains (100-year recur-
rence interval) shall be con-
sidered unsuitable.
EXCEPTIONS & EXEMPTIONS
Exceptions : A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved
where the surface management agency
determines that:
(i) the use of appropriate stip-
ulated mining or reclamation
technology will not signifi-
cantly affect the wetlands or
will provide for complete
restoration;
(ii) the welands contain no signi-
ficant values for groundwater
recharge, fish and wildlife
habitat, recreation, or
scientific study.
Exemption : This criterion does not
apply to lands to which the
operator made substantial financial
and legal commitments prior to
January 4, 1977; on which opera-
tions were being conducted on
August 3, 1977; or which include
operations on which a permit has
been issued.
Exception : A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved
where the surface management
agency determines that :
(i) leasing a particular tract
and approval of mining opera-
tions is the only practicable
method of access to coal lands
outside the floodplain which
are not unsuitable under any
other criterion; and
(ii) potential for harm to people
or property and natural and
beneficial values of flood-
plains can be minimized
through stipulated use of
demonstrated and available
mining and mitigation
measures.
Exemption : This criterion does not
apply to lands: to which the
operator made substantial financial
and legal commitments prior to
January 4, 1977; on which opera-
tions were being conducted on
August 3, 1977; or which include
operations on which a permit has
been issued.
3-38
TABLE 3-3 (continued)
(r) Municipal Watersheds
CRITERION
Federal lands which have been
committed by the land manage-
ment agency to use as municipal
watersheds shall be considered
unsuitable.
(s) National Resource
Waters
(t) Prime Farm Lands
Federal lands with National
Resource Waters, as identified
by states in their water
quality management plans, and
a buffer zone of Federal lands
1/4 mile from the outer edge
of the far banks of the water,
shall be unsuitable.
When the surface management
agency, with the concurrence
of the Secretary of Agricul-
ture (Soil Conservation
Service), identifies Federal
lands having prime farmland
soils, such lands shall be
considered unsuitable.
EXCEPTIONS & EXCLUSIONS
Except ion : A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved
where :
(i) the surface management agency
determines that all or certain
stipulated methods of coal
mining will not adversely
affect the watershed to any
significant degree; and
(ii) the municipality or water
users concur in the Issuance
of the lease.
Exempt ion : This criterion does not
apply to lands: to which the opera-
tor made substantial financial
and legal commitments prior to
January 4, 1977; on which opera-
tions were being conducted on
August 3, 1977; or which include
operations on which a permit has
been issued.
Exception : The buffer zone may be
eliminated or reduced in size
where the surface management
agency determines that it is not
necessary to protect the National
Resource Waters.
Exceptions : A lease may be issued
when:
(i) conditions such as soil rocki-
ness, angle of slope or his-
toric or other conditions
leading to a negative deter-
mination under the permanent
regulations of the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement are present; or
(ii) scientific studies show that
crop yields equivalent to pre-
mining crop yields on non-
mined prime farmlands in the
surrounding area under equi-
valent levels of management
could be obtained and that an
operator or potential operator
could meet the soil recon-
struction standards in section
515(b)(7) of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1265
(b)(7)), and the permanent
regulations of the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement.
3-39
TABLE 3-3 (continued)
(u) Alluvial Valley Floors
(v) Reclaimability
(w) State Lands
Unsuitable
Federal lands identified by
the surface management agency,
with the concurrence of the
State in which they are lo-
cated, as alluvial valley
floors according to the de-
finition and standards in
the permanent regulations
under the Surface Mining Con-
trol and Reclamation Act of
1977, and the final alluvial
valley floor guidelines of the
Office of Surface Mining Re-
clamation and Enforcement,
and approved state programs
under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977, where mining would
interrupt, discontinue, or
preclude farming, shall be
considered unsuitable.
Additionally, when mining
Federal land outside an al-
luvial valley floor would
materially damage the quan-
tity or quality of water in
surface or underground water
systems that would supply
alluvial valley floors, the
land shall be considered
unsuitable.
As information regarding
reclaimability on a local or
regional basis becomes avail-
able, the surface management
agency shall use such informa-
tion to determine if areas of
Federal land are reclaimable
to the standards of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977, the regulations,
and approved state programs.
Examples of information on
reclaimability would be soil
studies, hydrologic studies,
and studies concerning reve-
getation. If any area is
determined not to be so re-
claimable, such area shall be
considered unsuitable.
Federal lands in a state to
which is applicable a cri-
terion (i) proposed by the
state, and (ii) adopted by
rulemaking by the Secretary
of the Interior, shall be
considered unsuitable for
coal mining.
Exception : A lease may be issued
where all or certain methods of
coal mining would not interrupt,
discontinue, or preclude farming
on land to which the first sentence
of the criterion applies.
Exception : A lease may be issued
upon presentation of information
which contains results of studies
showing that reclamation is
possible to the standards in the
permanent regulations of the Office
of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, and an approved state
program, including state regula-
tions.
Exceptions :
when:
A lease may be issued
(i) such criterion is adopted by the
Secretary less than 6 months
prior to the publication of the
draft land use plan, or sup-
plement to a land use plan, for
the area in which such land is
included, or
(ii) the surface management agency,
in consultation with the state,
determines that, although the
criterion applies, mining will
not adversely affect the value
which the criterion would
protect.
Exemption : This criterion does not
apply to lands: to which the opera-
tor made substantial financial and
legal commitments prior to
January 4, 1977; on which operations
were being conducted on August 3,
1977; or which Include operations
on which a permit has been
issued.
3-40
TABLE 3-3 (concluded)
(x) State Proposed A buffer zone of Federal lands Exception : The buffer zone may be modi-
Criteria necessary to provide protection fied or eliminated where the surface
for any adjacent area designated management agency, in consultation with
as land unsuitable for mining the state, determines that all or parts
by the state shall be con- of the zone are not necessary to protect
sidered unsuitable. the designated area.
Exemption : This criterion does not apply
to lands: to which the operator made
substantial financial and legal commit-
ments prior to January 4, 1977; on which
operations were being conducted on
August 3, 1977; or which include
operations on which a permit has been
issued.
3-41
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
forth in Table 5-88) were then field tested by three
task force teams on Federal lands in four test areas
in Montana, Utah, and Wyoming during the
summer of 1978. After completion of the field tests,
the task force reconvened to review the field test
results and, on the basis of those results, to
recommend to the Department which criteria and
exceptions should be altered, added, or deleted.
The field test results and recommended criteria
and exceptions appear in the task force's Septem-
ber 12, 1978, final report, Land Unsuitability
Criteria (available upon request from the Depart-
ment) [2]. The Under Secretary expressed a
preference for the twenty-four criteria and their
exceptions set forth in Table 3-3 after extensive
discussions in the manner described in Section
3.2.1. with the Assistant Secretaries for Land and
Water Resources; Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Ener-
gy and Minerals; and Policy, Budget and Adminis-
tration; and the Solicitor. Each Assistant Secretary
and the Solicitor proposed new language for many
of the task force's recommended criteria and
exceptions and either deletions or additions to
those criteria and exceptions. Certain criteria and
exceptions were more tightly drawn to ensure that
their application would not result in the screening
out of lands not necessary for the protection of the
values reflected in the criteria. On the other hand,
a number of new criteria were added by the Under
Secretary to provide protection to values other
than those which the task force's recommended
criteria were intended to protect. Finally, one
criterion recommended by the task force was
deleted by the Under Secretary. (See Section 5.4.8
and Table 5-89 for a discussion of field test results
and changes made in the draft field test criteria
(Table 5-88) before their adoption as the proposed
criteria for the preferred program (Table 3-3).)
Because the criteria and exceptions selected by
the Under Secretary for the preferred program are
changed significantly from the criteria and excep-
tions originally field tested by the task force, the
Department determined that they should be field
tested anew before any final decision on them is
made by the Secretary. Furthermore, the Depart-
ment designed procedures for these field tests to
ensure that the criteria and exceptions would
receive attention not only from the land manage-
ment agencies' planners, but also from interested
user groups and the public. The field tests are
being conducted in a four-county area in Alabama
and on 540,000 acres in nine planning units in
Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. The
preliminary results have been made available to
the public in the form of draft supplements to
existing land use plans and public meetings have
been held on the documents. The draft supple-
ments and public comments on them will be fully
considered by the Secretary prior to making any
final decision on a Federal coal management
program. Any changes in the preferred criteria and
exceptions adopted by the Secretary would be
subsequently incorporated in the final supplements
which would be published after the Secretary's
decision. (The procedures for conducting the field
tests and preparing the supplements were pub-
lished on December 8, 1978, in 43 Federal Register
57662-57670.)
These 24 preferred unsuitability criteria can be
divided into four categories: those which are
required under Section 522 of SMCRA (e.g.,
Federal land system, buffer zones along rights-of-
way and adjacent to communities and buildings,
and reclaimability criteria), those which are discre-
tionary under Section 522 (e.g., land used for
scientific studies, municipal watersheds, and flood-
plains criteria); those which embody requirements
under other statutes which the Department
chooses to enforce through the application of
unsuitability criteria (e.g., federally-listed endan-
gered species and bald and golden eagle criteria);
and those which are not required by statute but
which the Department has decided to apply in its
discretion as good public policy (e.g., scenic areas,
state resident fish and wildlife, state lands unsuit-
able, and state proposed criteria). In short, some of
the criteria involve interpretation of legal require-
ments within circumscribed limits; others repre-
sent an attempt to set broader limits on field-level
resource management judgments that have previ-
ously been entirely discretionary. (Table 3-4 sets
out the authorities for each unsuitability criterion.)
Each criterion in all four categories of criteria,
including the two discretionary categories, would
be fully applied during land use planning; the
responsible official would not have the discretion
to refrain from applying any criterion. The only
remaining discretion, either permitted by law in
the required criteria or inherent in the discretion-
ary criteria, is incorporated in the exceptions and
the decision whether to apply an exception. The
combination of, first, taking issues that have been
3-42
TABLE 3-4
PROPOSED UNSUITABILITY STANDARDS:
THEIR SOURCES AHD LIMITATIONS
CRITERION
(Proposed Rule Section)
STATUTORY
SOURCE 1/
NATURE OF
CRITERION
EXEMPTIONS
DERIVATION OF
EXCEPTIONS
1-1.
Lands in federal land
preservation systems
(National Parks,
Wildlife Refuges and
Trails
a. 522(e)-SMCRA;
b. 16-FCLAA
a. mandatory
b. mandatory
a. valid existing
rights; surface
coal mining opera-
tions existing on
8-3-77
b. none
1-2,
Buffer zones around
such land
522(a)(3)-
SMCRA
Clean Air Act
discretionary
522(a) (6 )-SMCRA 2/
1
1-3.
Lands in Custer
National Forest
[3461.2(a)]
522(e)-SMCRA
mandatory
valid existing
rights; existing
surface coal
mining operations
operations that
involve no sur-
face coal mining
operations
(522(e)(2)(B)
proviso-SMCRA )
V
2/
Statutory sections are cited if clear. SMCRA means the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 1201 et setj.; FCLAA means the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976;
FLPMA means the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. § 1701, et seq .
Section 2 of the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended, 30 U.S.C. S 201, contains the Secretary's ultimate
discretion to lease or not to lease in the public interest. It applies to all the criteria. Similarly,
sections 201 and 202 of FLPMA, the Secretary's resource inventory and land use planning authorities,
apply to all criteria on all lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. These sections are
cited only when they are relied on as authority for the criterion.
In every case, section 522(a)(6) exempts: (a) operations approved under SMCRA; (b) surface coal
mining operations existing on August 3, 1977; and (c) operations to which substantial legal and
financial commitments were made prior to January 4, 1977.
3/ The general authority for the exception is found in the coverage or limitations on the coverage of
~~ the statutory policies and protections.
TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED)
I
CRITERION
(Proposed Rule Section)
Lands in federal
leases, permits or
rights-of-way for
other purposes
[3461.2(b)]
Lands within certain
distances of ceme-
taries, public
buildings, public
roads
[3461.2(c)]
Lands in wilderness
study areas
[3461.2(d)]
Class I or II
scenic lands
[3461.2(e)]
Lands used for
scientific study
(crops, resources,
technology)
[3461.2(f)]
STATUTORY
SOURCE V
a. 715-SMCRA;
b. 522(e)(4)-
SMCRA
a. 522(e)(4) and
(5)-SMCRA
b. 522(a)(3)(B)
a. 603(c)-FLFMA;
b. 522(a)(3)(B)-
SMCRA;
c. National Forest
Management Act;
d. Wilderness Act
a. 522(a)(3)(B)-
SMCRA;
b. 201-202-FLIMA
a. 522(a)(3)(C)-
SMCRA;
b. 715-SMCRA
NATURE OF
CRITERION
a. mandatory
b. mandatory
a. mandatory
b. discretionary b.
a. mandatory a.
in most cases
b. discretionary
c. discretionary
EXEMPTIONS
b. valid existing
rights; surface
coal mining
operations exist-
ing on 8-3-77
valid existing
rights; surface
coal mining
operations exist-
ing on 8-3-77
522(a) (6 )-SMCRA 2/
operations in
manner and degree
of existing
operations; valid
existing rights
522(a) ( 6 )-SMCRA 2/
DERIVATION OF
EXCEPTIONS
discretion when
section 715
satisfied by
consent or
otherwise
522(e)(4) and (5)-
SMCRA
a. if nonimpairment
of wilderness
suitability
— 603(c)-FLPMA;
c. Wilderness Act 3/
discretionary a. 522(a) (6)-SMCRA 2/ discretion
b. valid existing
rights
a. discretionary a. 522(a) (6)-SMCRA 2/
b. mandatory
discretion when
section 715 satis-
fied by consent or
otherwise
*m^m
TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED)
CRITERION
(Proposed Rule Section)
7-1. Lands containing
listed or eligible
National Register
sites
7-2. Buffer zones for
such lands
[3461.2(g)]
8. Lands in national
natural landmarks
[3461.2(h)]
9. Lands in designated
critical habitat for
or documented as
habitat for federal
STATUTORY
SOURCE 1/
NATURE OF
CRITERION
EXEMPTIONS
a. 522(e) (3) -SMCRA, mandatory a. valid existing
rights; surface
b. National Historic discretionary
Preservation Act
522(a)(3)(B)-
SMCRA
522(a)(3)(B)-
SMCRA;
Antiquities Act
Endangered
Species Act
mandatory
1
■p-
Ln
threatened or en-
dangered species
[3461. 2(i)]
10.
Lands in designated
critical habitat
for state threatened
or endangered
species
[3461.2(D)]
201, 202 and
302(b)-FLPMA
discretioi
11.
Lands containing
bald or golden
eagle nest, and
buffer zone
[3461. 2(k)]
a. Eagle Protec-
tion Act
b. Endangered
Species Act
a. mandatory
b. mandatory
DERIVATION OF
EXCEPTIONS
National Historic
Preservation Act 3/
mining operations
existing on 8-3-77
discretionary 522(a) (6)-SMCRA 2/
discretionary ' 522(a) (6) -SMCRA 2/ discretion
none
Endangered Species
Act 3/
valid existing
rights
discretion
none
Eagle Protection
Act 3/
Endangered Species
Act 3/
TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED)
CRITERION
(Proposed Rule Section)
STATUTORY
SOURCE 1/
NATURE OF
CRITERION
EXEMPTIONS
DERIVATION OF
EXCEPTIONS
12.
Lands containing
bald or golden
eagle migration or
wintering roost, and
buffer zone
[3461.2(1)]
Eagle Protection
Act;
Endangered
Species Act
mandatory
none
Eagle Protection
Act 3/
Endangered Species
Act 3/
13.
Lands with falcon
cliff nesting site,
and buffer zone
including prey
habitat
[3461. 2(m)]
a.
b.
Migratory Bird
Treaty Act;
201, 202-FLPMA
Endangered
Species Act
mandatory
mandatory
none
Migratory Bird
Treaty Act 3/
Endangered Species
Act 3/
(jO
1
0-v
14.
Lands that are high
priority habitat
for migratory birds
of high federal
interest
[3461. 2(n)]
a„
b.
Migratory Bird
Treaty Act;
Fish and Wild-
life Coordina-
tion Act
a. mandatory
b. discretionary
none
a. Migratory Bird
Treaty Act 3/
b. discretion
15.
Lands that are
habitat for high
interest resident
wildlife in state
[3461. 2(o)]
a,
b„
Fish and Wild-
life Coordina-
tion Act;
201, 302(b)-
FLPMA
both
discretionary
a. none
b. valid existing
rights
discretion
m
TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED)
CRITERION
(Proposed Rule Section)
STATUTORY
SOURCE V
NATURE OF
CRITERION
]
SXEMPTIONS
DERIVATION OF
EXCEPTIONS
16. Lands that are
a. 522(a)(3)(C)-
all
a„
522(a)(6)-
discretion
inland wetlands
3*CRA;
discretionary
SMCRA 2/
[3461. 2(p)]
b. Fish and Wild-
life Coordina-
tion Act;
c. E.O. 11990
(May 1977),
National Environ-
mental Policy Act;
d. Federal Water
Pollution Control
Act
b.
Co
do
none
none
Environmental
Protection Agency
or Corps of
Engineers per-
mitted activities
17. Lands in 100-year
a. 522(a)(3)(C)-
all
522(a) ( 6 J-SMCRA V
discretion
floodplains
SMCRA;
discretionary
UJ
[3461. 2(q)]
b. 522(a)(3)(D)-
SMCRA;
C E.O. 11988
(May 1977)
18. Lands used as
a. 522(a)(3)(C)-
discretionary
a,
522(a) (6 )-SMCRA 2/
discretion
municipal water-
SMCRA;
sheds
b. Safe Drinking
[3461. 2(r)]
Water Act;
c. Federal Water
Pollution Control
Act
c
, Environmental
Protection Agency
or Corps of
Engineers per-
mitted activities
TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED)
I
00
CRITERION
(Proposed Rule Section)
19. Lands containing
National Resource
Waters, and buffer
zones
[3461. 2(s)]
20. Lands containing
prime farm land
soils
[3461.2(f)]
21. Lands in alluvial
valley floors, where
mining would inter-
rupt or preclude
farming, or
materially damage
water systems
[3461. 2(u)]
STATUTORY
SOURCE V
a. Federal Water
Pollution Control
Act;
b. 522(a)(3)(C)-
SMCRA
522(a)(3)(C)-
SMCRA
a. 510(b)(5)-
SMCRA;
b. 522(a)(3)(C)-
SMCRA
NATURE OF
CRITERION
discretionary
discretionary
mandatory
DERIVATION OF
EXCEPTIONS
discretion
EXEMPTIONS
a. Environmental
Protection Agency
or Corps of
Engineers per-
mitted activities
b. 522(a) (6)-SMCRA 2/
522(a) (6)-SMCRA 2/ 515(b) (7)-SMCRA;
discretion
a.
b.
operations pro-
ducing or per-
mitted in year
before 8-3-77
limited to a.
above
510(b) (5 )-SMCRA
22. Lands not re-
claimable in
conformity with
SMCRA
[3461. 2(v)]
23. Lands subject to a
criterion suggested
by a state and
adopted by rulemaking
[3461. 2(w)]
510(b)(2)-
SMCRA
522(a)(3)(A)-
SMCRA;
522(a) (5) -SMCRA
mandatory
none
none
discretionary 522(a) (6) -SMCRA 2/ discretion
MflttH
^gtaAunAmfea^^^
TABLE 3-4 (CONCLUDED)
CRITERION
(Proposed Rule Section)
24. Lands needed as buffer
to lands designated
unsuitable by a state
[3461. 2(x)]
STATUTORY
SOURCE 1/
522(a)(3)(A)-
SMCRA;
522(a) (5 )-SMCRA
NATURE OF
CRITERION
discretionary
DERIVATION OF
EXEMPTIONS EXCEPTIONS
522(a) (6)-SMCRA 2/ discretion
I
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
considered within varying degrees of specificity at
various stages of Federal coal management and
requiring that they receive some attention at the
earliest stages of planning, and, second, providing
that attention through a process that requires site-
specific, for-the-record determinations of the appli-
cability of those criteria would, the Department
believes, have two beneficial results. It would make
all land use planning decisions more sensitive to
the resource values covered by the unsuitability
criteria and would permit a level of public review
and accountability not previously associated with
that kind of field-level decision.
The unsuitability criteria would, in some form,
be applied to all new leases, including emergency
leases and preference right lease applications. The
criteria would be applied directly to the tract areas
for emergency and preference right lease applica-
tions. For all other new leases, the procedures set
forth below would be followed.
The responsible official of the Federal land
management agency would describe in the land
use plan the results of the application of each of
the unsuitability criteria to the medium and high
potential coal lands in the planning area. He would
state each instance in which a criterion is found to
be applicable and show the area which is excluded
from further coal development consideration or,
should he determine that the conditions for an
exception exist, describe the area to which the
exception applies and discuss in detail the reasons
why the exception is made and what type of
stipulations will be required in the lease or mining
permit to assure compliance with the exception. In
applying the criteria and exceptions, the responsi-
ble official would first publish a composite map
showing full application of all criteria prior to
consideration of any of the exceptions. The map
would be part of the formal documentation to be
made available to the public. Only after the map
has been prepared and made public would the
exceptions be applied; however, the responsible
official would consider using an exception only
when a small area: (1) has applicable to it a
criterion; (2) is in a larger area to which no criteria
otherwise apply; and (3) would likely preclude the
designing of any lease tracts within the larger area.
This procedure deters aggressive application of the
exceptions and places a distinct burden of proof on
the responsible official to carefully and forcefully
document any application of exceptions which he
would make.
Where the quality of the data available for the
application of a particular criterion or exception is
high, the responsible official would decide on the
basis of that data whether the area is unsuitable as
set out above. Where data are unavailable or
where the best available data are not of sufficient
quality to allow a decision on the application of
the criterion or exception to be reached with
reasonable certainty, the responsible official would
continue the land affected in the process and state
in the land use plan when in activity planning,
lease sale, or post-lease activities the additional,
necessary data might be obtained. At such time as
the data become available, the responsible official
would be required to make public his determina-
tion concerning unsuitability, and the reasons
therefore, and provide opportunity for public
comment before that determination is made. Any
changes which either result from petitions for
designating lands unsuitable or for removing
unsuitability designations or are warranted by
additional data acquired in the activity planning,
lease sale, or mine plan review process would be
made without formally revising the plan.
All lands not identified unsuitable for coal
mining would be considered further in the land use
planning process. Lands with coal that would be
mined by underground mining methods would not
be considered unsuitable for coal mining where the
mining would result in no hydrologic or surface
effects. Where underground mining of Federal
coal would produce hydrologic or surface effects to
which an unsuitability criterion applies, those
lands would be considered unsuitable unless the
conditions exist to permit an exception. In predict-
ing surface effects, the responsible official would
consider surface occupancy and the potential for
subsidence, fire, or other environmental impacts of
underground mining which may be manifested on
the surface.
As previously mentioned, the Secretary's deci-
sion to apply unsuitability criteria at the land use
planning stage, as well as the post-leasing mine
plan stage, was based on both public policy and
economic considerations. By this policy prefer-
ence, the Secretary hopes to avoid the unfortunate
and possibly frequent occurrence of the following
scenario: the Federal government expends consid-
erable sums of money on a site-specific analysis for
3-50
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
lease sale preparation; a mining company also
incurs large expenditures to determine whether it
wishes to bid on the tract and (if successful in
purchasing the lease) to prepare a mine plan;
application of the criteria at the time of mine plan
submission may suddenly make the foregoing
tract unmineable or require the insertion of so
many stipulations in the mine plan or mining
permit as to make mining of the tract uneconomi-
cal. This scenario could be almost entirely avoided
by the application of criteria first in the land use
planning process. Although the criteria would be
applied again at the mine plan stage, the applica-
tion of most of them in the land use planning
process could be done with a degree of certainty
which makes any changes as a result of the second
application unlikely. However, certain criteria,
most notably the reclaimability and alluvial valley
floor criteria, would require so much costly, site-
specific data— data which would not be collected
until after the land use planning is finished (in
activity planning or prior to submission of the
mine plan)— that the application of them in the
land use planning process could only serve to
screen out the most obvious areas. In the case of
these few criteria, there would remain an unavoid-
able possibility that significant changes could
occur when the criteria would be applied again
after the lease has been issued at the time of mine
plan submission. Note also that there are other
potential criteria that might be applied at the mine
plan stage but not earlier, most specifically criteria
related to geologic hazards.
The unsuitability criteria would also be applied
to each existing non-producing lease upon submis-
sion of a mine plan by the lessee (should an
existing lease be within a land use plan area to
which unsuitability criteria are being applied in
land use planning the criteria would be applied to
the lease at that time if a mine plan has not already
been submitted.) The mine plan would be reviewed
in light of the unsuitability criteria to determine
which, if any, apply. If a criterion applies, the
Department would evaluate whether, under an
exception to the criterion, the plan could be
changed to eliminate the harmful effects to the
value which the criterion is designed to protect. If
no change could be made and some or all types of
mining could not take place consistent with the
criterion, a decision would be made whether the
Department has the authority to apply that
criterion to the lease. If the lessee has valid existing
rights and has made substantial legal and financial
commitments, he may be exempted, by statute,
from complying with certain of the criteria de-
pending on the source of authority for the criteria
and the dates of his commitments. If the Depart-
ment is found to possess the authority to apply the
criterion, the mining would not be permitted. For
some criteria, the Department would have to
formally designate the lands as unsuitable to
prevent mining; for others, formal designation
would not be needed.
Section 522(b) of SMCRA mandates the
Secretary of the Interior to review all Federal lands
for unsuitability and it allows citizens to petition
for and against designation of lands as unsuitable.
Consequently, under SMCRA, the Department
must have procedures to apply unsuitability
criteria both as part of a comprehensive Federal
lands review and as part of a petition process.
Section 522(b) requires the Secretary to review
all Federal lands even though many local areas are
under the land managing jurisdiction of another
agency, principally the Forest Service or the Corps
of Engineers. By expressing a preference for the
application of the unsuitability criteria to Federal
lands in the land use planning conducted by each
Federal surface management agency, the Depart-
ment has proposed a course for the Federal lands
review that would allow other surface management
agencies to enter into cooperative agreements with
the Department to carry out the Federal lands
review on lands they administer just as the Bureau
of Land Management will on land it administers.
(The BLM is presently negotiating a memorandum
of understanding with the Forest Service on how
the latter agency would apply the criteria on
national forest system lands.) For any agency that
does not have the resources to accomplish such a
review for lands under its jurisdiction, the Secre-
tary would remain obligated to conduct a review
on those lands.
With respect to lands administered by BLM,
the Under Secretary on July 5, 1978, approved a
delegation of authority that gives BLM the
responsibility to administer the Federal lands
review through its land use planning system and
the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM) the responsibility to adminis-
ter the statutory petition process. (Appendix B to
3-51
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
the Federal Register Notice of December 8, 1978;
43 Federal Register 57662, 57666-57668).
The Federal lands review under Section 522(b)
of SMCRA would be conducted in accordance
with the procedures discussed above for applica-
tion of the unsuitability criteria during land use
planning or upon submission of a mine plan. The
Federal lands review is not a program for the
designation of lands as unsuitable for mining.
Formal designation of Federal lands as unsuitable
would occur only in response to a petition to
designate under Section 522(c) of SMCRA. Peti-
tions would be filed with OSM under the division
of responsibility established on July 5. Section
522(c) requires the petitioner to be adversely
affected by potential mining of the lands in
question, and requires each petition to "contain
allegations of facts with supporting evidence" to
establish the truth of the allegations. Because of
these threshold requirements, it is assumed that the
public lands will not be blanketed by petitions. On
those petitions that do pass the threshold require-
ments, designation as unsuitable, rejection of the
petition, or termination of a prior designation
would have to occur within one year. The year
provides the time in which the BLM (or other land
management agency) would substantively review
the petition and, if necessary and possible, exam-
ine the tract, and in which a public hearing on the
petition would be held and a written decision
rendered. The OSM would refer each petition to
the BLM or other appropriate land management
agency for its review and the results of that review
would be presented at or before the hearing. The
BLM or other agency would also be able to
petition OSM on its own behalf to designate
Federal lands as unsuitable.
While the criteria applied in the Federal lands
review and the petition process are the same, it is
important to note that OSM, not the land manage-
ment agency, controls the outcome of the petition
process. It may be that certain lands which would
not be found to be unsuitable in land use planning
might be designated unsuitable upon petition, and,
conversely, lands deemed unsuitable by the land
management agency might not be designated
unsuitable upon petition. This is possible because
the unsuitability criteria themselves, and their
exceptions, are, in origin and function, designed to
ensure environmental protection and establish
mitigation of adverse impacts, while the formal
designation process requires consideration of coal
demand and the socio-economic impacts in carry-
ing out the environmental purposes served by the
criteria. Section 522(d) of SMCRA requires OSM
to prepare, prior to designating Federal land
unsuitable, a "detailed statement on (i) the poten-
tial coal resources of the area; (ii) the demand for
coal resources, and (iii) the impact of such
designation on the environment, the economy, and
the supply of coal." In order to assure the greatest
consistency between OSM's unsuitability designa-
tions and BLM's or other land management
agency's land use planning unsuitability assess-
ments, the BLM's proposed coal management
regulations (Appendix A, Section 3461.4-3) require
that the same "detailed statement" be made by
BLM to document its unsuitability assessments
when it adopts a land use plan.
3.2.2.3 Multiple Use Resource Management Deci-
sions. Although it is likely that most major conflicts
between coal and other resources would be
addressed during the application of the unsuitabili-
ty criteria, significant resource balancing decisions
could remain. These other resource trade-offs
would be considered and acted upon after applica-
tion of the unsuitability criteria. The adjustments
at this stage in the land use planning process would
be made to accommodate unique, site-specific
resource values clearly superior to coal but which
are not included in the criteria. A prime recreation
site or campground might be an example. The
responsible official would balance these values
against the value of possibly offering additional
coal from the planning unit.
3.2.2.4 Surface Owner Consultation. Section 714 (d)
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 requires the Secretary to consult
during the planning process with certain owners of
the surface estate overlying Federal coal resources
being considered for leasing. This forms another
screen for identifying lands that should not be
leased.
In order to minimize disturbance to surface
owners from surface coal mining of Federal coal
deposits and to assist in the preparation of
comprehensive land use plans required by Section
2(a) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as
amended, the Department would consult with any
surface owner as defined in Section 714(e) of
SMCRA whose land might be included in a leasing
;;
...
. ii
.
3-52
• \
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
tract and ask the surface owner to state his
preference for or against the offering of the deposit
under his land for lease. It would also request
disclosure of any consent for mining already given
by the surface owner. The Department would, to
the maximum extent practicable, refrain from
leasing coal deposits for development by methods
other than underground mining in areas where a
significant number of qualified surface owners
state a preference against the offering of the
deposits for lease. Although portions of these areas
might still be designated as acceptable for further
consideration for coal leasing, the land use plan
would contain the recommendation that no leasing
take place in the areas unless there are no
acceptable alternative local areas available to meet
the leasing target for the entire coal region.
The Department is considering an additional
policy applicable to the surface owner consultation
process and is soliciting public comment on that
policy, in particular comments on the proposed
regulations (see Section 3420.2-3(d) in Appendix
A). Under this policy, the Department would
provide on the consultation form a place for the
qualified surface owner to register not only his
preference for or against surface mining of his land
but also whether he has a firm intent not to
consent to such mining during the life of the land
use plan (a maximum of 15 years in the BLM's
proposed planning regulations). After the surface
owner consultation screen has been applied and
the local land manager (1) has determined each
general area in which a significant number of
qualified surface owners has expressed a prefer-
ence against leasing and (2) has made a determina-
tion concerning the removal of those preference
areas from the areas which the land use plan will
identify as acceptable for further consideration for
leasing for the surface mining of coal, the disclo-
sures of firm intent not to consent would be
considered. Those specific lands covered by firm
intent disclosures would be removed from any
further consideration for leasing for the surface
mining of coal in the land use plan.
As a consequence of these procedures, any
land covered by a firm intent disclosure on the
consultation form would not be considered for
leasing again if the coal were to be developed by
surface mining methods for the life of the land use
plan even if a preference area encompasses it and
the BLM decides to lease in that area under the
limited exception discussed above. The only
exception would be when the ownership of the
land changes and the new owner either is not a
qualified surface owner or is willing to file a
written consent to surface mining, and the land
management agency elects to amend the land use
plan.
Should the surface owner not be willing to
make a decision at this point, he would still be able
to exercise his surface owner protection rights
under the subsequent consent acquisition proce-
dures of the preferred program (see Section
3.2.5.1).
3.2.2.5 Threshold Development Levels. Although
many land use decisions can be made on a site
specific basis (as previously suggested, such a
decision might be that a particular area should be
developed as a recreation site rather than leased
for coal), other decisions may be oriented more
toward impacts dependent on levels or rates of
development. Although any one of several given
potential coal development sites under consider-
ation might have an acceptable impact by itself,
the total impact to the area of developing all sites
could be intolerable. As an example, the crucial
habitat area for a particular species might have
been removed from further consideration for
leasing. The species do, however, use additional
areas within the land use planning unit. Coal
development in these areas might adversely affect
the species' population. During the land use
planning process, a decision might be made that a
10-percent decrease in the population would be an
acceptable trade-off. Given the protection of the
crucial habitat area, it might not make a difference
what other areas would be temporarily lost to coal
development as long as the total would not exceed
a certain acreage or decrease the population more
than the agreed upon amount. In this situation, no
additional land would be removed from further
consideration for coal leasing. Instead, a threshold
constraint would be established in the land use
plan to specify the total level of habitat reduction
within the acceptable areas identified in the plan.
This threshold concept is particularly appropri-
ate when considering socio-economic impacts. The
social and economic infrastructure which coal
development in the land use planning area would
affect might, over a certain time period, only be
able to support a particular developmental level.
3-53
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
Also, the rate of development might be critical. If
this information is available, a recommended
threshold leasing or development level and rate
could be specified in the plan.
It is not necessary to establish thresholds in the
land use plan. The later steps in the activity
planning process supply opportunity for the
Department, other Federal agencies, state and
local governments, and others to discuss and agree
upon regional and subregional thresholds. If,
however, the land use planning process reveals the
need for a particular threshold on the scale of a
planning unit, then the decision could and should
be made at that point.
In a March 8, 1979, memorandum to the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the
Assistant Secretary, Land and Water Resources,
requested that the Bureau undertake as a high
priority task the further intensive development of
the threshold concept. The study is to be conduct-
ed in the context of the Bureau's land use planning
system, and is to consider use of the threshold
concept not just for the coal resource but also for
the other resources addressed in the planning
process. The Bureau was further requested to
incorporate the threshold concept into its final
planning regulations.
3.2.2.6 Preferred Coal Leasing Areas. Within the
areas identified as acceptable for further consider-
ation for coal leasing, the land use plan could
delimit preferred coal leasing areas. This would be
done only when available coal demand data
suggest that the areas acceptable for further
consideration for coal leasing clearly could yield
more coal than would be needed for leasing before
the land use plan would be reviewed (five years in
the BLM's proposed planning regulations). Pre-
ferred areas would be identified by employing
available socio-economic, environmental, and eco-
nomic data. These preferred area identifications
would be advisory only to the regional coal teams
and not a plan commitment.
All of the land use planning steps in the
preferred program could be made a part of any of
the alternatives since land use planning must be
done even if the Department decides not to adopt
a coal management program. This component is
least compatible with the lease to meet industry
needs alternative particularly as it requires the land
use planners to set threshhold development levels.
Under the lease to meet industry needs alternative,
the Department would rely on the market place to
set the various thres hold levels. Application of the
unsuitability criteria would be postponed until the
mine plan stage. Planning would focus only on
those areas for which there had been nominations.
3.2.3 Activity Planning.
Two consecutive processes would be undertak-
en in activity planning in the preferred program:
tract delineation and tract ranking, selection, and
scheduling (see Figure 3.3). The first process would
take place in each land use plan area; the second
would be conducted over the entire coal region
encompassing many land use plan areas.
3.2.3.1 Tract Delineation and Industry Expressions
of Interest. As previously noted, the land use plans
would disclose areas which are considered to be
acceptable for further consideration for coal
leasing. These areas would not be lease tracts and
would be much larger than any acreage which
might be needed for leasing over the next 10 years
(the lengthiest period which would be used for
setting regional leasing targets (see Section 3.2.4)).
The purpose of activity planning is to delineate
and select a sufficient number of tracts for sale
from the areas designated in the land use plans as
acceptable for further consideration for leasing to
meet the regional leasing target. The first step after
publication of the land use plan is to preliminarily
delineate potential lease tracts. In delineating the
preliminary tracts, the land management agencies
would consider the following factors:
• Expressions of interest and existing or
planned operations on adjoining lands.
• Technical coal data, including reserve
tonnage, rank, sulfur content, seam
thickness, and ratio of recoverable coal to
reserves.
• Conservation considerations, including cal-
culation of preliminary maximum economic
recovery, land ownership patterns, and the
formation of logical mining units.
• Surface ownership, including the results of
surface owner consultation, and the exis-
tence of surface owner consents and their
terms.
• Prior regional leasing targets and guidance
from the regional coal teams.
Although preliminary tract delineation would
be done by the Department, the first step in the
:■
3-54
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
delineation process would be to request submis-
sions by industry of expressions of interest for
leasing. As previously discussed, a call for expres-
sions of leasing interest would be made only after
areas acceptable for further consideration for coal
leasing have been identified in the Bureau of Land
Management or Forest Service land use plans. In
areas where state or other agency plans have been
adopted, unsuitability criteria would be applied
before a call would be made. The call would be
made before any tract boundaries would be
delineated and the expressions of leasing interest
would be the most significant information em-
ployed in delineating the tracts. It is expected that
any tract proposed in expressions of leasing
interest would be preliminarily delineated as
proposed, unless it was necessary to not delineate
it, delineate it differently, or delineate other tracts
to ensure competitive interest in the eventual lease
sale, conserve Federal coal, or meet other largely
economic objectives in the coal management
program.
In addition to industry, any individual, state,
or public body would be able to respond when the
Secretary issues a call for expressions of leasing
interest. All calls would provide a description of
the kind of information required, including but not
limited to location and quantitites of coal desired,
date lease would be desired, proposed use of coal,
technical coal data, commitments with private
surface owners and adjacent landowners or lessees,
and basic development proposals. Expressions of
interest against leasing which were possible under
the 1975 proposed program (EMARS II) would
not be accepted; however, a similar purpose would
be served by unsuitability petitions in the present
preferred program. Public inspection and copying
of information submitted with the expressions of
leasing interest would be permitted in accordance
with Departmental regulations.
Notice of each request for expressions of
leasing interest would be published in the Federal
Register and in the general circulation newspa-
pers) in the coal region. This notice of request
would specify the area or areas involved, informa-
tion required, the period of time within which
expressions may be submitted, where to write for
further information, and where to submit the
expressions.
The fact that a specific request for expressions
of interest would be part of the activity planning
system would not preclude industry, the states, or
other parties from participating in the earlier land
use planning efforts. General comments and
interests could be submitted during the planning
process or whenever any party might wish to
indicate an interest in Federal coal in a particular
area. Such general comments and interests could
be in the form of a letter or public testimony. The
Department would use this information for plan-
ning purposes or to aid in setting the regional
production goals and leasing targets.
Tracts would not be identified as special
opportunity lease sales for public bodies or small
businesses during tract delineation. However, if
special leasing opportunity sales are contemplated
in the region, an effort to identify tracts of an
appropriate size and location would be made at
this stage of the process. In order to initiate
Departmental action to identify potential public
body lease sale tracts, interested public bodies
would have to submit formal expressions of leasing
interest in response to the notice calling for
expressions of leasing interest. Although potential
small business candidates would be encouraged to
submit formal expressions of leasing interest, they
would not have to initiate tract identifications for
small business special leasing opportunities. Rath-
er, in consultation with the Small Business Admin-
istration, the Department would delineate tracts to
go into the ranking process which could meet the
needs of small businesses. The Small Business
Administration proposed a definition of a small
business for Federal coal lease sale set-aside
purposes on March 14, 1979 (44 Federal Register
15513-15514).
In the months before the schedule is establish-
ed, all available preliminary tracts would be
reviewed for the adequacy of the tract information
profile. Data insufficiencies would be noted and,
where time permitted, remedied so that each tract
would have as complete a coal resource, socioeco-
nomic, and environmental profile as possible.
Also, unsuitability questions left unresolved in
general planning would be analyzed and tract-
specific stipulations written at this time.
3.2.3.2 Regional Tract Ranking, Selection, and
Scheduling. If a regional leasing target established
for any given region suggests the need for Federal
coal leasing over the up-coming two or four years,
a proposed lease sale schedule would be prepared.
3-55
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
Every two or four years, the Director of the BLM
would formally begin the regional tract ranking
and selection process. Ranking would be on a coal
region-wide basis and not separately within each
land use planning area. In the ranking process,
factors relating to coal economics, ease of reclama-
tion, proximity to existing transportation facilities,
class of surface ownership (Federal or non-Feder-
al), and socioeconomic and other environmental
concerns would be employed. Ranking would be
for general levels of acceptability only. The
regional coal team would be expected to emphasize
those factors of importance to the region. The
ranked tracts would be compared with the regional
leasing target and a set of tracts would be selected
for a proposed lease sale schedule. Since the
potential environmental and social impacts result-
ing from development of any tracts in the same
area would be cumulative, the selection of the first
tract might preclude selection, or lower the priority
of, other highly ranked tracts. Accordingly, as
selections are made of individual tracts, the
original rankings of the remaining tracts might be
altered and the final, selected tracts would not
necessarily directly correspond to the relative
order in which the individual tracts were originally
ranked. The number of tracts proposed would be
dependent on the type of bidding system to be
used (intertract or single tract bidding) and the
tonnage targetted for lease. The selected tracts
would be placed in a proposed regional lease sale
schedule.
The tract ranking and selection process would
be conducted in close coordination with the
governors of the states comprising the region and
in consultation with all affected Federal land
management agencies and other Federal and state
agencies with expertise of relevance to the process.
To facilitate this coordination and consultation, a
Department/state regional coal team would be
established for each of the major multi-state coal
regions. The team would consist of a BLM field
representative and a state government representa-
tive from each state within the region. An addition-
al member appointed by, and directly responsible
to, the Director of the BLM would be assigned to
each team and serve as its director. In addition,
procedures would be established to ensure that the
Federal land management agencies and the other
Federal and state agencies with expertise would
participate during the ranking process.
Each regional coal team would consider and
suggest policy for regional production goal and
leasing target setting, tract delineation, and site-
specific analysis in the coal region. It would guide
and review tract ranking, and conduct the tract
selection and sale scheduling procedures that
develop the alternatives which are analyzed in the
regional lease sale environmental impact statement
and are recommended to the Secretary. If any state
representative should disagree with the Federal
team members' ranking decisions or selection and
scheduling recommendations and a compromise
could not be reached, his opinions would be
documented and his alternative recommendation
would be treated equally in the regional lease sale
environmental impact statement sent through the
Director, BLM, to the Secretary for his decision.
The ultimate decision-making authority for the
selection and scheduling of tracts for lease sale
resides in the Secretary.
A notice of intent to rank and select tracts to
be included in a proposed regional lease sale
schedule would be published in the Federal
Register and selected general distribution newspa-
pers within the coal region not less than 30 days
before the ranking process begins. The notice
would contain a description of the tracts to be
ranked and procedures under which any interested
parties are to be involved in the process. Also a
final call for surface owner consent filings would
be made for the tracts to be ranked.
Detailed profile information on each of the
tracts ranked would be available for inspection in
the Bureau of Land Management offices in the
coal region. Those parties interested in comment-
ing on the results of the tract ranking and selection
process would have the opportunity to do so in the
regional lease sale environmental impact statement
process before any final decision would be made
by the Secretary to accept the proposed lease sale
schedule or hold a lease sale encompassing any of
the selected tracts. It is the intent of the Depart-
ment that the development of the regional sale
schedule and the environmental impact statement
for the regional sale be closely integrated. This
would be done by integrating the decision and
analyses documents used for sale schedule devel-
opment with the statement. Some special efforts
will be needed for the statement alone after
preliminary identification of a sale schedule, but
this work would be limited. This procedure would
3-56
I
^^^I^^^^IH^ ■.....,....".'■
"■"""Mn i w i
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
be in accord with the new Council on Environmen-
tal Quality regulations for preparation of environ-
mental impact statements.
The tract ranking and selection decisions
would normally be reconsidered every two years in
accordance with the updating of the national and
regional production goals and leasing targets. The
Secretary might, in consultation with the governors
of the affected states, intiate or postpone the the
tract ranking and selection process to respond to
considerations such as major planning updates,
new preliminary tract delineations, and increases
or decreases in the level of leasing.
To establish planning and inventory-related
priorities, the Secretary might include in the
ranking process areas recently identified in new
land use plans or plan updates, or recently
designated, as areas acceptable for further consid-
eration for coal leasing which have not yet been
delineated as preliminary lease tracts. All tracts
subsequently identified for lease consideration
would be formally entered into the ranking and
selection process before they are included in a
lease sale proposal.
Activity planning would not occur under the
no new leasing alternative and would have rela-
tively little importance under the preference right
lease application and the emergency lease only
alternatives. Under the lease to meet industry
indications of need alternative, activity planning
would take place only in response to industry
nominations, and regional tract ranking and
selection would not occur. The process described
here would be consistent with the lease to meet
DOE production goals alternative. Under the state
determination of leasing levels alternative, the
control over activity planning would be transferred
from the Bureau of Land Management to the
states.
3.2.4. Setting Regional Production Goals and
Leasing Targets.
Over the past several years the question of the
need for leasing has been a focal point of much of
the controversy surrounding the Department's
efforts to manage the Federal coal resource.
Considering the several years' lead time needed for
developing mines to the point of production and
the similar time frames for planning and construct-
ing coal-consuming power plants, precise determi-
nations now of the tonnage of Federal coal which
should be leased to meet the Nation's future
energy requirements are not feasible, although
estimates can be made on the basis of available
information and projections.
Chapter 2 of this document provides an
examination of the national energy role of Federal
coal, including an assessment of the need for
leasing. The need for leasing involves both meeting
national energy objectives and improving coal
development patterns for a given amount of coal
production. This analysis, together with the over-
riding consideration that the Department requires
a coal management system in place to respond
promptly to leasing needs when they are deter-
mined, is the basis for the Secretary's preference
for a Federal coal management program which has
the capability to initiate new competitive lease
sales. However, the Secretary realizes that, no
matter how good the analysis of need for leasing
may be in Chapter 2, circumstances seldom remain
sufficiently constant, and forecasts are not often
precise enough to permit the competitive leasing
component of a coal management program to
function continuously on the basis of a single
assessment of leasing needs. Accordingly, the
Secretary chose to make a continual reassessment
of leasing needs an integral and very public part of
the preferred program. The preference is for a
process which merges DOE production goals with
advice from state and local governments, the coal
industry, and other interest groups to determine
leasing levels. This process of continual reassess-
ment of future regional coal needs would permit
modification of leasing activity in response to
changes in projected demands for coal.
The major coal bearing areas of the continental
United States have been divided into 12 coal
regions as shown in Figure 1-1. Eight of these
regions contain significant reserves of Federal coal
(see Appendix H). Under the preferred program,
these eight coal regions would serve as the basic
units both on which the assessment of desired
levels of leasing would be centered and in which
tracts would be ranked, selected, and scheduled
and lease sales conducted. The Department of
Energy (DOE), pursuant to the responsibilities
assigned to it by the Department of Energy
Organization Act, would establish and biennially
update five, 10, and 15-year regional coal produc-
tion goals which would guide the Department of
3-57
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
• ■;
the Interior in its decisions on the number and
timing of lease sales.
Under the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding between the Departments of the
Interior and Energy set out in Appendix B, the
Secretary of Energy would submit proposed DOE
regional production goals to the Secretary of the
Interior. The supporting material for these pro-
posed goals might include an indication of proba-
ble need for coal by major type; however, in
determining regional goals for specific types of
coal, the Secretary of the Interior would be guided
mainly by industry indications of interest submit-
ted at the start of the activity planning process.
The Secretary of the Interior would, within 60
days, comment to the Secretary of Energy on any
potential conflicts or problems which the Interior
Department foresees in the DOE regional produc-
tion goals as proposed. These comments would be
based on the Interior Department's responsibilities
for the management, regulation, and conservation
of natural resources; the capabilities of Federal
lands and Federal coal resources to meet those
goals; and the national need for the coal balanced
against the environmental consequences of devel-
oping it.
These comments would, of necessity due to the
short comment period, focus on immediately
perceivable problems and conflicts and would not
include in-depth analyses of issues which can only
be undertaken after consultation with field person-
nel, the states, industry, and the public. It is
expected that, during the preparation of the
regional production goals, the Department of
Energy would focus mostly on macroeconomic
issues concerning the energy needs of a healthy
national economy and would consider comments
from diverse sources on the formulation of nation-
al energy goals and the role of coal production in
meeting those goals. Within 30 days after receiving
the Secretary of the Interior's comments, the
Secretary of Energy would transmit to him final
DOE national and suggested regional production
goals.
The Secretary of the Interior would then look
to the expertise and viewpoints of the regional coal
teams (see Section 3.2.3.2) as the major source of
information and comment on the final DOE
regional production goals and how they might
affect leasing strategies and decisions. The Secre-
tary would transmit the relevant DOE goal to each
team. The team, in turn, would analyze the goal on
the basis of its tract ranking and selection
experience, its detailed knowledge of the region,
and public comments it receives on the goal from
publication in the Federal Register and a hearing
in the region. The team would report back to the
Secretary any adjustments it feels are necessary in
the relevant DOE regional production goal and the
reasons for those adjustments. The team would
also provide the Secretary with its suggestion for a
regional leasing target (on a reserve tonnage basis)
for the next four year period.
Based on the recommendations of the teams
and other information available to him, the
Secretary of the Interior would adopt the final
DOE regional production goals either without
change or after making adjustments to them. He
would transmit the final DOE goals, as adopted
with or without adjustments, to the Secretary of
Energy and publish them in the Federal Register.
The goals adopted would be used by the Depart-
ment for long range coal management program
planning and would be made available to the
states, local governments, and other bodies for
their use.
The Secretary of the Interior would also adopt
preliminary regional leasing targets for logical
mining units which would be composed of or
include Federal leases, again after consideration of
the teams' recommendations and other informa-
tion available to him.
These preliminary regional leasing targets
would reflect primarily the difference between
desired levels of production in the region and the
estimated production without new Federal leasing.
They would include the Federal and non-Federal
coal that enters production because of Federal
leasing. Among other factors which might be
affected by leasing decisions and which the
Secretary would consider in establishing prelimi-
nary regional leasing targets would be competition
within the industry and environmental problems
associated with the existing pattern of leases and
mines in the regions.
The Secretary would publish the preliminary
regional leasing targets in the Federal Register and
transmit them to the regional coal teams.
Among the sources of information which the
Secretary would consider in making any adjust-
ments to the final DOE regional production goals
and in establishing the preliminary regional leasing
' : }
3-58
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
targets would be statutory requirements; Depart-
mental policies; land management requirements in
land use and activity plans; the analyses in this
programmatic environmental impact statement;
environmental impact statements on the delinea-
tion, ranking, and selection of tracts; and reports
and studies by governmental agencies, trade
associations and companies, universities, and other
institutions and organizations. The Secretary might
also call a national conference of the regional coal
teams to discuss their individual recommendations
and the sum effect of those recommendations.
After publishing the final DOE regional produc-
tion goals and the preliminary regional leasing
targets, the Secretary would consult directly with
the governors of the affected states to learn their
views, particularly with respect to the relationship
between the preliminary regional leasing targets
and potential social and economic effects on the
states and regions. Based on the information he
receives through all of the above procedures, the
Secretary would publish in the Federal Register
and transmit to the regional coal teams, final
regional leasing targets.
The final DOE regional production goals, as
adopted by the Secretary, and the preliminary and
final regional leasing targets would be used by the
Federal and state governments to set data gather-
ing and planning priorities to ensure that a
sufficient number of tracts would be delineated in
the future, and that adequate site-specific informa-
tion would be available, to make the coal manage-
ment process workable. The final regional leasing
targets would specifically guide the regional coal
teams in the selection and scheduling of ranked
tracts for the four-year proposed lease sale pro-
grams in their respective regions.
The regional tract ranking and selection
process would consistently indicate the optimum
tracts for the desired level of development and lead
to thorough analyses of the impacts of at least one
but usually several alternative lease sale schedules
at the target level. These analyses could include an
alternative or alternatives of choosing a combina-
tion of tracts for leasing which would result in a
leasing level above or below the level called for in
the final regional leasing target for a particular
region. Among the reasons for proposing leasing
above or below the final target during the sched-
uling process might be the results of the analysis
contained in the regional lease sale environmental
impact statement; expressed industry interests not
taken into account earlier; the interest of commu-
nities or regions in promoting or avoiding coal
development in the near future; interest in special
opportunity sales; sales experience with the ongo-
ing regional lease schedule; or an expressed desire
on the part of a state to shift or disperse coal
development patterns. Any proposed divergence
above or below the final regional leasing target
would be discussed and explained in detail by the
regional coal team in the draft regional lease sale
environmental impact statement, and public com-
ment would be specifically requested on the
proposal in the public participation process on the
draft statement. The Secretary would specifically
consider the analyses and comments on the
proposed divergence from the leasing target at the
time he makes his decision on a lease sale schedule.
In the regional tract ranking and selection
process, the possibility of trade-offs in production
goals and leasing targets between regions could not
be adequately analyzed. This must be considered
during the next biennial process in which the
production goals and leasing targets are set or
revised. The first time the process of determining
regional leasing targets would be conducted, the
interregional analysis included in this program-
matic environmental impact statement would be
used as a basis for the decisions on the targets after
providing for state consultation and public com-
ment.
In the subsequent biennial revisions of regional
production goals and leasing targets, the informa-
tion and analyses generated in the preceding
regional tract ranking and selection process would
provide useful information for the goal and target
decisions. In the previous tract ranking and
selection process, alternative tracts to the ones
finally chosen would have been analyzed. Those
highly rated but previously unselected tracts would
most likely serve as an important pool of tracts for
the selection of tracts to meet the new regional
production goals and leasing targets. If the
unchosen tracts remaining in one region are clearly
superior to most of those remaining in another,
consideration of interregional trade-offs in the
setting of the new regional production goals would
be appropriate. This overall interregional analysis
of the tracts makes the development or update of
the regional production goals at this stage quite
important. The biennial regional leasing targets
3-59
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
derived from the production goals would be used
for either guiding new four-year lease sale sched-
ules at the end of the existing schedules or
amending existing lease sale schedules after the
first two years of their four-year terms.
These procedures for setting regional produc-
tion goals and leasing targets would be followed
only under the preferred program. Under the no
new leasing, preference right leasing, and emergen-
cy leasing alternatives, the procedures would not
be needed. They are incompatible with the lease to
meet industry indications of need alternative
which relies on industry nominations to resolve the
question of leasing levels. Similarly they are
unneeded with the lease to meet DOE production
goals and the State determination of leasing levels
alternatives which rely on DOE and the states,
respectively, to set the levels of development for
Federal coal.
3.2.5. Pre-Sale and Sale Procedures
From the time a tract is selected for sale at the
conclusion of the activity planning stage, until a
lease can be issued, a series of actions would be
required to meet various statutory and administra-
tive requirements (see Figure 3-4).
3.2.5.1 Split Estate Leasing and Surface Owner
Consent. Under the original homestead laws,
ranchers and farmers were granted both the
surface and mineral rights to their land, but later
homestead laws provided for retention of the
mineral estate by the Federal government. The
majority of split estates involving federally-owned
mineral rights originated out of entries made under
these later homestead laws. The retained mineral
estate included the right to enter and mine at any
time in the future. The private owner of the surface
estate did not have the power to prevent mining,
though he or she was guaranteed some degree of
indemnification for damage. The most important
of these homestead laws is the Stock-Raising
Homestead Act (30 U.S.C. 299) which states at
section 9:
Any person who has acquired from the United States
the coal ... in any such land, or the right to mine and
remove the same, may reenter and occupy so much
of the surface as may be required for all purposes
reasonably incident to the mining or removal of the
coal . . . first, upon securing the written consent . . .
of the homestead . . . patentee; second, upon
payment of the damages to crops or other tangible
improvements . . . ; or, third, . . . upon the execution
of a good and sufficient bond.
Section 714 of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) provides that,
in cases where Federal coal is overlain by private
surface owned by a special class of owners, the
Secretary may not issue a coal lease for surface
mining purposes unless the surface owner has
granted, in writing, valid consent to conduct such
mining operations. Members of this special class of
surface owners are defined as persons who:
• Hold legal or equitable title to the land
surface; and
• Have their principal places of residence on
the land or personally conduct farming or
ranching operations on the land or receive a
significant portion of their income from
farming or ranching the land; and
• Have met these two conditions for at least
three years prior to granting their consent.
The section further provides that valid con-
sents granted prior to the date of the Act (August
3, 1977) will be deemed sufficient for complying
with the section regardless of the consent terms.
Section 714 also requires that surface owners
be consulted during land use planning. The
provision reads:
In order to minimize disturbance to surface owners
from surface coal mining of Federal coal deposits
and to assist in the preparation of comprehensive
land-use plans required by section 2(a) of the
Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the
Secretary shall consult with any surface owner whose
land is proposed to be included in a leasing tract and
shall ask the surface owner to state his preference for
or against the offering of the deposit under his land
for lease. The Secretary shall, in his discretion but to
the maximum extent practicable, refrain from leasing
coal deposits for development by methods other than
underground mining techniques in those areas where
a significant number of surface owners have stated a
preference against offering the deposits for lease.
This consultation requirement differs sharply
from the consent requirement. Whereas the con-
sent requirement is related to the activity planning
process, is mandatory, and concerns an individu-
al's authority to prevent surface mining on his
specific land, the consultation requirement is
related to the land use planning process, provides
limited discretion to the responsible Federal
official, and concerns the authority of a group of
individuals to influence surface mining on a wider
area encompassing their individual properties. The
3-60
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
consultation step under the preferred program is
described in Section 3.2.2.4.
Several issues were raised in considering how
Section 714 might affect the structure and imple-
mentation of a Federal coal management program.
The questions are not trivial; of the 9.7 million
acres of Federal lands classified as containing
technically recoverable coal in the six principal
western coal states, 6 million acres are overlain by
private surface (see Table 2-5). Of course, the
amount of private surface owned by surface
owners as defined by Section 714 will be much less
than the full 6 million acres, but is still expected to
be significant.
The legislative history of Section 714 was
stormy. The measure was proposed to protect the
property of farmers and ranchers who face the risk
of being moved off their land to make way for
surface mining. The Congress considered amend-
ments expressly limiting compensation paid for
surface owners' consents, and the Senate version of
SMCRA empowered the Secretary to override the
surface owner if leasing would be in the national
interest. The provision agreed to by the conference
committee, and signed by the President, however,
included no compensation limitation or override.
SMCRA does stipulate that Federal coal
underlying the private surface is to be leased in
accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920,
as amended. This law prohibits the government
from accepting any bid which is less than the fair
market value of the coal, as determined by the
Secretary, and requires, with only minor excep-
tions, that all Federal coal be sold competitively.
According to the Department's Office of the
Solicitor, "... the conflicts between surface owner
consent and the Secretary's obligations under the
Mineral Leasing Act are ... subject to reasonable
regulation under the terms of Section 32 . . ., 30
USC 189, which provides, 'The Secretary ... is
authorized to prescribe necessary and proper rules
and regulations and to do any and all things
necessary to carry out and accomplish the pur-
poses of this (Act) "[3]. The Act, therefore, is
interpreted as giving the Secretary the authority to
regulate the leasing process to meet the two
purposes of ensuring that leases are sold on a
competitive basis and that fair market value is
received for the coal. Specifically, the Secretary
may monitor surface owner consents to ensure
their form and financial terms do not substantially
affect fair market value or the competitive nature
of the lease sale and, should these terms threaten
the public interest, decline to proceed with that
lease sale or to execute the lease.
Therefore, the guiding principal in interpreting
the possible consequences of Section 714 is that,
even if consent has been given, the section does not
prohibit the Secretary from exercising his discre-
tion not to lease.
Tracts would be delineated and ranked regard-
less of the ownership of the surface. In the
selection of tracts for sale, a preference would be
accorded tracts where the surface is federally
owned in favor of tracts where the surface is in
private ownership (other factors being nearly
equal). For tracts where the surface is owned by
qualified surface owners, a preference would be
given to those tracts where BLM has received
evidence of consent by the time of ranking over
tracts which still require consent.
Two interrelated issues considered by the
Secretary in selecting issue options for the design
of the preferred program were when during the
tract delineation, ranking, and selection process
surface owner consents would be acquired, and
who should acquire consents — the Federal govern-
ment or industry. These two questions are set out
below in a matrix of possible program choices:
WHEN
1. Contemporaneous with
surface owner
consultation (planning)
2. Adjunct to obtaining
industry expressions
of interest
3. Beginning with tract
ranking and continuing
through tract analysis
4. Prior to offering for sale
5. After sale, but before
executing lease
Not feasible
INDUSTRY WH ° BLM
Yes, passively for
those willing
to volunteer
Yes, as part Not applicable
of interest
submission
Feasible Feasible
Feasible Feasible
Feasible Not feasible
In studying these two issues, the following
factors were considered:
« The later in the process surface owner
consent is obtained, the less would be the
administrative costs of obtaining consent
3-61
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
no matter who acquires it. Administrative
costs would be somewhat mitigated by
tying them to steps in the coal management
program where contact must be made for
reasons other than surface owner consent:
that is, during suface owner consultation in
land use planning and during submissions
of industry expressions of leasing interest at
the beginning of activity planning.
o The later in the process, the more informa-
tion the surface owner would have available
to make his decision and, presumably, the
stronger would be his bargaining position.
o The later in the process, the greater would
be the risk to the government of loss of the
time and money spent on evaluating and
analyzing coal leasing tracts.
• The less direct involvement the BLM has,
the agency's administrative costs would be
lower and its vulnerability to charges of
government interference would be less.
• The less direct involvement the BLM has,
the less capable would be government to
monitor compensation for the purposes of
complying with the fair market value
requirements of the Mineral Leasing Act of
1920.
The Secretary preferred that industry be
responsible for acquiring surface owner consent
for the surface mining of tracts of Federal coal
whenever such consent is required by Section 714
of the SMCRA before a lease can be executed.
Consents would be required to be filed with the
BLM prior to the sale announcement. Industry (as
well as the states and the public) would be supplied
with the preliminary tract ranking to give potential
bidders an indication of the likelihood certain
tracts would be scheduled for sale in the coming
four years. Industry would be encouraged to
advise the BLM when consent negotiations fail so
that unnecessary site specific analyses would not
be undertaken. If no filing of consent is made on a
tract before the notice of sale, the tract would be
removed from the sale schedule (and, if necessary,
another tract substituted for it).
If a qualified surface owner who firmly intends
not to provide consent to surface mine his land
could prevent the leasing of his land for surface
mining only by withholding his consent, the result
could be unnecessary interference in his life and
unnecessary costs for the Federal government. If
the surface owner simply withholds his consent, no
lease could be sold; but he might have to watch a
tract containing his land go entirely through tract
delineation, ranking, and selection and scheduling
for sale. This would certainly result in continued
presence on his land of Federal and perhaps,
private company, employees conducting site-spe-
cific analyses and might cause him to continue to
receive unwanted overtures from potential consent
purchasers. The Federal government would con-
tinue to expend time and resources in fruitlessly
planning that surface owner's land for leasing for
coal surface mining.
In order to avoid this situation, a qualified
surface owner who owns land in an area identified
in the land use plan as an area acceptable for
further consideration for leasing and, if leased,
would be surface mined, could submit a statement
to the local office of his refusal to provide consent.
The statement would have to be in writing and
confirm that the surface owner has not previously
given consent to mine and that he will not for the
expected future life of the land use plan (a
maximum of 15 years under the BLM's proposed
planning regulations). Upon receipt of that state-
ment, the BLM would remove the Federal coal
underlying the surface owner's land from further
consideration in the ongoing activity planning
process or any such processes conducted in the
future until the land use plan is revised or until the
ownership of the surface estate changes. Upon
revision of the land use plan, the surface owner
would be notified that his prior written submission
has expired and he would be given the opportunity
to submit another statement. Also, whenever
industry or other groups notify the BLM of a
suface owner who has refused to provide his
consent to a potential consent purchaser, that
owner would be given an opportunity to submit a
statement of refusal to consent.
If the price of surface owner consent remains
unlimited and the government makes no effort to
receive fair payment for its coal, the cost of
obtaining consent could easily reduce the amount
which a lessee is able and willing to pay the
government for the opportunity to recover coal. If
the cost of consent is sufficiently large, bids
submitted for Federal coal leases arguably would
not provide the fair return which the Congress
intended to flow to the public from the develop-
ment of the coal. To ensure receipt of fair market
•|v
'. ■'
( :
■
3-62
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
value for Federal coal, the Department, in calcu-
lating the fair market value figure above which
bids must be made if the lease is to be sold, would
assume a ceiling cost of obtaining surface owner
consent based on losses and costs to the surface
estate and operation. This procedure could indi-
rectly limit the amount paid to a surface owner for
consent to mine underlying coal unless the compa-
ny can find other ways to absorb the cost of
exceeding the ceiling.
Requiring industry to negotiate consents not
only transfers the negotiation costs to industry
from the government, but also imposes on one
company (the holder of the consent) the risk of
bearing the surface owner consent costs for the
lease of another (the successful bidder). The effect
of this policy would be to discourage coal compa-
nies from negotiating consents except in cases
where they felt they might have a strong competi-
tive edge. This problem would be resolved by
requiring that any tract containing an area to
which applies a surface owner consent negotiated
after the enactment of SMCRA could be placed in
the sale only if the consent is transferable to a third
party. A surface owner consent agreement would
be considered transferable only if it provides, in
part, that after the lease sale (1) the payment for
the consent is to be made by the successful bidder
directly to the qualified surface owner or (2) the
successful bidder is automatically permitted to
acquire the consent by reimbursing the company
which first obtained the consent for its original
purchase price.
Consents given prior to the enactment of
SMCRA (often under state laws) were validated
under Section 714 regardless of the consent terms.
Therefore, the Department cannot require that
these consents contain provisions which provide
for their transferability. To ensure competitive
sales, the Secretary expressed a preference for an
issue option which provides that tracts which are
selected for lease sale and which include areas
covered by consents given prior to the enactment
of SMCRA would be offered for sale individually
only if the consents are determined to be transfera-
ble. If the consents are determined to be non-
transferable, the tract would not be offered for sale
unless it is included in an intertract sale (see
section 3.2.5.4).
3.2.5.2 Environmental Analysis and Lease Stipula-
tions. The BLM would conduct an environmental
analysis for each tract proposed for lease sale to
develop and refine lease terms and stipulations. In
general the information on which this report would
be based must be sufficiently detailed so that the
Department could be reasonably certain that the
lease would be economically and environmentally
acceptable, but in less detail than would be
required of a lessee at the time a mining plan
would be approved.
Certain environmental considerations, such as
hydrology, archaeology, and reclamation require
intensive drilling or field surveying which are more
easily and cheaply conducted as part of a lessee's
pre-mining plan permit approval activities. The
Department would make preliminary decisions on
these environmental considerations at the time of
lease sale based on modelling or less intensive
surveys and would stipulate the detailed data
which would be collected as part of the mining
plan approval process.
3.2.5.3 Fair Market Value. The Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920, as amended by the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (FCLAA),
specifically mandates that, "No bid shall be
accepted which is less than the fair market value,
as determined by the Secretary, of the coal subject
to the lease."
The basic methods for evaluating fair market
value would be comparable sales analyses and
discounted cash flow analysis. The discounted
cash flow analysis involves calculating annual
costs and income resulting from the development
of a property under realistic conditions. This
method is currently being used by the Department
to determine fair market value for those tracts
being leased under the NRDC v. Hughes agree-
ment.
Before the Department makes any determina-
tion on fair market value on a tract, the public
would be given the opportunity to comment.
Comments would be solicited on fair market value
consideration for any tract being offered (especial-
ly on the values that should go into the fair market
value determination), as well as on the related
decision of maximum economic recovery.
3.2.5.4 Sale and Bidding Methods, Due Diligence
Requirements. For the preferred program, the
Secretary has recommended that sale and bidding
3-63
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
method regulations be kept flexible, permitting the
choice of method to be on a case-by-case basis.
Coal leases would usually be sold using the
individual tract sale method in which bidders
compete against one another for any given tract.
The Department would choose which tracts it feels
are the best tracts, both economically and environ-
mentally, and which cumulatively contain the
amount of coal reserves desired for lease. These
tracts would be offered for sale over the four year
period of the regional sale schedule. The highest
bidder in any sale would be offered the tract
provided his bid meets fair market value, passes
the Attorney General's anti-trust review, and
meets all other requirements of the laws and
regulations.
Coal leases could also be sold using the
intertract sale method in which bidders compete
between tracts as well as over individual tracts.
Competition would be enhanced because more
tracts would be offered than are intended to be
awarded. The high bids for each tract would be
compared, and only those tracts with the highest
bids above fair market value which are needed to
meet cumulatively the sales's target would be
awarded. As under individual tract bidding, the
tracts for the sale offering would be selected on the
basis of land use planning, site specific analysis,
and tract ranking. The intertract sale method
would be used at least in all cases where tracts are
offered for sale which would be mined by surface
mining methods and which involve non- transfera-
ble surface owner consents given before the
enactment of SMCRA.
Regardless of whether the individual tract or
intertract sale method is used, the type of bidding
method must also be determined. Optional meth-
ods tentatively identified by the Department of
Energy as acceptable include:
• Direct or deferred bonus bidding: cash
payment is offered for the lease. (Note, the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of
1976 requires half of all sales to be by
deferred bonus bid.)
© Variable royalty bidding: bids are placed in
the form of royalty rates based on a
percentage of the value of the coal recov-
ered (usually a small cash down payment is
also required).
@ Sliding scale royalty bidding: cash payment
is offered for the lease, but the amount of
the royalty paid is varied in proportion to
the value of the coal produced.
In addition, DOE has stated it intends to study
very closely possible use of a profit sharing method
(British system). Here the government essentially
becomes a partner in the coal enterprise and
receives a bid offering a percentage of profits, if
any.
The potential bidder in the lease sale will wish
to know what diligence and continued operations
requirements he will have to meet if he purchases
the lease. The current regulations (43 CFR
3500.05), which have been carried over to the new
proposed regulations, define diligent development
for any coal lease issued after August 4, 1976, as
the timely preparation for, and initiation of, coal
production from a logical mining unit (LMU) of
which the lease is a part so that the coal is actually
produced at the rate of one percent of the reserves
in the LMU by the end of the tenth year from the
effective date of the lease. Diligent development
for any lease issued prior to August 4, 1976, is
defined as the timely preparation for, and initia-
tion of, coal production from the LMU so that the
coal is actually produced at the rate of one-fortieth
of the LMU reserves before June 1, 1986. Under
the regulations, the period of time for the latter
leases may be extended.
Timely production of coal is further assured
through the current "continued operation" regula-
tions. Under these regulations, coal equal to one
percent of the reserves of the logical mining unit
must be produced for each of the first two years
following achievement of diligent development.
Thereafter, an average amount of one percent of
the reserves associated with the lease must be
produced. The average amount is computed over a
three-year period consisting of the year in question
and the preceding two years.
Although the authority to promulgate regula-
tions concerning bidding methods, diligent devel-
opment, and continued operations was transferred
to the Department of Energy in the Department of
Energy Organization Act, should DOE not pro-
mulgate new regulations before a Federal coal
management program is established, the current
regulations would remain in force until superseded
by DOE regulations.
3.2.5.5 Consultation with the Governors. Prior to
setting a regional coal lease sale schedule, the
!
. ;;:
3-64
-
i
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
Secretary would consult with the governor of each
state in which tracts to be leased are located. The
Secretary would ask each governor to comment in
a specified period of time, not less than 30 days nor
more than 60 days, before issuing the final
schedule of sale. Section 3 of the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 provides a
specific procedure for consultation with a state
when a lease proposal would permit surface mining
within the boundaries of a National Forest within
that state. The governor would be notified by the
Secretary. If the governor fails to object to the
lease proposal in 60 days, the Secretary could issue
the lease. If, within the 60-day period, the governor
notifies the Secretary, in writing, of an objection to
the lease proposal, the Secretary would not
approve the lease for six months from the date the
governor objects to the lease. The governor could,
during this six-month period, submit a written
statement of the reasons why the lease should not
be issued, and the Secretary would, on the basis of
this statement, reconsider the lease proposal.
These pre-sale and sale procedures are compat-
ible with all alternatives, although they would have
no applicability to the no new leasing and
preference right leasing only alternatives.
3.2.6 State, Local, And Industry Participation.
A variety of methods have been developed to
provide state, local, and industry participation in
the preferred alternative Federal coal management
program.
3.2.6.1 State Participation. The preferred program
is designed to offer as significant a role for the state
governments in the Federal coal management
process as possible short of providing them with
veto power over Federal decisions. The states
would be offered the opportunity to sign coopera-
tive agreements to enable them to participate
directly in the land use planning process. The
States could nominate unsuitability criteria to be
added to the list of Federal unsuitability criteria.
They could also submit expressions of interest in
potential coal tracts. The states would be expected
to participate actively and directly through mem-
bership on regional coal teams in the activity
planning procedures of tract ranking, selection,
and scheduling . Furthermore, a special consulta-
tion step would be provided to the states in setting
regional production goals and leasing targets. The
governor would also be informally consulted prior
to any final decision to offer a tract for sale.
Although the states would be expected to provide
their views over the full spectrum of issues, the
Department would particularly need the states'
comments on the interregional and cumulative
regional social and economic impacts of coal
development in the regional leasing target - setting
process and on intraregional and site-specific
social and economic impacts in the tract ranking
and selection process. The states would also have
the lead for many post-sale lease management
actions.
Whenever possible, the regional coal teams
(see Section 3.2.3.2) would serve as the general
forums in which state participation would occur.
In particular, as noted in Sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.4,
these teams would be the focal points for develop-
ing proposals for Secretarial decision on the tracts
selected and scheduled for sale and on regional
production goals and leasing targets.
The activities of these teams would provide the
state governors with an opportunity to discuss any
potential significant Federal decisions before they
are made and not just in the formal consultation
which occurs after the decision-making and would
provide to the citizens of each state, through their
elected officials, an authoritative forum for the
airing of their interests and concerns.
3.2.6.2 General Public Participation. The public
would have several opportunities to participate
directly throughout the coal management decision
making process. Hearings would be held on the
land use plan recommendations before the final
land use plan decisions would be made. Comments
would be solicited from the public at the beginning
of the regional tract ranking, selection, and sale
scheduling process. The public would have the
opportunity to submit written comments and to
participate in a hearing on the regional sale
environmental impact statement. The Secretary
could also hold additional hearings in the area of
the proposed sale if there were a general interest in
the proposed sale and any issue existed which had
not been throughly discussed at previous hearings.
Besides the general public participation steps,
there would be opportunities for participation
during the surface owner consultations, surface
owner consent, and indications of leasing interest
stages of the coal management program.
3-65
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
In addition to these formal opportunities for
public participation, anyone could submit general
comments at any time in the process. The
Department would schedule meetings for public
comment whenever it has reason to believe that it
would serve the public's interest.
3.2.6.3 Industry Participation. Industry is a critical-
ly important actor in the preferred program not
only because it supplies the bidders in the lease
sales and the technology and capital to extract the
coal, but also because it provides the information
needed in the determinations leading to the
delineation of tracts. The three principal sources
for coal information in the United States are the
Federal government, through the Geological Sur-
vey and other agencies; the state governments,
through the state geological surveys or mining
bureaus; and the coal industry. Industry is in a
special position to make the Federal government
aware of the type, quality, quantity, and location
of coal which it believes should be considered for
leasing.
Industry would be able to participate in the
land use planning and regional production goal
and leasing target setting processes through all the
same formal and informal channels available to
the general public. During land use planning,
industry could contribute information on existing
operations and on the location of resources.
During the setting of regional production goals
and leasing targets, industry could supply informa-
tion on the overall demand for coal and the
production potential from previously leased Feder-
al reserves and non-Federal reserves for meeting
that demand. In addition to these general partici-
pation opportunities, industry would continue to
have the opportunity to indicate tracts it would
like to see leased and supply site-specific data.
Indeed, such industry indications are critical to the
functioning of the leasing component of a Federal
coal management program. In the preferred
program, this step would be scheduled to occur as
the first formal step in the activity planning
process.
As previously noted, the activity planning
process for coal would involve the delineation,
ranking, and selection of tracts within areas
identified as acceptable for further consideration
for coal leasing in the land use plan. Information
derived from industry data would be required to
assist in determining need and to facilitate lease
tract delineations and economic evaluations. To
obtain these data, industry would be requested
through formal notices to submit expressions of
leasing interest for coal within the areas acceptable
for further consideration for leasing set out in the
land use plans. To the extent these indications
define potential tracts, they would be relied on for
the preliminary delineation of tracts, unless it is
determined that different tracts or different tract
boundaries would be necessary to ensure competi-
tive interest in the eventual lease sale, conserve
Federal coal, or meet other largely economic
objectives in the coal management program. The
types of information which might be requested and
used in the tract delineation and ranking process
would be:
• Written descriptions of land by legal subdi-
vision and a map with a scale of one-half
inch to the mile or larger.
• Amount of coal desired including such
geologic data on the area as bed thickness,
overburden depth, and thickness of coal
seam(s).
• Method of mining anticipated, with pro-
posed mining sequence and rate of produc-
tion.
• Relationship, if any, between the antici-
pated mining operations and existing or
planned mining operations or supporting
facilities on adjacent Federal or non-Feder-
al lands.
• Anticipated method(s) of transportation
and status of existing or proposed transpor-
tation system.
• Evidence of qualifications.
• Intended "end use" of coal.
• Consent certification if the surface is not
owned or controlled by the Federal govern-
ment.
• Description of adjacent coal reserves under
ownership or control of the company
providing the expression of leasing interest.
These participation components would not be
compatible with the no leasing or preference right
leasing only alternatives and would be used only to
a limited extent under the emergency leasing
alternative. Under the lease to meet industry
indications of need alternative, greater emphasis
would be placed on obtaining, at an early stage,
3-66
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
industry nominations and less emphasis would be
placed on state consultation. Under the state
determination of leasing levels alternative, the role
of the states would obviously be pre-eminent. On
the other hand, in the lease to meet DOE
production goals alternative, the roles of industry
and the states would both be reduced.
3.2.7 Special Leasing Opportunities.
In response to the requirements in the Federal
Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 and the
Small Business Act of 1953, as amended, the
Department would reserve and offer a reasonable
number of coal lease tracts as special leasing
opportunities. The special opportunities would be
provided through special lease sales where public
bodies would bid only against other public bodies
and small businesses only against other small
businesses. No special determinations of maximum
economic recovery or other possible financial
incentives would be proposed.
Public bodies are non-profit consumer-owned
utilities, principally rural electric cooperatives,
municipally owned utilities, and Federal agencies.
The Secretary would designate and schedule one
or more coal lease tracts for special opportunity
lease sales for public bodies after the ranking and
selection process only if a public body has, through
submission of an expression of leasing interest,
requested that a special opportunity lease sale be
held. With the of submission of this request, the
public body would have to provide evidence of its
qualifications to participate in a special opportuni-
ty sale.
Small business would be required to meet the
qualifying standards set forth in 13 CFR 121. The
Small Business Administration proposed qualifica-
tion requirements for small businesses to partici-
pate in Federal coal lease special opportunity sales
on March 14, 1979 (44 Federal Register 15513-
15514). To qualify, the business would have to be
independently owned and operated, not be domi-
nant in its field, and, together with its affiliates,
employ not more than 250 employees. Although it
would be advisable and to its advantage to do so, a
small business would not be required to notify the
Department of its desire for a special opportunity
sale. The Secretary's decision to hold a small
business special opportunity sale would be made in
consultation with the Small Business Administra-
tion.
The Department has under consideration
various methods of encouraging minority business
participation in the Federal coal management
program. This could be accomplished administra-
tively or through legislation and by means of a
separate set-aside sale or through the assistance of
the Small Business Administration in the small
business set-aside sales.
These special leasing opportunity procedures
would be employed in all but the no leasing and
preference right leasing only alternatives.
3.2.8 Emergency Leasing System.
The preferred program would contain an
emergency leasing system which would enable the
Department to provide for urgent needs for
Federal coal when those needs could not be met in
a timely manner through the general, long-term
leasing process (by pass, production maintenance,
or hardship situations). The emergency leasing
system would differ from the general, long-term
leasing process only with respect to (1) the method
of tract identification and (2) the breadth and
scope required in the planning and environmental
assessment process. This system would be adminis-
tered tightly, so as to maintain the integrity of the
general, long-term leasing process.
To qualify for production maintenance or
bypass emergency leases, an operation that has
been producing for at least two years prior to the
application would be required to show that:
• The Federal coal is needed within three
years to maintain an existing mining opera-
tion at the average annual level of produc-
tion or new contracted level of production
on the date of application, as substantiated
by the proposed production levels stated in
a mine plan or a complete copy of the
supply or delivery contract, or both; or
• If the coal deposits are not leased they will
be bypassed for the reasonably foreseeable
future, and if leased, some portion of the
tract applied for will be utilized within three
years, as substantiated by the proposed
production levels stated in a mining se-
quence plan; and
• The need for the coal deposits resulted from
circumstances that were beyond the control
of the applicant or for which he could not
have reasonably foreseen and planned.
3-67
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
The extent of coal reserves covered by bypass
and production maintenance emergency leases
could not be more than that which could be mined
over eight years at the average annual production
level or new contracted level of production on the
date of the application.
An applicant not qualifying for an emergency
lease under the above conditions could still qualify
as a hardship case if his operations are:
• Outside of a coal region;
• Inside a coal region in which activity
planning has not yet begun; or
• Of a size, quality, or end use that is not
significantly related to meeting the regional
leasing target.
The applicant would also be required to show a
hardship of the following type:
• A locality has lost or will lose its alternative
sources of domestic coal supply;
• A mine which has been closed will be
reopened, and local unemployment will be
aleviated;
® The mine will test new technology support-
ed by a Federal agency;
• Mining and reclamation of the tract will
promote a program or policy of another
surface management agency, such as reha-
bilitation of lands scarred by past uses; or
• Similiar reasons that the Secretary, after
holding a hearing, determines are substan-
tially in the public interest.
The terms of hardship emergency leases would
be determined on a case-by-case basis.
The tract to be offered for the emergency lease
sale would only be so much of the land applied for
as would be necessary to meet the emergency need
of the applicant without violating the integrity of
the general, long-term leasing process.
No coal lease would be issued unless a
comprehensive land use analysis has been con-
ducted on, and the Department's unsuitability
criteria have been applied to, the land to be
included in the lease. All emergency leasing
decisions would have to be consistent with the
appropriate land use plan or analysis and the
unsuitability criteria.
Before a lease sale would be held in response to
an emergency lease sale application, an environ-
mental analysis would be completed on the
potential effect of such a coal lease on the
resources of the area and its environment, includ-
ing fish and other aquatic resources, wildlife
habitats and populations, and visual, recreation,
cultural, and other resources in the affected area.
Should the Department determine an environmen-
tal impact statement is required, one would be
completed.
The pre-sale and sale procedures, including
public participation procedures, of the general,
long-term leasing process would be followed in all
emergency leasing situations.
This would be the major component of the
emergency leasing alternative. It could also remain
a component of the lease to meet DOE production
goals, lease to meet industry indications of need,
and state determination of leasing level alterna-
tives.
3.2.9 Post-Programmatic Environmental Analysis
The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 requires each Federal agency proposing a
major action which might significantly affect the
quality of the human environment to prepare a
statement of the environmental impacts of that
action and its reasonable alternatives. The Depart-
ment, in formulating the preferred coal manage-
ment program, considered which key leasing
decision points could represent major Federal
actions within the meaning of the Act.
The preferred option is to maintain two
separate levels of environmental impacts analysis,
one to consider interregional and national impacts
and one to consider site-specific and cumulative
intraregional impacts. The first level of analysis
would be contained in this programmatic environ-
mental impact statement, updated when necessary,
and the second level of analysis would be made in
environmental impact statements for each region
covering the four-year sales periods and discussing
the tract delineation, ranking, and selection pro-
cess. These environmental analyses procedures in
the preferred program are discussed in greater
detail in section 3.1.1.7 and set forth in Section
3420.3-4 and 3420.4-5 of the proposed coal
management regulations in Appendix A.
3.2.10 Administration of Existing Leases and
PRLAs
A significant element of the Department's
federal coal management program is the adminis-
tration of existing coal leases and preference right
lease applications. The amount of coal involved is
3-68
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
considerable. As of October 1978, there were 533
federal coal leases estimated to contain 17 billion
tons of coal and 172 preference excluding Alaska
right lease applications which cover land estimated
to contain 9.9 billion tons of coal.
Because the United States owns a large
percentage of coal in the United States (nearly 60
percent in the West) and because demand for coal
is expected to increase significantly, Federal
policies toward coal and, specifically, toward
existing leases and preference right lease applica-
tions will have a significant impact on energy
production in the United States. In 1977, 50
million tons of coal were produced from existing
leases. The Department calculates, however, from
data chiefly supplied by lessees themselves, that
they are likely to produce 360 million tons
annually from Federal leases by 1985. The Depart-
ment uses this data in setting the regional leasing
targets for coal leasing, taking into account
environmental, social, and economic impacts in
each region. The following discussion of issues
summarizes the matters set forth in depth in the
memorandum of March 20, 1979, from the
Director, Office of Coal Leasing, Planning and
Coordination to the Under Secretary (Appendix I
in this statement).
The proposed coal management program is the
major program for conducting the Federal lands
review to identify lands unsuitable for coal mining
pursuant to Section 522(b) of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act, 30 U.S.C. 1272.
There are 24 criteria set forth in Table 3-3 and
Section 3461.2 of the proposed regulations (Ap-
pendix A) which may result in the assessment or
designation of certain lands as being unsuitable for
mining.
There are, however, certain limitations on
assessing or designating lands involving existing
leases or preference right lease applications as
unsuitable for coal mining. First, under many
criteria even if the criterion were otherwise
applicable, if mining operations were being con-
ducted on an existing lease on August 4, 1977, the
lands are exempt from the criterion. Second, if
substantial financial and legal commitments had
been made to a mining operation before January 4,
1977, those lands are also exempt. Finally, under
other criteria any unsuitability designation may
not prejudice valid existing rights. The memoran-
dum of March 20, 1979 (Appendix I) discusses the
issues arising out of the exemptions from the
application of unsuitability criteria to existing
leases and preference right lease applications.
Table 3-4 in this environmental impact statement,
which is taken from the memorandum, sets out in
detail the sources of authority for each criterion
and the exemptions attached to its application.
The process of applying these criteria is also
significant. The Director of the Bureau of Land
Management has instructed Bureau offices how to
incorporate the criteria into existing and future
land use plans. Essentially, the 24 criteria will be
applied to all coal lands. Lands in existing leases
and preference right applications will be checked
for exceptions (that is, any possible alternative
mining method which is not unsuitable in the
particular area, or any method of mitigating the
adverse impact) and exemptions (that is, where the
substantial commitments and valid existing rights
provisions of SMCRA prohibit application of
specific criteria.) All of the studies conducted for
unsuitability will include public hearings before
final assessments are adopted as part of a land use
plan or environmental analysis on a mine plan.
The possibility of exchanging coal lands and
leases to shift the impacts of operations from
unacceptable to acceptable lands has always
interested the makers of Federal coal development
policy. One complex of issues discussed at length
in Appendix I is the Secretary's authority to
exchange coal leases or lease interests, and the
Secretary's policies toward implementing that
authority to prevent or mitigate unacceptable
adverse social or environmental impacts of coal
mining. Two propositions stand out from the
discussion in Appendix I. First, the Secretary's
authority to exchange coal leases is quite limited.
Second, the Secretary, consistent with the Depart-
ment's stance on S. 3189 in the 95th Congress, does
not currently intend to consummate exchanges in
cases where the unsuitability criteria or other
provisions of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, or other Federal law, lawfully
apply to prevent or adequately mitigate the
threatened adverse impacts.
The first proposition can be quickly document-
ed. To start with, what authority the Secretary does
have is entirely voluntary; both the Secretary and
the lessee or preference right lease applicant must
be satisfied by the terms of the exchange. The
Secretary does not have condemnation authority,
3-69
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
nor does he have purchase authority even if a
lessee were willing to relinquish a lease for value.
Prior to the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments
Act of 1976, the Secretary did have the authority to
exchange coal leases, but that Act repealed that
authority. The Congress reestablished such author-
ity in Section 510(b)(5) of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act, 30 U.S.C.
1260(b)(5), only for a limited class of holders of
coal leases in alluvial valley floors. In addition, the
Department has provided by regulation, under its
general authority in the Mineral Leasing Act, that,
in exchange for voluntary relinquishment of a coal
lease, a lessee may receive 1) a lease for certain
minerals other than coal, (2) bidding rights to
future coal leases, or 3) additions to other existing
coal leases. The Department is not now seeking to
broaden its authorities in this area, but it does
appear that eventually the Department may
reconsider asking Congress for new, broader, or
more clarified coal exchange authority.
The second proposition above, that exchanges
should not be consummated where mining opera-
tions on lands in the lease or preference right lease
application can be lawfully prevented or adequate-
ly mitigated, states present Departmental policy.
That policy is derived from three principles
discussed at greater length in Appendix I. First, the
existing exchange authority should not be exer-
cised for the purpose of relieving lessees of their
diligent development obligations under the lease.
If a lessee has violated the diligent development
requirements or appears not to have made any
effort toward development, the lease should expire
under its own terms or be cancelled rather than be
exchanged. Second, exchanges should not be used
to undermine the proper implementation of the
environmental and reclamation standards newly
established by and under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act. If unsuitability
criteria derived from Section 522(a) of that Act or
from the statutory mining prohibitions in Section
522(e) of that Act can lawfully prevent the mining
of a certain area or prevent mining an area in a
certain manner, then the would-be exchange
proponent has no property right to mine that area
or to mine it in a certain manner that required
recognition or "compensation" through an ex-
change. Third, if mining an area can lawfully be
prevented, then there must be deducted from the
value of the lease that includes that area for
purposes of an exchange any value that would
have been attributed to the unsuitable or otherwise
unmineable acreage. If the Department used the
value of the coal the lessee could not mine in
finding a tract of equal value to lease in exchange,
the Department might be giving something for
nothing; coal with little or no economic value for
coal with substantial economic value. These three
points are all important in understanding that the
exchange concept may not be easily converted into
a viable management tool, and that the Depart-
ment may have to seek Congressional clarification
or resolution of these issues before exchanges
become a significant component of the Federal
coal management program.
The Department intends vigorously to enforce
the diligence provisions, the provisions requiring
diligent development and continued operation,
applicable to existing coal leases. Such an effort
will be a major impetus toward the timely
development of the federal coal reserves already
under lease. Under the regulations promulgated in
May 1976 that apply to existing leases, production
is to begin by June 1, 1986 or ten years after lease
issuance, whichever is later. In order to be ready
for that date, and in order to have firm diligence
enforcement policies for the interim, the Depart-
ment is examining a series of questions on this
subject to determine (1) whether there are any
enforcement actions that could or should be taken
prior to 1986 for violations of any lease terms
related to diligence, and (2) whether there are any
limitations in the Mineral Leasing Act or the
existing leases themselves that might in any way
limit the complete application of the May 1976
regulations and their June 1, 1986, production
requirement to all existing leases.
The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of
1976 (FCLAA) generally applies only to leases
issued after August 4, 1976. The diligence stan-
dards for new leases in the FCLAA are in many
ways derived from the Department's own regula-
tions on diligence which were published in May
1976, so the Department's December 1976 regula-
tions to implement the FCLAA contain many
parallel requirements for leases issued after the
FCLAA was passed on August 4, 1976. Each lease
is by regulation automatically a logical mining unit
LMU. Production in commercial quantities (2.5
percent of the reserves for pre-FCLAA leases, one
percent of the reserves for post-FCLAA leases)
3-70
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
must be achieved by the tenth lease year. The
lessee must also continue operations at the rate of
one percent of the reserves per year. Finally, upon
application by the lessee, the Department may
consider private lands or separate Federal leases to
be part of a logical mining unit. Extensions in the
period for achieving production or suspensions of
the continued operation obligation of leases can be
ordered by the Secretary to accommodate events
not within the control of the lessee, including
strikes.
All existing leases are also subject to readjust-
ment every 20 years after their issuance. In
addition to expressly imposing due diligence
requirements at the time of readjustment, the
Department will also raise royalties to at least 12.5
percent for coal mined by surface methods and
eight percent for coal mined by underground
methods. Current rates are as low as 5<P per ton
with the rates of 10<P to 150 per ton being fairly
common. Prior to the enactment of the FCLAA,
51 leases had had their 20-year anniversary, but
had not yet been readjusted. More leases are now
subject to readjustment, and the Department is
now aggressively moving to readjust those leases to
bring them into conformity with its May 1976
regulations and the FCLAA. On March 16, 1979,
the Under Secretary endorsed the policy of
systematically readjusting leases which are now
pending readjustment or will become due for
readjustment prior to June 1, 1979, to the pre-
scribed minimum royalties, rather than attempting
to establish possibly higher royalties on a case-by-
case basis. This policy was adopted in order to
complete the backlog of readjustments promptly.
The sale and sublease of existing leases
presents a potential opportunity for the Depart-
ment to impose the policies and requirements
discussed above on existing leases. Up to this
point, proposed assignments have been examined
only to check the assignee's qualifications to hold
the lease or to determine whether the assignor had
been fully complying with the terms of the lease.
Partially in response to assertions that there is an
undesirable speculative market in the resale of coal
leases, the Department is examining whether, in
exercising its authority to approve assignments, the
lease may be readjusted by the express imposition
of due diligence requirements, consent to a plan of
development, or other stipulations. A further
question is whether the proposed lease assignment
should be referred to the Attorney General for
antitrust review.
Another important set of questions with regard
to existing leases concerns the strategy to pursue in
performing environmental studies. After the De-
partment completed its programmatic environ-
mental statement on the Energy Minerals Activity
Recommendation System in 1975, it divided
Federal coal areas into eight regions for the
purpose of preparing environmental impact state-
ments. Each regional statement was designed to
study the site-specific impact of both operations on
existing leases and new leases, in the framework of
an analysis of the regional, cumulative impacts of
the specific proposals. As a result of the decision in
NRDC v. Hughes , 437 F. Supp. 981 (D.D.C. 1977),
modified , 454 F. Supp. 148 (D.D.C. 1978), appeal
pending , the Department stopped considering
possible new leasing, and continued specific study
only of the 27 mine plan approval and other coal-
related applications then pending. The Depart-
ment is now studying all possible options on a
regional level, including a no new leasing alterna-
tive. If no new leasing is found to be necessary, the
Department will then consider site-specific mine
plans for existing leases. These studies would be
keyed into the completed regional environmental
statements. If new leasing is found to be necessary,
the Secretary's preferred alternative is to establish
the need for leasing region by region, and then
proceed to study and rank tracts within each
affected region. While specific new environmental
studies would have to be prepared for approval of
mine plans for existing leases, specific environmen-
tal studies for new leases will be performed as part
of the regional tract delineation, ranking, and
selection, and sale scheduling processes.
Most of the program requirements and policy
issues just discussed apply to both existing leases
and preference right lease applications. However, a
few additional points should be made with respect
to preference right lease applications. In determin-
ing whether a preference right lease applicant has
discovered coal in commercial quantities and is
thus entitled to a lease, the Department must take
into account quantifiable environmental costs and
must consider what stipulations should be imposed
to mitigate environmental damage. (See Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Berklund , 458 F.
Supp. 925 (D.D.C. 1978), appeal pending .) While a
preference right lease applicant has a valid existing
3-71
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
right to have his lease application adjudicated even
though the law has changed, he does not necessari-
ly have a valid existing right to mine, as the term is
used in applying unsuitability criteria. It is, rather,
the right to have his application fairly acted upon
by the Department. In addition to considering the
provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act, the Department must, when adjudicating an
application, also consider the provisions of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and
the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of
1976.
The Department has the same authority, and
the same problems, with exchanges involving
preference right lease applications as it does with
existing leases, with one added twist. Does the
Secretary have to make the crucial determination
of discovery of commercial quantities of coal
before he can make an exchange? If the applicant
is found to be entitled to the lease, he may have no
incentive to complete the exchange. If the determi-
nation is not made, the Secretary risks exchanging
something of value for nothing. A task force in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary, Land and Water
Resources, has been formed to consider this and
other issues related to exchanges.
Another likely problem occurs because coal
prospecting permits could be issued only on lands
which are unclaimed and undeveloped. Some
study has been done by the Bureau of Land
Management indicating that the land in some of
the preference right lease applications is covered
by mining locations. Thus, these conflicts will have
to be eliminated; the procedures for the resolution
of these conflicts have yet to be fully defined.
Another issue in the adjudication of the
pending applications concerns the proper royalty
rate to be charged on leases issued to preference
right lease applicants. Section 7 of the Mineral
Leasing Act, as amended , 30 U.S.C. § 207 (1976),
sets a minimum royalty, but not a maximum. Thus,
the royalty rate can apparently be varied to
capture the fair market value of the coal, and
prevent a lessee from garnering undue profits. At
the same time, however, the royalty rate in many
private leases that can only be developed in
conjunction with Federal lands is tied to that of the
adjoining Federal leases. Therefore, a boost in the
Federal rate may well boost the private rate on
significant quantities of coal.
Finally, the due diligence requirements of the
December 1976 regulations implementing the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976
will be imposed on every new lease issued to
preference right applicants. While the preference
right applicant may have the right to a lease, he is
not entitled to any particular terms that he may
specify, but rather those required by law and
policy in effect at the time of lease adjudication
and issuance.
Appendix I to this environmental impact
statement discusses these issues in depth. As that
Appendix and this summary make clear, the
administration of existing leases and preference
right lease applications will require a significant
share of the Department's coal management
efforts. While the discussion in Appendix I can
serve in part as a guide in the administration of
certain matters, especially application of the
unsuitability criteria, the rest of that Appendix sets
out the significant legal and policy issues which the
Department will have to resolve before routine
administration of existing leases and PRLAs is
realized and before the Department can predict
with full confidence future production from exist-
ing leases and PRLAs without relying primarily on
lessees' intentions.
3.2.11 Special Start-up Considerations
The preferred program, if adopted, would be a
major effort for the Department. The administra-
tive tasks would begin with pre-planning inventory
efforts and proceed all the way through post-
mining land use monitoring. The program would
touch on a myriad of other Federal and state
programs with a degree of interrelationship vary-
ing from slight to mutual dependence. To put such
a program in place without causing severe disrup-
tions either to the management of Federal coal
resources or to other important programs requires
careful and prudent planning. This section pre-
sents the major considerations that will control the
start-up of the Federal coal management program
if the preferred program is selected. Assuming that,
upon review of this statement, the Secretary, first,
decides that a new Federal coal management
program is needed; second, selects a program
substanatially similar to the preferred program
described in this statement; and third, determines
that lease sales should be held in one or more
regions during 1980 or 1981, the new program
3-72
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
would be established and integrated into existing
programs, most notably the land use planning
process, as follows:
• Much of the general resource inventory and
land use planning required under the
procedures described above would be
adopted from work already completed or
work that is underway at the time of the
publication of this final environmental
impact statement.
• In all areas for which plans have never been
prepared, the inventory process, the first
step in land use planning, would begin
under the normal scheduling for BLM. It is
estimated that about 15 percent of the coal
areas are in this class. The proposed BLM
planning regulations would be applied to
these areas. Planning areas would be
selected for inventorying based on the
anticipated need for the leasing of coal in
the particular areas or on other high
resource demands.
• In certain priority areas for which land use
plans have been completed, the land use
decisions would be reexamined on areas
identified in the existing plans as appropri-
ate for coal development. This reexamina-
tion would be in the form of application to
these areas of the unsuitability criteria that
are selected by the Secretary as a result of
his decisions on the program. Also, if
surface owner consultation had not taken
place earlier, this step would be taken.
Those areas which remain acceptable for
further consideration for leasing after appli-
cation of the criteria and consultation with
qualified surface owners would, following
opportunity for public comment, be identi-
fied in a published supplement to the
existing plan. These areas would then be
entered in the activity planning process and
could be considered for lease sale. A call for
industry expressions of leasing interest in
the areas identified in the supplement as
acceptable for further consideration for
leasing would be the first step taken in
activity planning after publication of the
supplement.
• As discussed in Sections 3.2.2 and 5.4.10.
the Department would use land use plans
supplemented as necessary until new plans
could be prepared under proposed BLM
regulations (43 Federal Register 58764-
58774).
• The first lease sales may not be conducted
in all regions for which the regional leasing
targets suggest leasing is needed and might
be insufficient to fully meet the targets for
the regions in which they are held.
o Notice of intent to rank tracts would be issued
immediately prior to initiation of ranking.
• The first regional lease sale environmental
impact statements would likely address a
two-year rather than a four-year lease sale
schedule.
• The regional targets, if any, for the first
sales would be selected by the Secretary
after reviewing all the comments received
as a result of the publication of this
statement and after consulting with the
state governors and with the Secretary of
the Department of Energy.
The Department anticipates that, should the
Secretary elect to start up the preferred program as
quickly as possible, a lease sale schedule would be
prepared for 1980-1981 under these start-up
considerations. Subsequent schedules would be
prepared substantially as set out in the preferred
program. However, land use plans prepared wholly
under the proposed BLM planning regulations
would not begin to appear in the process until 1984
or 1985. It might be several more years before a
sufficient number of new land use plans are
prepared to identify enough areas acceptable for
further consideration for leasing to permit coal
leasing decisions to be based entirely on land use
plans which fully conform with the proposed
planning regulations.
3.2.12 Other Aspects of the Preferred Program
Two other aspects of the preferred program
considered by the Secretary were maximum eco-
nomic recovery and end use controls.
3.2.12.1 Maximum Economic Recovery. In Section 3
of the Federal Coal leasing Amendments Act of
1976 (FCLAA), the Congress introduced the
concept of Maximum Economic Recovery (MER).
The Congress has indicated that MER is of
considerable importance and should be treated in
a consistent and formal manner. The statute
requires MER to be considered at two stages - -
lease issuance and mine plan approval. Specifical-
3-73
PREFERRED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
ly, Section 3 of FCLAA, requires that: "Prior to
issuance of a lease, the Secretary shall evaluate and
compare the effects of recovering coal by deep
mining, by surface mining, and by any other
method to determine which method or methods or
sequence of methods achieves the maximum
economic recovery of the coal within the proposed
leasing tract. This evaluation and comparison by
the Secretary shall be in writing but shall not
prohibit the issuance of a lease; however, no
mining operating plan shall be approved which is
not found to achieve the maximum economic
recovery of the coal within the tract."
The issue forwarded for the Secretary's expres-
sion of preference was what definition of MER
should be adopted. Five different definitions were
considered; the Secretary prefers that MER be
calculated so as to require that all coal seams
which are collectively profitable be mined, taking
into consideration social and environmental costs.
For any scale of development (annual production
rate), this definition would tend to minimize the
area disturbed from surface mining; deeper seams
would be substituted for the broadening of areas of
operation.
An interagency task force is presently devising
the methods for determining MER in accordance
with the Secretary's preference and at least two
other alternatives. At the request of the Council of
Economic Advisers, the task force will conduct an
economic analysis of the Secretary's preference
and other alternatives to determine their cost of
administration and their effects on individual
lessees and the overall coal market.
3.2.12.2 End-Use Considerations. Another issue
considered by the Secretary was whether the
Department should condition new coal leases with
stipulations which specify how, where, or by whom
coal would be consumed. The goals of such
restrictions would be to:
• More actively control the location and
extent of environmental degradation.
• Promote the entry of economically and
socially disadvantaged groups to the coal
industry.
• Allow more active integration of Federal
actions with state and local government
planning, and otherwise control socioeco-
nomic impacts.
• Encourage new energy technologies.
Coal leases have not in the past limited how
lessees could dispose of mined coal. A lessee can
sell the coal for a minemoufh power plant, ship
coal short or long distances, or use the coal for
gasification. Specifying the end-use of coal from
new leases could give the Department greater
control over the environmental and economic
effects of mining and could be used to encourage
new technologies. There is, however, a very real
possibility end use conditions could infringe upon
other agencies' responsibilities, such as state
regulation of power plant siting and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency's Clean Air Act regula-
tions. In addition, the Department's legal authority
to regulate end-uses is unclear.
Options for resolution of this issue ranged from
not adopting end-use stipulations (except as
mandated in the FCLAA for public bodies and as
required for railroads in the Mineral Leasing Act
of 1920) to an active policy of conditioning leases
to meet all the goals specified above. The Secretary
preferred not to adopt end-use stipulations pend-
ing a Solicitor's opinion on the Department's
authority for such action. The Solicitor's opinion is
being developed.
3.3 REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979. Final
Environmental Statement, Permanent Regulatory
Program Implementing Section 501(b) of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, Washington, D.C.
2. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Land
Unsuitability Criteria, Office of Coal Leasing,
Planning, and Coordination, Washington, D.C.
3. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977. Memo-
randum: Surface Owner Consent Provision of P.L.
95-87, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, D.C.
3-74
CHAPTER 4
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
I
■
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 4 - DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL
ENVIRONMENTS 4-1
4.1 THE APPALACHIAN COAL REGION 4-1
4.1.1 The Environment 4-1
4.1.2 The Environment and Man 4-4
4.2 EASTERN INTERIOR COAL REGION 4-9
4.2.1 The Environment 4-9
4.2.2 The Environment and Man 4-11
4.3 WESTERN INTERIOR COAL REGION 4-12
4.3.1 The Environment 4-12
4.3.2 The Environment and Man 4-16
4.4 TEXAS COAL REGION 4-18
4.4.1 The Environment 4-18
4.4.2 The Environment and Man 4-21
4.5 POWDER RIVER COAL REGION 4-24
4.5.1 The Environment 4-24
4.5.2 The Environment and Man 4-27
4.6 GREEN RIVER-HAMS FORK COAL REGION 4-31
4.6.1 The Environment 4-31
4.6.2 The Environment and Man 4-35
4.7 FORT UNION COAL REGION 4-37
4.7. 1 The Environment 4-37
4.7.2 The Environment and Man 4-40
4.8 SAN JUAN RIVER COAL REGION 4-41
4.8.1 The Environment 4-41
4.8.2 The Environment and Man 4-45
4.9 UINTA-SOTHWESTERN UTAH COAL REGION 4-47
4.9.1 The Environment 4-47
4.9.2 The Environment and Man 4-50
4.10 DENVER-RATON MESA COAL REGION 4-53
4.10.1 The Environment 4-53
4.10.1 The Environment and Man 4-56
4.1 1 REFERENCES 4-59
..
CHAPTER 4
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
This chapter contains descriptive discussions
of the environments of the twelve coal regions
specified in Chapter 1 (see Figure 1-1). The
components of each region are discussed cumula-
tively due to their physical continuity and their
similar environments. Each regional description is
subdivided into a discussion of the environment
and a discussion of the environment and man. The
sections on the environment contain descriptive
information on the regions' topography, geology,
resources, climate, air quality, water quality, and
biota. Supportive ecological descriptive data are
contained in Appendices D and E. The sections on
the environment and man contain descriptive
information on history, resource development,
economics, infrastructure, and demography. The
descriptions are limited to only those environmen-
tal features which are pertinent to the environmen-
tal impact analyses described in Chapter 5. For a
list of counties that are contained either totally or
partially within each region's respective bound-
aries, refer to Appendix J.
4.1 THE APPALACHIAN COAL REGION
The Appalachian Coal Region is in the
Appalachian Mountain range of the eastern
United States. The region encompasses 111,637
square miles in two Maryland, 31 Ohio, 49 West
Virginia, 32 Pennsylvania, 34 Kentucky, 21 Ten-
nessee, seven Virginia, 24 Alabama, and four
Georgia counties. For purposes of discussion, this
region has been divided into three regions: the
Northern Appalachian, Central Appalachian, and
Southern Appalachian Coal Regions. The North-
ern Appalachian Coal Region covers 53,120 square
miles in 94 counties of Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, and Maryland. The Central Appalachian
Coal Region covers 35,292 square miles in 69
counties of West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee,
and Virginia. The Southern Appalachian Coal
Region covers 23,225 square miles in 39 counties
of Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama.
4.1.1 The Environment
The dominant topographical feature of the
region, the Appalachian Mountain Range, reaches
elevations of up to 5,000 feet in the Central
Region. Elevations in the Northern and Southern
Regions are much lower, although large changes in
relief do exist. The steepsided plateaus of sand-
stone bedrock on the eastern side of the range give
way to broad open folds dipping gently to the west.
This difference in the topography of the
eastern and western sides of the Appalachians
reflects the two different physiographic provinces
involved. The Valley and Ridge Province to the
east consists of rocks that have been greatly
disturbed by faulting and folding. The Appala-
chian Plateaus to the west have not been subject
to such severe disturbance and the gently folded
rocks are nearly flat. Unique or significant geologic
features, such as caverns and karst areas, are
numerous.
Sandstones, shales, limestones, conglomerates,
and beds of coal are characteristic of the three
Appalachian Coal Regions. Coal-bearing rocks are
of Pennsylvanian age and include the Monongahe-
la, Conemaugh, Allegheny, and Pottsville Forma-
tions. The total estimated coal reserve base for the
entire Appalachian Coal Region is 103 billion tons.
The rank of coal in the Appalachian Coal
Region varies with physiographic provinces, re-
flecting the differing amounts of deformation the
rocks received. The coal in the Appalachian
Plateaus (on the western edge) is high-volatile
bituminous, with some coal being as high in grade
as anthracite.
In general, the Appalachian Coal Region has
moderate to hot, humid summers and moderate to
cold, humid winters with an average annual
precipitation of 40-50 inches. Growing seasons
(periods of frost-free temperatures) vary from 120
to 210 days. The mean annual relative humidity is
about 70 percent. The most distinctive climatic
difference between the subregions is the monthly
distribution of precipitation.
4-1
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
The Northern Appalachian Coal Region has
coldest temperatures; the average annual tempera-
tures are 54°F, with minimum January tempera-
tures of 20°F and maximum July temperatures of
over 70° F. Summer is the season of maximum
precipitation. Light wind speeds are common, with
an average of 9.5 miles per hour (mph) at ridge
level and 6 mph in the valleys.
The Central Appalachian Coal Region has a
more moderate climate with mild, damp winters
and hot, humid summers. The mean annual
temperature is 57°F. The annual precipitation is
45-50 inches, though some sheltered valleys receive
less than 40 inches and higher elevations in some
areas of Tennessee receive over 55 inches. The
Central Appalachian Coal Region has two seasons
of maximum rainfall, spring and summer; fall
brings the least precipitation. The winds are similar
to those in the Northern Appalachian Coal
Region: 8-9 mph on the ridges, 50-60 percent less
in the valleys.
The Southern Appalachian Coal Region has
mild, wet winters and hot, humid summers. The
annual mean temperature reaches 65 °F, while
precipitation averages 54 inches annually. The
maximum precipitation is received in late winter
and early spring. Fall has the least rainfall.
In none of the regions do extremes in meteoro-
logical conditions occur often enough to restrict
habitation, land use, or physical resource develop-
ment. Seasonal flooding along river, stream, and
creek banks, occasional hurricanes in the southern
areas and more rarely in the northern areas, severe
winter storms ("northeasters" in the Northern
Appalachian Coal Region), and infrequent
droughts or tornadoes may have temporary local
adverse effects on land use.
Land use, however, can affect local climates.
Large quantities of heat and moisture or disruption
of surface features can alter temperatures and
moisture conditions, and thus affect local growing
seasons. Major surface disturbance can also lead to
loss of ground cover (which provides shade and
soil stability), which could result in changes in
relative humidity, soil temperature, soil moisture,
and susceptibility to flash flooding. Solid particu-
lates in the air can weaken intensity of solar
insulation, while sulfur dioxide in the air can lead
to acid rain which will corrode limestone, marble,
etc.
Various meteorological parameters, such as
speed, persistence, and direction of winds, can
affect the significance of the negative impacts of
land uses on air quality. Frequency and persistence
of atmospheric inversions can be considered a
limiting factor to pollution-creating land uses in
the Appalachian Coal Region. In the Northern
Appalachian Coal Region, surface-based inver-
sions occur 35-45 percent of the time in winter and
up to 70 percent of summer mornings. Poor
dispersion also occurs frequently in late summer
and fall in the other regions. This creates a high
potential for stagnation of poor quality air
throughout the region, particularly in the summer.
This combination of particular types of land
use and climatic conditions had obvious effects on
air quality in some parts of the Appalachian Coal
Region. In heavily industrialized and mined areas
in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, such as
the Steubenville-Weirton-Wheeling Interstate Air
Quality Control Region (AQCR), the national
primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur
dioxide and suspended particulate matter are not
being attained. In most other counties and AQCRs
in the Appalachian Coal Region, however, the air
quality is good. In Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama, measurements
of sulfur dioxide and suspended particulate matter
are generally better than the national standards.
Unlike most of the other regions to be
discussed in this statement, the Appalachian Coal
Region has an abundant supply of surface water.
Severe droughts are uncommon and, in fact, many
areas are flood prone. The Ohio River and its
tributaries are major streams in the Northern
Appalachian Coal Region, and the average annual
stream flow from the Upper Ohio River Basin (as
measured at Sewickley, Pennsylvania) is 23.3
million acre-feet. In the Central Appalachian Coal
Region, the Big Sandy and Kanawha Rivers
provide the upper Ohio and upper Tennessee River
systems with the most abundant surface water flow
of the three regions — 49.7 million acre-feet.
Use of surface water is constant throughout the
year in all the regions, with industry and municipal
entities being the dominant consumers. Annually,
1.3 million acre-feet is used in the Northern
Appalachian Coal Region, 1.5 million in the
Central Appalachian Coal Region, and only 23,000
in the Southern Appalachian Coal Region. Agri-
cultural use of surface water is unimportant.
4-2
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
Topography has an important influence on
both quantity of runoff and quality of surface
water. Runoff is higher in the steep areas of the
Valley and Ridge Province to the east than in the
more gently sloping Appalachian Plateaus in the
west. Likewise, sediment load and total dissolved
solid content are greater in the eastern areas than
in the western ones. Average sediment load ranges
from 250-280 milligrams per liter in the western
areas, and can jump to 2500 mg/liter in high
runoff areas on the eastern rim. Likewise, total
dissolved solids can vary from 100-350 mg/liter in
the west to over 1200 mg/liter in small areas of the
east. Surface water quality is also significantly
influenced by land uses. Many of the nation's acid-
mine drainage pollution problems are in the
Northern Appalachian Coal Region. Other indus-
trial and municipal wastes also plague surface
water quality throughout the region.
Groundwater in the Appalachian Coal Region
is most prevalent in some carbonate rocks, sand-
stones, and shoestring deposits of sand and gravel
occupying flood plains along the principal streams.
Well yields range from only a few gallons per
minute to 500 gal/min., depending on the perme-
ability of the rock. Groundwater quality is general-
ly poor in the Appalachian Coal Region, with
hardness and local excesses of iron, manganese,
and hydrogen sulfide being the primary problems.
Mining, industrial, and municipal wastes cause
local adverse effects on groundwater quality.
Due to an abundance of surface water in the
Appalachian Coal Region, groundwater does not
play as significant a role in the survival of man,
plants, and animals as it does in much of the West.
Groundwater use is relatively low with a high of
190,000 acre-feet per year in the Central Appala-
chian Coal Region and a low of 1 1,500 acre-feet in
the Southern Appalachian Coal Region.
Geology, topography, and climate are impor-
tant factors in determining soil type. Generally, the
soils in the Appalachian Coal Region are a mix
with weakly differentiated horizons that exhibit the
alteration of various parent materials. Soils are low
in organic matter with subsurface horizons of clay
accumulations. Most of the soils in the Appala-
chian Coal Region are well-drained with low
natural fertility. Moderate to severe erosion hazard
is common.
There are two major native vegetation commu-
nities in the Appalachian Coal Region, the eastern
deciduous forest (primarily in the Northern and
Central Appalachian Coal Regions) and the
southeastern mixed forest (Southern Appalachian
Coal Region). The wide variety of forest and
understory vegetation, good interspersion of terres-
trial and aquatic habitat types, and the abundance
of water resources give the region the cover, water,
space, and forage needed to accommodate a
multitude of wildlife species. Over 300 species of
fish, 96 species of reptiles and amphibians, 110
species of birds, and 200 species of mammals, as
well as innumerable invertebrates, inhabit the
region on either a permanent or seasonal basis. It
is impractical to identify all the plant and animal
species in the subregions so only some of the major
or characteristic species will be noted.
In the Northern and Central Appalachian Coal
Regions (from Ohio and Pennsylvania south to
West Virginia and Kentucky, and along lower
slopes of mountains extending into the Southern
Appalachian Coal Regions), beech and maple are
the predominant species. Closely associated oaks,
sweetgum, tulip, hornbean, basswood, wild cherry,
dogwood, hedge maple, hawthorne, and alder are
also present. From Tennessee south into the
Southern Appalachian Coal Region, the character
of the eastern deciduous forest changes somewhat,
with oak becoming the dominant species. Tulip,
sweetgum, and shagbark hickory are common.
Typical animal species in these areas of the
deciduous forest include such game and furbearing
species as the whitetail deer, black bear, wild
turkey, eastern cottontail, raccoon, opossum, gray
squirrel, and gray and red fox, and such birds as
woodpeckers, thrushes, warblers, vireos, and owls.
The Southern Appalachian Coal Region con-
tains some immature sandy soils overlain by pine
forests. Lobolly, shortleaf, pitch, Virginia, longleaf,
and slash pines are the most widespread varieties.
Typical animals in these forests include such game
species as black bear, whitetail deer, and ruffed
grouse, and such birds as nuthatches, chickadees,
woodpeckers, and warblers.
Aquatic and riparian vegetation throughout
the Appalachian Coal Region includes such
species as loosestrife, arrow arum, pondweed,
water lilies, plaintains, and cattails. The rivers,
streams, and lakes in the region support many
aquatic insects and mollusks, as well as game fish
such as bass, trout, crappie, bluegill, pike, pickerel,
muskellunge, and catfish, and non-game fish such
4-3
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
as carp, shad, shiners, chubs, and sculpins. These
same water sources and the riparian habitat near
them accommodate turtles, lizards, muskrat, otter,
beaver, and many species of snakes, frogs, and
salamanders.
Agricultural crops are varied and numerous in
the region. The animal species which prefer
agricultural land habitat and can live in relatively
close association with man are whitetail deer,
robin, crows, mourning dove, bobwhite, red fox,'
raccoon, hawks, and owls.
Currently, there are at least 26 species of
animals within the Appalachian Coal Region that
are listed as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973. These include the bald eagle,
peregrine falcon, Bachman's warbler, red-cockad-
ed woodpecker, eastern cougar, gray bat, Indiana
bat, watercress darter, and 17 species of mussels.
Although there are no Federally listed threatened
or endangered plants within the region, there are a
large number proposed for listing. These are
presently under consideration by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
There are numerous local variations (due to
topography, soil, and climate) in vegetation and
wildlife that will require site-specific assessments
to identify exact distributions of vegetative species.
In the coal basin region of Alabama, the uplands
plantlife is dominated by Virginia, shortleaf,
longleaf, and loblolly pines; turkey and red oak;
sweetgum; and winged elm, because they are
tolerant of shallow, dry, nutrient-poor soils. Lower
slopes, however, are occupied by larger, deciduous
hardwoods and a great variety of shrubs that
require more water. The valley bottoms with deep
soils are lush with an even wider variety of
vegetation including agricultural crops. The wild-
life species present vary according to the habitat
preferences defined earlier.
Land uses have reduced vegetative quantity
and diversity in the past few hundred years, but of
the various coal regions, the Appalachian Coal
Region maintains the highest diversity. Natural
primary productivity is moderate to high (8.9 tons
per acre per year in forests to 17.8 tons per acre per
year in floodplain areas). Forest cover can return
naturally within 10 to 30 years after severe
disturbance. This natural productivity, combined
with excellent climatic conditions, gives the Appa-
lachian Coal Region higher potential for reclama-
tion than the western coal areas. Currently, coal
mining rehabilitation can rapidly establish a
ground cover of grasses and legumes and restore
suitable fish and wildlife habitat for many species.
Research has not been oriented towards recreating
original composition and diversity of native for-
ests, and therefore it is not yet possible to evaluate
whether current reclamation will be able to restore
land to original or better productivity for tree
growth in this region. Harvesting of forest products
is possible within 30 years after reclamation.
4.1.2 The Environment and Man
The history of mankind in the Appalachian
Coal Region can be divided into the Paleo-Indian
period (prior to 8000 B.C.), the Eastern Archaic
tradition (8000 to 1200 B.C.), the Woodland
tradition (1200 B.C. to 900 A.D.), the Mississippi-
an period (900 A.D.-1650 A.D.), and the proto-
historic and historic cultures.
The Paleo-Indian occupation is reflected in the
Meadowcroft Rock Shelter site in Washington
County, Pennsylvania, dated at 14,200 B.C. These
Indians were nomadic hunters who used hunting
implements, pebble-choppers, hand axes, and
scrapers.
The loss of traditional food sources at the end
of the Pleistocene is thought to have led to the
development of the Archaic tradition. Hunting
continued, but fishing and plant gathering became
more common. Populations increased and life
became more sedentary. Earliest pottery in the
southeastern U.S. is thought to have been made in
Georgia in approximately 2000 B.C.
During the Woodland tradition, pottery manu-
facturers flourished, villages grew in size, and
social organization became more formal; burial
mounds were a distinctive feature of this tradition.
The Mississippian culture, with large, permanent
villages, riverine agriculture, and ceremonial
mounds, was the next major influence, most
evident in the Southern Appalachian Coal Region.
During the proto-historic period, riverine agricul-
ture, hunting, and fishing continued to provide
subsistence. The dominant aboriginal groups
included the Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks.
Approximately 40 archaeological sites through-
out the Appalachian Coal Region, remnants of
prehistoric and proto-historic cultures, are listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. The
potential remains for discovery of more values
4-4
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
during future site-specific surveys, particularly in
sparsely inhabited areas near lakes and streams.
The beginning of the historic period is com-
monly defined by the arrival of Hernando deSoto
(who explored parts of the Appalachian and Gulf
of Mexico areas in the 1500's), but the major influx
of Europeans did not start until the early 1700's.
The first white settlements were built in the early
1800's as the British and French competed for
land. The settlers were primarily farmers (raising
corn, hogs, cattle, cotton, and tobacco) with
secondary occupations as blacksmiths, cobblers,
and millers. Slavery was important in the Southern
Appalachian Coal Region and parts of the Central
Appalachian Coal Region. Railroads, wagon
trains, and steamboats helped the settlers penetrate
into the frontier and displace the native Ameri-
cans.
As early as the 1830's, coal mining had begun
to rival the cotton industry in some areas. By 1 860,
factories (producing lumber, carriages, cotton and
wool products, and machinery) and coal mines
were active throughout the Appalachian Coal
Region.
The Civil War sparked mineral activity (smelt-
ing and casting furnaces) throughout the Appala-
chian Coal Region. During the War, many indus-
tries, particularly in the Central and Southern
Appalachian Coal Regions, were damaged. Cotton
production gave way to new industries such as iron
and steel manufacturing in the late 1800's. As these
industries grew, so did the need for coal.
There was steady economic progress after the
turn of the century. Coal production was booming
in the 1920's. Other industries that began to grow
included steam, natural gas, oil, and electricity.
Over 600 historic sites (houses, covered
bridges, iron furnaces, railroad buildings, battle-
fields, land-mark oil wells, and other structures),
reminiscent of the Appalachian Coal Region's
varied and colorful history, are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. This com-
prises one third of all the National Register sites in
the coal regions.
There is wide variance in the socio-economic
characteristics of the three regions. The Appala-
chian Coal Region, as a whole, is very distinct
from the Western regions. Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3
show population, employment, and other socio-
economic characteristics of the three regions.
The Northern Appalachian Coal Region is the
most densely populated with a population of over
8,019,000 in 1975 and a density of over 150 people
per square mile. The Central and Southern
Appalachian Coal Regions both have populations
over 2,000,000, but the density in the Central
Appalachian Coal Region is slightly less than 60
people per square mile, while in the Southern
Appalachian Coal Region it is almost 100 people
per square mile. All three regions experienced high
out-migration rates during the 1960's. In the
1970's, out-migration in the Northern Appalachian
Coal Region slowed considerably and the other
two regions gained population.
In the region as a whole, manufacturing and
wholesale and retail trade have replaced agricul-
ture and mining, important occupations in earlier
history, as the major employment sectors. In 1975,
these sectors employed from 36 to 53 percent of
the populations of these regions.
In 1975, coal mining employment ranged from
only 1 percent in the Southern Appalachian Coal
Region to 12 percent in the Central Appalachian
Coal Region. Development of other minerals
employed less than 4 percent of the regions'
populations, while agriculture employed 4 to 10
percent. In small localized areas throughout the
region, however, minerals development or agricul-
ture may provide the dominant employment
opportunity.
Land uses are varied. Most farms are small
(averaging less than 160 acres each), and the major
crops include cotton, soybeans, corn, wheat,
sorghum grain, hay, and fruit. Some of the best
farm land is along the Ohio River, as it was in
prehistoric and historic times. Beef cattle, sheep,
and hogs remain important products of the
agricultural sector.
As mentioned previously, there is active min-
ing throughout the region. Federal leasable miner-
als include oil, gas, and coal. The greatest potential
for development of federally owned oil, gas, and
coal is found in the Southern Appalachian Coal
Region. Saleable minerals in the Appalachian Coal
Region include sand, gravel, shale, and clay. The
most important hardrock minerals are iron, zinc,
and copper.
Most of the federally-owned coal reserves of
the Appalachian Coal Region are located in
various National Forests, which are scattered
throughout Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylva-
4-5
TABLE 4-1
POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THE
NORTHERN APPALACHIAN REGION^)
1975 Total Population 3
8,019,531
Total Area (square
miles) a
53,120
Population per square mile (1975)
151.0
Per Capita Personal
Income (1975)
$5,035
Per Capita Personal
Income as a
Percent of National Average (1975)
99
ECONOMIC SECTOR
EMPLOYMENT
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
EARNINGS
(in thousands
of dollars)
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
Livestock
17,757
1
99,503
0-1
Other Agriculture
74,931
3
279,375
1
Metal Mining
2,981
0-1
880
0-1
Coal Mining
53,274
2
896,422
3
Oil and Gas
12,982
0-1
154,875
0-1
Other Mining
7,377
0-1
52,430
0-1
Construction
116,867
4
1,760,699
6
All Manufacturing
934,034
33
12,125,795
40
Transportation,
Communication,
and Public
Utilities
129,432
5
2,311,325
8
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
547,078
20
4,433,231
14
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
97,113
3
988,438
3
Other Services
378,951
14
3,927,846
13
Federal Govt.
46,496
2
685,095
2
State and Local
Govt.
376,057
13
2,868,185
9
TOTAL
2,795,330
30,584,099
(a) Demographic information which is based on all
or partially within regional boundaries.
counties either totally
4-6
TABLE 4-2
POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THE
CENTRAL APPALACHIAN REGION ( a )
a
1975 Total Population
2
,069
,980
, a
Total Area (square miles)
35
,292
Population per square
mile (1975)
58.65
Per Capita Personal Income (1975)
$4
,009
Per Capita Personal Income as a
79
Percent of National
Average (1975)
„
PERCENT
EARNINGS
PERCENT
ECONOMIC SECTOR
EMPLOYMENT
OF
TOTAL
(in thousands
of dollars)
OF
TOTAL
Livestock
12,750
2
24,726
0-1
Other Agriculture
44,855
8
93,889
2
Metal Mining
-
-
■""
Coal Mining
71,304
12
1,262-,813
21
Oil and Gas
3,310
1
31,195
0-1
Other Mining
2,765
0-1
9,008
0-1
Construction
22,804
4
409,618
7
All Manufacturing
112,632
19
1,250,226
20
Transportation ,
Communication ,
and Public
Utilities
19,959
3
494,300
8
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
101,901
• 17
837,525
14
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
17,936
3
174,169
3
Other Services
66,858
11
735,106
12
Federal Govt.
13,886
2
206,263
3
State and Local
Govt.
92,803
16
622,461
10
TOTAL
583,763
6,151,299
(a) Demographic information which is based on all counties either totally
or partially within regional boundaries.
4-7
TABLE 4-3
POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THE
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN REGION ( a )
1975 Total Population 3
Total Area (square miles) a
Population per square mile (1975)
Per Capita Personal Income (1975)
Per Capita Personal Income as a
Percent of National Average (1975)
2,289,614
23,225
98.6
$4,551
90
ECONOMIC SECTOR
Livestock
Other Agriculture
Metal Mining
Coal Mining ■ ■
Oil and Gas
EMPLOYMENT
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
EARNINGS
(in thousands
of dollars)
8,713
46,610
6,299
1
6
38,269
132,660
124,581
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
0-1
1
utner Mining
3,972
0-1
12,401
0-1
Construction
47,836
6
592,107
7
All Manufacturing
260,722
30
2,656,267
30
Transportation ,
Communication ,
and Public
Utilities
29,965
3
602,998.
10
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
165,260
19
1,445,685
16
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
39,359
5
433,204
5
Other Services
93,809
11
1,232,646
14
Federal Govt.
48,520
6
799,721
9
State and Local
Govt.
106,450
12
782,012
9
TOTAL
861,545
8,852,551
(a) Demographic information which is based on all counties either totally
or partially within regional boundaries.
4-8
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
nia, Virginia, and West Virginia. National Forest
coal reserves total approximately 679,000 acres.
The largest concentration of Federally-owned coal
on both Federal and private surfaces occurs in
Alabama, where about 40 percent of all Federal
reserves of the Appalachian Coal Region are
located. Federal coal reserve acreages on state
surface, private surface, and National Forests are
80,878; 91,980, and 506,126 respectively.
In the Appalachian Coal Region, coal is
transported by waterway, railroad, conveyer belt,
and truck. There are no coal slurry lines. The
Appalachian coal is closer to demand centers, and
transportation costs are lower than those involved
in development of western coal. Some problems in
transport of coal in the region exist, however.
Inadequate lock systems and congestion in the
waterway system (which includes the Mississippi,
Ohio, Greer, Warrior, and other rivers) are causing
bottleneck delays in some areas. Abandonment
and deterioration of railway lines are making
transport by rail more difficult in areas like West
Virginia. The use of trucks is growing as coal
production increases. This results in increased
noise and air pollution, road congestion, and safety
hazards. Some counties have resorted to levying
taxes to correct environmental damage caused by
coal trucks.
Other land uses include urban and suburban
development, communication sites, powerlines, gas
pipelines, sand and gravel pits, and sanitary
landfills. Access to most federally owned coal is
afforded by county or state owned and main-
tained, all-weather, paved or gravel roads of
varying quality.
Recreation is an important land use to be
considered. The Appalachian Coal Region has
over 138 state parks, 10 state forests, and 10 other
state-owned recreational facilities, covering over
511,000 acres and attracting over 56 million
visitors a year. Camping, hunting (deer, turkey,
and small game are most popular), fishing (bass,
blue gill, trout, and catfish primarily), boating,
spelunking, hiking, rockhounding, and skiing are
just a few of the opportunities available.
The region contains many rivers presently
included in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System
(e.g., 45 miles of the Obed River in Tennessee, 33
miles of Little Beaver River in Ohio). Others are
being considered for inclusion (e.g., parts of Pine
Creek in Pennsylvania; Sipsey Fork River in
Alabama). There are also four wilderness areas,
totaling nearly 48,000 acres, in the Central and
Southern Appalachian Coal Regions. Three trails
(North Country, Kittanning, and Potomac Heri-
tage) are being considered for inclusion in the
National System of Trails.
About 23 billion tons of coal had been
extracted from the beginning of mining in the
region until 1965. One-third of this was from the
Pittsburgh coal bed, making it one of the most
valuable beds in the U.S. The number of coal beds
in the region varies from 10 in Pennsylvania to 62
in West Virginia.
4.2 EASTERN INTERIOR COAL REGION
The Eastern Interior Coal Region is located
within the Central Lowland and Interior Low
Plateaus of the United States. This region encom-
passes approximately 59,000 square miles in 85
Illinois, 23 Indiana, 18 Kentucky, and two Iowa
counties.
4.2.1 The Environment
The Eastern Interior Coal Region is a combi-
nation of smooth and irregular plains within the
Mississippi and Ohio River watersheds. The
Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa portions of the plains
are smooth almost to Kentucky, due to the
influence of the Illinois glacier. The remainder of
the region is unglaciated and its topography is
therefore hilly. In this portion of the region, local
relief varies from 100 to 500 feet with steep bluffs
occurring along many of the rivers. The elevation
of the entire region does not exceed 1,000 feet
above sea level.
The region's geological formations are primari-
ly sedimentary rocks from the Upper Paleozoic
Era of approximately 300,000,000 years ago. Rock
strata are dominated by sandstones, limestones,
conglomerates, and shales. Various paleontological
formations are associated with these strata, as well
as the region's coal deposits.
The principal coal bearing formations are the
Lower Pennsylvania, Pottsville, and Allegheny
Formations. The coal deposits are composed
almost entirely of low- volatile bituminous. A three-
county area of southern Illinois, however, contains
high-volatile bituminous deposits. In addition to
coal, the mineral resources of the region include
petroleum, clay, crushed stone, gravel, and sand.
4-9
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
The region's total reserve base is estimated to be
88.9 billion tons.
To a great extent, soils in the northern half of
the region have derived from glacial drift and
windblown deposits. Soils from two to five feet
deep predominate in this portion of the region.
Top soil is generally black, friable, and high in
organic content. The unglaciated southern portion
of the region has soils with a thinner layer of top
soil. Soils in this area are derived from windblown
deposits overlaying glacial till. These soils have a
gray-brown surface layer that is medium to highly
basic. This surface soil often overlies an imperme-
able clay pan that produces poor internal drainage.
Soils of the entire region are fertile. Those in the
northern portion are the more productive.
A temperate climate prevails throughout the
region. Annual mean temperatures range from
48°F in the north to 60°F in the south. Seasonal
extremes range from -20°F to 1 10°F.
Precipitation volumes also increase from north
to south; the northern areas receive about 30
inches a year, while the southern areas receive 40
inches per year. The region has snowfall, although
it is generally less than 10 inches annually. Storms
are most frequent in the winter and spring months.
Summer storms generally track from the north and
are weaker. Autumns are often dry with little storm
activity until November. Although short dry
periods do occur, the region is not vulnerable to
sustained droughts.
The region is subjected to a variety of winds
from Canada, the Great Plains, and the Gulf
Coast. Wind speeds average approximately 10
miles per hour, which is above the nation's
average. The lack of topographic barriers permits
continual ventilation and air quality is good. There
are generally less than 20 days a year during which
the region is subjected to high levels of air
pollution. These episodes are generally short-lived.
Certain urban centers do create some localized air
quality problems. These problems are restricted to
Evansville, Indiana, where high particulate and
moderate sulfur dioxide levels occur; Terre Haute,
Indiana, where high particulate levels occur;
Springfield, Illinois, where moderate particulate
levels occur; and Peoria, Illinois, where moderate
particulate levels occur.
With its precipitation patterns and two major
waterways, the Eastern Interior Coal Region
generally has plentiful supplies of water. A dendri-
tic drainage pattern is formed by the Mississippi
and Ohio Rivers, their major tributaries such as the
Illinois and Wabash Rivers, and the smaller
tributaries of these. During heavy rains and spring
thaws, these rivers are prone to damaging floods.
Water quality varies throughout the region.
For most uses, it is generally satisfactory or can be
treated. Agricultural runoff causes localized prob-
lems with bacterial contaminants, nitrogenous
pollutants, and suspended solids. Additionally,
various industrial pollutants are found in the
region's scattered urban centers.
It is estimated that 42.3 million acre-feet of
fresh to slightly saline groundwater is in storage in
the region, and some towns and cities have had
difficulty obtaining wells yielding good water at
reasonable costs. Over most of the region, how-
ever, fresh groundwater, at least in small to
medium quantities, is not difficult to develop.
Some local overpumping has resulted, since only
about 4. 1 million acre-feet of fresh groundwater is
recharged to the system each year. Some munici-
palities have found it less expensive and more
satisfactory to discontinue their poor groundwater
sources and develop treated surface waters. Over
most of the region, the depth to saline groundwater
is less than 500 feet.
The above-described environmental aspects
have created an ecotone-type ecology in the
region. This means that the region is situated in the
transition zone between the eastern deciduous
forest and the Great Plains grasslands. An oak-
hickory forest dominates the natural vegetation of
the Kentucky, Indiana, and southern Illinois
portion of the region. The remaining portion is
dominated by farmland and an oak savannah
ecosystem. Intensive agricultural practices occur in
the region, so much of the natural vegetation has
been removed. Only about 15 percent of the region
is now forested.
Where natural forests exist, dominant tree
species include fir, white and swamp oaks, hickory,
ash, poplar, and sweet gum. Associated ground
cover includes shrubs (such as mountain laurel,
rhododendron, dogwood, wisteria, sumac, buckt-
horn, alder, and hawthorn), numerous forbs, and
grasses (such as winged pigweed, bishopcap, love
grass, panic grass, and morning glory). Net
primary productivity for forested areas is about 8.9
tons per acre per year.
4-10
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
Relict prairie areas exist in limited portions of
the oak savannahs that have not been disrupted by
agriculture. They are vegetated by mixed grasses,
legumes, and other herbaceous species. Typical
species are bluestem, switchgrass, and Indian grass
(representative of tall grass prairie); little bluestem,
needlegrass, and western wheat-grass (representa-
tive of mid-grass prairie); and buffalo grass, blue
grama, and side-oats grama (representative of
short grass prairie). There is a general tendency for
the short grasses, more typical of western prairies,
to push eastward onto the heavier soils of this
region, and the tall grasses (typically eastern) to
push westward onto the lighter soils. Net primary
productivity of the remaining prairie in the region
is about 6 tons per acre.
Typical vegetation of the wetlands and bottom
areas includes spike rush, sedges, milkweed, water
primrose, cattails, pondweeds, and lizardtails.
These wet areas are highly productive and are
valuable habitat to waterfowl using the Mississippi
fly way.
The forests and prairies of the region serve as
habitat for a wide variety of other wildlife species.
Due to extensive farming, most wildlife within the
region is compatible with man's activities. Some
even depend on the farmer's fields for food and
cover. Typical forest mammals include whitetail
deer, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, gray fox, and
raccoon. Species typical of the prairie areas and
edge habitat between forest and prairie include
whitetail deer, woodchuck, red fox, and coyote.
Small mammals, such as mice, shrews, and bats are
numerous in both prairie and forest areas. Fur-
bearers, such as mink, beaver, and muskrat, occur
along waterways and in marshy habitats.
Major upland game birds found in the region
include ring-necked pheasant, ruffed grouse,
mourning dove, bobwhite, and wild turkey. Wet-
lands and waterways provide habitat for waterfowl
using the Mississippi flyway, such as bluewinged
and greenwinged teal, pintails, wood ducks, lesser
scaup, black ducks, mallards, and lesser snow and
Canada geese. Among the principal non-game
birds are redtailed hawk, turkey vulture, great
horned owl, green heron, chimney swift, cardinal,
indigo bunting, crow, bluejay, brown thrasher.
Among the 15 species of game fish in the
region, largemouth bass is the most popular. Other
gamefish of local importance include bluegills,
crappie, northern pike, catfish, yellow perch, white
bass, and yellow bass.
Reptiles and amphibians found within the
region include box turtles, soft-shelled turtles,
snapping turtles, copperhead snakes, king snakes,
cricket frogs, bull' frogs, and a variety of lizards
and salamanders.
Although most species have adapted to man, a
few have not. Their habitats have diminished with
agricultural advancement to the point where
populations are very restricted and are threatened
or in danger of extinction. Federally listed endan-
gered species of wildlife within the region include
the Indiana bat, bald eagle, tuberculated-blossom
pearly mussel, Sampson's pearly mussel, and
peregrine falcon. There are no Federally listed
endangered plants within the region's boundaries,
but numerous plant species are presently under
consideration for threatened or endangered desig-
nation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
plants in the relict prairies are not endangered, as
they are common in other prairies in the West.
The ecosystems within the Eastern Interior
Coal Region are capable of recovery after human
disturbances. With proper soil conditions, natural
succession can return a grassland to a near original
state within a decade. Forest lands require much
longer to return to a stage similar to virgin timber.
Natural succession, however, can return a cleared
forest to an immature forest in less than 50 years,
given proper conditions. With adequate manage-
ment, the lands of this region could be reclaimed
after coal mining operations.
4.2.2 The Environment and Man
The agricultural opportunities of the Eastern
Interior Coal Region have historically been its
major attraction for human beings. Timber and
other natural resources have also been attractive
but to a lesser degree. Original Indian populations
were primarily village farmers. Tribes of Illinois,
Miami, and Shawnee Indians produced maize and
grains from the fertile soil. White men did not
arrive until 1672, when two French explorers,
Joliet and Marquette, led an expedition up the
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Their journey
initiated the education of the European colonists
to the region's abundant agricultural opportunities.
Eventually, settlers were drawn westward from the
deciduous forests of the original 13 colonies to the
agricultural advantages of the prairie fringe. The
4-11
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
acquisition of the Northwest Territory by the
United States in 1787 provided for this colonial
expansion. In 1820 settlement was limited to the
Ohio Valley, but shortly thereafter settlements
were found scattered throughout the entire region.
In 1 836 a blacksmith's apprentice named John
Deere was drawn to Grand Detour, Illinois, from
Vermont. In 1837 he built the world's first steel
moldboard plow. His invention became famous as
"the plow that broke the plains." Thereafter
farming became the primary regional activity and
most of the land was cleared. Agriculture is still the
primary land use over the entire region and is a
significant contribution to the area's economic
base. Most farmers grow corn, soybeans, grains,
and hay for export or livestock feed. Individual
farms vary in size up to 500 acres.
The timber production of the southern portion
of the region has added to the region's economy.
Oil is another natural resource that was found in
moderate abundance in the region. It also contrib-
utes to the area's economic base.
Twentieth century industrial development has
added greatly to the region's economy, but is
essentially limited to urban centers. The major
cities that support most of the industry are Peoria,
Springfield, and Decatur, Illinois; Burlington,
Iowa; Evansville, Indiana; and Owensboro, Ken-
tucky. Coal production has played an important
role in the region's industrial development; togeth-
er with oil, it provides most of the energy supply.
Manufacturing is the major contributor to employ-
ment, involving 26 percent of the total workforce.
Table 4-4 provides additional economic data,
illustrating the relative importance of specific
sectors of the economy.
Surface transportation via water and rail was
instrumental in urbanization. Water carrier service
is available on the Mississippi, Ohio, and Illinois
Rivers.Major railways serving the region include
the Chessie System, Norfolk and Western, Illinois
Central Gulf, Louisville and Nashville, Southern,
and ConRail. In addition to these modes, a
modern highway network is used for commercial
and private transportation. The primary highways
used for bulk commodity transportation are the
interstate highways. The region is traversed by
Interstate Highways 24, 64, 70, 74, 55, and 57. Oil
and gas pipelines are also located in the region.
Coal slurry pipelines are not present.
Historic agricultural development and recent
community development have been instrumental
in creating a large population growth in the
Eastern Interior Coal Region. Presently, there are
over 5 million inhabitants within the region. The
1975 population density was approximately 85
persons per square mile. The rural sector of the
region is fairly stable, while the urbanized centers
are experiencing mild growth. The area has never
been exposed to any major boom town phenome-
na. Cultural development within the region is
highly varied. Indian artifacts from cultures dating
to 2000 B.C. have been discovered in Greene
County, Illinois. Remnants of the Wabash and
Erie Canals of the mid 1800's still remain.
Historical sites relating to Abraham Lincoln's past
are found in numerous locations. Over 200
individual historic sites within the region are
identified for preservation by the National Regis-
ter of Historic Places.
Most federally-owned coal reserves are located
in the National Forests within the boundaries of
the Eastern Interior Coal Region. National Forest
coal reserves for this region total nearly 117,000
acres. The region's largest concentration of Feder-
al coal ownership under Federal and private
surface occurs in Illinois, where some 95,499 acres
are located. Federal coal reserve acreages for
private surface and National Forests are 7,645 and
1 16,809 respectively.
4.3 WESTERN INTERIOR COAL REGION
The Western Interior Coal Region is in the
central plains of the United States. This region
encompasses approximately 98,000 square miles in
eight Arkansas, 53 Iowa, 36 Kansas, 56 Missouri,
nine Nebraska, and 25 Oklahoma counties.
43.1 The Environment
The Western Interior Coal Region contains a
wide variety of topographic features, from irregu-
lar glaciated plains in the north to steep-sided
ridges and mountains in the south. Elevations vary
from 500 feet in the northeast portion of the region
to 2,000 feet in the southern highlands. The region
is situated within the Central Lowland physio-
graphic province and has a generally flat to rolling
topography. There are some eroded mountains in
eastern Oklahoma and western Arkansas known as
the Ouachita and Boston Mountains.
4-12
TABLE 4-
4
1
I POPULATION
AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THE
EASTERN INTERIOR REGION ( £
i)
1975 Total Population 3
5,
191
,721
Total Area (square miles)
65
,153
Population per square
mile (1975)
79.7
Per Capita Personal Income (1975)
$5
,316
Per Capita Personal Income as a
I Percent of National Average (1975)
105
PERCENT
EARNINGS
PERCENT
ECONOMIC SECTOR
EMPLOYMENT
OF
TOTAL
(
in thousands
of dollars)
OF
TOTAL
_ .
Livestock
51,897
3
344,185
2
Other Agriculture
148,825
8
1,659,599
8
Metal Mining
-
-
-
-
Coal Mining
25,870
1
300,128
2
Oil and Gas
4,500
0-1
100,193
0-1
Other Mining
9,579
0-1
63,118
0-1
Construction
70,692
4
1,124,798
6
All Manufacturing
507,948
26
5,980,049
30
Transportation ,
Communication,
and Public
Utilities
77,306
4
1,240,601
6
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
376,103
19
2,896,369
15
l
Finance,. Insurance,
and Real Estate
65,538
3
655,676
3
Other Services
239,895
12
2,165,833
11
Federal Govt.
84,849
4
1,007,967
5
State and Local
Govt.
TOTAL
293,538
15
2,193,087
11
1,956,540
19,731,603
(a) Demographic information which is bas
ed on a
11
counties either totally
or partially within
i
i
regional boundar
4-12
ies.
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
Present topography and land forms are largely
a result of surface rocks. Resistant rocks, such as
granite, sandstone, and limestone, generally form
high ridges, hills, and mountain peaks, whereas
nearby outcrops of shale and other easily eroded
rocks form valleys and lowland areas.
In the past, forces within the earth have caused
portions of the region to alternately sink below and
rise above sea level. Large areas were often
covered by shallow seas, and thick layers of
sediments were deposited and subsequently lithi-
fied into shales, limestones, and sandstones. Later,
these areas were uplifted and the sedimentary
rocks were exposed and eroded.
The gently sloping hills of the northern portion
of this region are composed of alluvium, glacial
drift, and loess, underlain by Paleozoic sandstones,
limestones, shales, and coal seams in horizontal or
nearly horizontal beds with isolated faulting and
gentle folding. The east-west trending ridges and
valleys of the Ouachita province were formed
during the early Paleozoic Age through extensive
folding and faulting.
The coal beds of the region are Upper
Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) in age and mostly
high-volatile bituminous in rank. They are general-
ly of better quality than the coals of the West, but
are also higher in sulfur content. The principal
coal-bearing formations throughout most of the
region are the Lower Pennsylvanian, Pottsville,
and Allegheny Formations. They comprise a lower
series, that contains most of the coal, termed the
Des Moines Group, and an upper series termed the
Missouri Group. The region's estimated reserve
base is 16 billion tons.
Most of the Federal coal in the region is in the
southern part, in Oklahoma. In this area, and in
western Arkansas as well, mountain-building
forces of the Ouachita disturbance sufficiently
devolatilized the coal beds to raise their rank to
low-volatile bituminous and some localized sem-
ianthracite deposits. The coal is mostly of coking
quality and is contained in rocks of the Hartshorne
Sandstone and the McAlester Shale. The most
important beds are the Lower Hartshorne, 2.5 to 6
feet thick; the Upper Hartshorne, 1.75 to 5.5 feet;
and the McAlester Shale, 1.75 to 4 feet thick.
Most hard rock minerals are formed as a result
of igneous activity. Ore mineral such as silver, lead,
and zinc occur within the tri-state area of Arkan-
sas-Missouri-Oklahoma. "Common variety" min-
eral materials, such as sand and gravel, building
stone, crushed stone, and common clay, are
abundant in most of the region. Building stone and
crushed rock are quarried from sandstone and
limestone. Sand and gravel are obtained from river
alluvium, and clay is obtained from shale.
Coal is plentiful in the region, but production
is principally in eastern Oklahoma. Oil and gas
producing horizons occur principally in Oklahoma
and Kansas in several different formations at a
wide range of depths. Fossil-bearing strata occur
throughout the region. The only ones of signifi-
cance in the Federal coal reserves are those
associated with coal seams of the Middle Pennsyl-
vanian Hartshorne, McAlester, Savanna, and
Boggy Formations.
The climate of the Western Interior Coal
Region is characterized by hot summers and cold
winters. Ranges in temperature and precipitation
are pronounced. The area tends to be dominated
by cold air from the Canadian arctic in winter and
warm air from the southwest in summer. Tempera-
tures in the southern portion average 40° F in
January and 80° F in July. In the northern portion,
they average 20°F in January and 70°F in July.
The mean annual freeze-free days range from 150
in the north to 210 in the southwest.
Most of the area receives between 32 and 48
inches of precipitation per year. Months with the
highest precipitation are March, April, May, and
June, at the start of the growing season. Parts of
the area receive over 4 inches per month during
this time although they are also exposed to
occasional short-lived droughts. Fall rains may
average over 2 inches per month. Winter snows,
particularly in the north, are common. The
humidity averages between 60 and 70 percent most
of the year, with some portions having a higher
average in the fall and winter. The relatively high
amounts of rainfall and seasonally warm tempera-
tures combine to provide very favorable conditions
for plant growth.
The area is generally windy. Average speeds
near the ground are 11-14 mph. When precipita-
tion has been sparse fugitive dust and dust storms
are common. The winds are typically out of the
west and northwest in the winter and out of the
south the rest of the year. This area is subject to
many tornadoes every year.
Air quality, in terms of particulate, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide content, is good in
4-14
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
most areas of the region. Some variation does exist,
particularly in urbanized areas of the region. These
variations are located in Kansas City, Missouri,
where moderate particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide levels occur; Omaha, Nebraska, where
moderate particulate matter and sulfur dioxide
occur; and Tulsa, Oklahoma, where low particu-
late matter and moderate nitrogen dioxide occur.
Most of this region has abundant supplies of
water, including a considerable number of lakes
and reservoirs. However, most industries and
municipalities must treat surface water and some
groundwater before use. The quality of surface
water ranges from low dissolved solids and high
sediment concentrations during high flow periods
to high dissolved solids and low sediment content
during low flows.
Surface-water runoff averages about 7 inches
over most of the region, ranging from 3 inches in
the northwestern to extremes of 30 inches in the
southern mountains. Where standing bodies of
water exist in the region, evaporation ranges from
about 36 inches in the north to 54 inches in the
southwest. Devastating floods resulting from thun-
derstorms are not uncommon.
The quality of the surface water is generally
good, especially in the east where the total
dissolved solids are generally moderate. In the
western part of the region, particularly in the
northwestern and southwestern areas, the rivers
not only carry a greater concentration of total
dissolved solids but a much heavier load of
suspended solids. The Des Moines, Iowa, Missou-
ri, and Arkansas Rivers have the poorest quality
water. In some streams, oil-field wastes and other
industrial and municipal wastes have created
serious problems.
Groundwater conditions vary widely with
respect to quantity and quality. In the Iowa and
northern Missouri portion of the region, well yields
vary, but wells are generally less than 250 feet
deep. Groundwater supplies in the unglaciated
southern portion of the region can be obtained
from river alluvium, shale, sandstone, limestone,
and dolomite aquifers. The river alluvium general-
ly yields moderate to large supplies of water of
good quality. The shallow sandstone and limestone
bedrock aquifers generally yield less than 25
gallons per minute of medium to poor quality
water. In some parts of the area wells over 1,000
feet deep which penetrate the Cambrian and
Ordovician carbonate aquifers underlying the coal
bearing strata yield over 500 gallons per minute of
good to medium quality water. The dense slaty
shale and hard sandstone that largely make up the
Ouachita Mountains yield a poor supply of
groundwater in that area.
The soils of the region vary considerably but
are mostly sedimentary in origin. Soils range from
organic rich bottomland to sandy hillside loams.
The dominant soils in the northern part of the
region are black organic rich soils that often have a
brown clay subsoil. These soils developed from
glacial till or loess and are generally quite fertile.
The prevailing soil in the south is a dark red loam,
made up of decomposed sandstone and limestone.
The river valleys often have rich deposits of
alluvium.
The Western Interior Coal Region includes a
portion of the continent where the eastern decidu-
ous forests merge with the prairies and plains of
the west. Accordingly, there is a transition between
the vegetative communities typical of both biomes.
The deciduous forest, tall-grass prairie, and transi-
tional zones, including the savannahs, make up the
major habitat types. This mixture of habitats
within the region provides suitable food, shelter,
and cover for a variety of wildlife.
The mixed oak-hickory forest association is
common in the eastern portion of the region,
grading to oak-hickory-pine forest in the south-
eastern portion. Associated understory vegetation
includes dogwood, redbud, holly, sassafras, winged
elm, wild grape, spicebush, sumac, and numerous
native grasses and forbs. On well-shaded slopes,
mosses, liverworts, and fruticose lichens form a
continuous mat over the surface of the ground.
Few mammalian species develop large populations
in these forest associations. Whitetail deer, rac-
coon, red fox, gray fox, eastern gray squirrel, fox
squirrel, brush mouse, eastern woodrat, eastern
cottontail, striped skunk, and opossum are typical
mammals. Typical birds include those that prefer
the upper canopy layers, such as vireos and
warblers, and those occupying the lower canopy
and the forest floor, such as thrashers, wood
pewee, rufous-sided towhee, cardinal, wild turkey,
and ruffed grouse.
The bottomland forest association occupies
fertile bottomland soils of alluvial origin. This
vegetative association is found along water bodies
and stream courses. The more common species are
4-15
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
willow, cottonwood, American elm, sycamore, and
sweet gum. Boggy areas support a heavy cover of
herbs and ferns. Understory vegetation consists of
numerous small trees, shrubs, and lichens. As the
forests diminish to the west, and the prairies
become extensive, the relative amount of grassland
and woodland varies greatly in different parts of
the region. For the most part, grassland vegetation
consists of a mixture of such dominants as big
bluestem, little bluestem, Indian grass, silver beard
grass, and switch grass. Wildlife typical of prairie
areas and agricultural lands within the region
include whitetail deer, eastern cottontail, red fox,
and coyote. Typical birds in these open habitats
include horned lark, crow, cowbirds, grasshopper
sparrow, bobwhite, mourning dove, and ring-
necked pheasant. The greater prairie chicken may
be found in the savannah type.
Distribution of water plants usually is not
controlled in the same way as occurrence of the
plants growing in adjacent terrestrial habitats.
Many aquatic species rely on the various lakes,
ponds, or streams throughout the region. Some are
restricted to small areas or special types of lakes.
Species which are common to the aquatic vegeta-
tion community of the region include water willow,
cattails, spikerushes, duckweeds, watervelvet, wa-
ter chinquapin, waterlilies, spatterdock, smooth
water primrose, and a wide variety of submerged
aquatic aggregations.
Water bodies within the region are generally
highly productive and support a variety of fish
including bullheads, yellow perch, bluegills, large
mouth bass, crappie, shiners, and minnows. Fur-
bearers associated with these aquatic habitats
include mink, muskrat, beaver, otter, and raccoon.
Typical birds include red-winged blackbird, her-
ons, gulls, wood ducks, mallards, scaup, snow and
Canada geese, and bald eagle.
Some of the amphibians and reptiles common
in the region include cricket frog, bullfrog, collared
lizard, sixlined race runner, box turtle, spiny soft-
shelled turtle, ringnecked snake, kingsnake, gar-
tersnake, and ground snake.
There are 10 species of animals occurring
within the Western Interior Coal Region that now
have protected status as endangered species: These
include the red wolf, Indiana bat, gray bat,
peregrine falcon, Eskimo curlew, bald eagle, red-
cockaded woodpecker, and Bachman's warbler.
Presently, there is only one plant species in this
region listed as endangered. This is the northern
wild monkshood, with known distribution in Iowa.
However, there are numerous other plants under
consideration for designation as endangered or
threatened. These may be given protection by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The above-described ecosystems within the
Western Interior Coal Region's boundaries are
capable of natural reoccurrence after human
disturbance. Prairie grasses can reoccur through a
natural succession process within a few years of
disturbance. Oak-hickory forests, however, require
a much longer period to regenerate, although they
too can naturally reoccur. These ecosystems would
be reclaimable following coal mining operations;
however, proper attention would be necessary to
assist the reclamation process.
4.3.2 The Environment and Man
Evidence has been found that man existed in
the Western Interior Coal Region more than ten
thousand years ago. Artifacts reveal that wander-
ing tribes of hunters and gatherers were the first
inhabitants of the region. Gradually, some of the
tribes became sedentary and agricultural commu-
nities developed. The region is rich in archeologi-
cal sites dating from many periods. Over 60 of
these sites are included in the National Register of
Historic Places.
Recorded history began in 1541 when Francis-
co Vasquez de Coronado crossed the region in his
search of the fabled city of Cibola. In the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, French
trappers and hunters wandered down the Missouri
River and settled on its tributaries. The Missouri
River was the principal travel route for the
explorers of the early 1700's, and became the
standard route for the traders travelling between
St. Louis and the Mandan Indian villages in the
northern Great Plains during the 1780's and
1790's. By 1800 some towns and forts were
established and some areas in the eastern part of
the region along the Missouri were settled.
A new era in the development of the region
commenced with the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.
Expeditions were sent by the U.S. Government to
explore this newly acquired territory for its
resources. Following further explorations, impor-
tant trade routes and eventually cattle trails
became established during the nineteenth century.
The Texas Road, the Butterfield Stage Line, the
4-16
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
Chisolm Trail, and the California Road stimulated
the founding of trading posts and then settlements
along these routes.
At present, there are over 450 sites or districts
from this region included in the National Register
of Historic Places. These listings include sites
similar to those in the other eastern regions
(houses, churches, and courthouses), together with
a range of sites associated with early travel in the
area, new settlers, contacts with the American
Indians, and events of the Civil War.
The region has a long history related to
agriculture as the dominant land use. Present day
agriculture in the region includes the enormously
productive feed-grain and livestock producing
areas of central Iowa, much less productive general
farming in eastern Oklahoma, and poultry produc-
tion in the Arkansas portion. In the northern
portion of the region, over 75 percent of the land
area is in cropland, and a substantial part of this
area is prime farm land. In the Kansas and
Missouri portions, cropland represents from 50 to
70 percent of the land area. In the Oklahoma and
Arkansan portions, only 15 to 30 percent of all
land is used for crops but a higher percentage of
farm land is used as pastures. Principal crops are
corn, soybeans, peanuts, cotton, grain sorghums,
hay, and fruit. Along the Arkansas River, the
cropland is devoted to commercial vegetable
production for local canneries because of a
plentiful year-round water supply and excellent
soil for pasture.
Although cropland is decreasing in many areas
and improved pastures are increasing, the size of
farms shows a decided increase in acreage as
mechanized farming is now the rule and better
fertilizers and land management give greater yields
with less labor.
In the southern part of the region, where the
climate is warm and humid, timber is an important
resource. In recent decades, much of the cleared
land has been replaced by second and third
generation forests. Presently, trees are harvested
for timber and wood products, furniture and
fixtures, and paper and allied products.
The presence of coal in the region has been
known since the 1820's. Mining was not done on a
commercial scale until the Missouri, Kansas, and
Texas Railroad was built through McAlester,
Oklahoma, in 1872. At first, the coal was mined for
use as domestic and locomotive fuels. As branch
lines were built out into the various coal fields of
the region, mining expanded and began producing
coal for shipment to distant markets. The steadily
rising production continued and reached an all-
time high in 1920. However, annual production
declined after 1920 as railroads began using diesel-
powered locomotives. Production rose again in the
late 1940's and 50's, then declined rapidly again as
industry switched to oil and natural gas for fuel.
The energy problems of the 1970's triggered a new
increase in production, with present production
nearing the production figures of 1920.
The first natural gas in the region was
discovered in the Arkansas portion of the Arkoma
Basin in 1902. The first productive well in the
Oklahoma portion of the Arkoma Basin was
drilled near Poteau, in 1910. This discovery
spurred the drilling of numerous shallow wells in
the 1910's and 1920's. Many of the zones are still
productive or are being used for gas storage.
Presently, the only oil and gas producing States in
the Western Interior Coal Region are Arkansas,
Oklahoma, and Kansas. In 1955, rising natural gas
prices encouraged a new wave of drilling activity.
Development was hampered at first by the absence
of an adequate pipeline network, but new pipelines
were built and drilling activity boomed through the
mid-1960's. By the late 1960's, however, rapidly
increasing drilling costs coupled with stagnant or
slowly rising gas prices discouraged new, large-
scale drilling activity. In 1973, the energy crisis
forced natural gas prices upward and drilling
activity increased again. Higher gas prices and
steadily advancing drilling technology have en-
couraged drillers to seek pay zones at ever
increasing depths, and new wells in a number of
fields are more than 12,000 feet deep.
The tourist and recreation industry is of
moderate economic importance, but the region has
always been an area of high recreational use. Good
roads, proximity to population centers, and publi-
cized recreation resources result in heavy tourist
traffic. Two national wilderness areas are located
in national forests that are partially in this region.
They are Caney Creek with 14,344 acres in the
Ouachita National Forest, and Upper Buffalo,
encompassing 10,182 acres of the Ozark National
Forest. In addition, more than 66 state parks, 40
state recreational areas, 26 state forests and
preserves, and 20 other recreation areas lie within
the region. Combined annual attendance for these
4-17
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
facilities is over 1 9 million and their present area is
260,850 acres.
Principal manufacturing, retail and wholesale
trade centers in the region are in Des Moines,
Iowa; Omaha, Nebraska; Kansas City, Missouri;
Kansas City, Kansas; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Fort
Smith, Arkansas; and Topeka, Kansas. These large
cities are also executive centers for large business
such as major oil companies, large corporations,
financial and banking institutions. Total employ-
ment and earnings in each employment class
during 1974 is presented in Table 4-5 along with
percentage distribution.
Transportation systems have historically been
an influential factor in the development of the
region. The Missouri River provided the principal
means of access to the west during the early
portion of the nineteenth century. Later that
century, development was spurred by the advent of
the railroads. Today the region is served by eight
major railways, barge lines, and by truck service
over a widespread highway network including six
Interstate Highways. Major air terminals are
located in all major population centers and several
cities around the region within relatively easy
driving distances. Various electrical transmission
lines, water lines, microwave paths, telephone
lines, gas lines, and oil lines form a network
throughout the region. There are no coal slurry
pipelines in the region.
Socioeconomic data for the Western Interior
Coal Region are presented in Table 4-5. The
population totaled over 5.8 million in 1975 with a
density of 55 persons per square mile. Farm
populations vary from 11.3 to 28.1 percent among
the counties of the region, with urban dwellers
comprising another 58.5 percent of the total. The
population was relatively stable during the 1960's
with a slight gain between 1970 and 1976.
Land use development and settlement in the
region occurred in such a manner that there are no
major tracts of land under the Bureau of Land
Management's jurisdiction. The only significant
Federal lands in this region are the Ouachita and
Ozark National Forests, which are under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service; the DeSoto,
Squaw Creek, Swan Lake, Flint Hills, and Sequoy-
ah National Wildlife Refuges, which are under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
and scattered reservoirs and military bases, which
are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department
of Defense.
In summary, the region can be described as
predominately rural, with numerous farms and
ranches; a variety of second growth timbered areas
varying from small farm woodlots to managed
forest tracts; numerous small rural communities
and large metropolitan industrial centers; and an
extensive road network which permits mobility
and accessibility between them.
4.4 TEXAS COAL REGION
The Texas Coal Region is located entirely
within the Gulf Coastal Plain. The region encom-
passes 37,000 square miles in 51 Texas, four
Louisiana, and one Arkansas counties.
4.4.1 The Environment
The Texas Coal Region has major resources, in
the form of natural resources, agriculture, and
industry. Topographically, it consists of gently
sloping, irregular plains and tablelands. Elevation
does not exceed 1,000 feet above sea level. The
area is underlain with sedimentary rock of the
early Cenozoic Era of about 70 million years ago.
The soils have never been glaciated. These prehis-
toric conditions have enabled the preservation of
numerous fossil formations which are scattered
throughout Texas. Many formations are closely
associated with the lignite deposits.
In terms of historical geology, lignite consti-
tutes an early stage of development. It is a low
grade coal and contains separable pieces of plant
material. The relatively low value of the coal is
directly correlated with its recent geologic occur-
rence. Today's lignite deposits resulted from
accumulations of plant material in river deltas,
flood plains, and lagoons in the early and middle
Cenozoic Era. Subsequent sedimentation compact-
ed this organic matter to its present state.
The region's lignite reserves are estimated to be
3.3 billion tons. Both surface and subsurface
deposits exist in most counties. Generally lignite is
associated with three major seams which parallel
the northeast-southwest boundaries of the region.
Surface lignite is associated with the Wilcox or the
Yegua- Jackson Group, while subsurface lignite is
associated with a seam commonly referred to as
the Texas Deep-Basin deposit. Surface deposits are
usually less than 90 feet deep and are often found
in seams that are 10 to 20 feet thick. Many seams,
4-lt
TABLE 4-5
POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THE
WESTERN INTERIOR REGION (a)
1975 Total Population
5,883
,113
Total Area (square mi]
es) a
106
,957
Population per square
mile (1975)
55.0
Per Capita Personal Income (1975)
$5
,209
Per Capita Personal Income as a
Percent of National
Average (1975)
103
— '
PERCENT
EARNINGS
PERCENT
ECONOMIC SECTOR
EMPLOYMENT
OF
TOTAL
(in thousands
of dollars)
OF
TOTAL
Livestock
120,941
5
695,712
3
Other Agriculture
148,071
6
1,189,313
5
Metal Mining
-
-
—
"
Coal Mining
4,398
0-1
24,330
0-1
Oil and Gas
7,000
0-1
351,942
1
Other Mining
9,950
0-1
56,561
0-1
Construction
100,263
4
1,509,177
6
All Manufacturing
453,746
19
4,963,749
21
Transportation,
Communication,
and Public
Utilities
121,222
5
2,276,548
10
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
499,512
21
4,330,842
18
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
122,726
5
1,326,721
6
Other Services
326,544
14
3,305,990
14
Federal Govt.
120,799
5
1,458,612
6
State and Local
Govt.
330,042
14
2,338,467
10
TOTAL
2,365,214
23,827,964
( a ) Demographic information which is based on all counties either totally
or partially within regional boundaries.
4-19
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
however, are thinner and are thus presently
unattractive for development. Texas Deep-Basin
coal is found up to 5,000 feet below the surface.
Most of the subsurface deposits are found in the
northeastern half of the region.
Other significant mineral resources are located
within this area of Texas and Louisiana. This
region is a very major contributor to the nation's
petroleum and natural gas production. In addition,
ample iron ore, clay, sand, and gravel reserves are
available to supply regional construction needs.
Soils of sandy, silty, or clay loams overlay the
mineral deposits throughout the region. Soil
conditions vary from acidic to basic at varying
locations. The soil's organic content also varies
among locations, depending not only on natural
conditions but also on the particular land use. Soil
moisture and consequently soil productivity varies
extensively from northeast to southwest according
to the degree of precipitation and irrigation.
Climatic conditions are such that the region
receives about 48 inches of precipitation in the
northeast but only 16 inches in the southwest. This
variance is due largely to the variability in the
influence of the Gulf of Mexico. The northeastern
area is more heavily influenced by the sub-tropical
winds from the Gulf. The result is a more humid
climate. Proceeding southwesterly, the Gulfs
influence diminishes and the region is subjected to
the wind currents from interior Mexico and the
Southwest. The result is thus an increasingly arid
climate in the southwestern portion of the region.
These conditions create periodic droughts in the
southwestern portion. They do not, however,
permit any measurable quantities of snowfall.
Winters are cool with daily mean temperatures
ranging from 64°F in the northeast to 70°F in the
southwest. Summers are hot. Record temperatures
throughout the region exceed 100°F. Temperatures
in excess of 100°F occur every summer.
Average wind speeds are approximately 10
miles per hour and are generally southerly or
southeasterly. An outstanding characteristic is
their steadiness and persistence. The region is
continually and consistently ventilated so that no
major concentrations of air pollutants (sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen dioxides, and particulates) are
found within its boundaries. Minor concentrations
of particulates do, however, occur at Waco, Tyler,
Austin, and San Antonio, Texas.
Like the climate, the region's water characteris-
tics change from northeast to southwest. Runoff is
substantial in the northeast (up to 16 inches a
year), but is essentially nonexistent in the south-
west (down to 1 inch a year). Potential evapotran-
spiration in the area is highest of all the regions,
averaging 42 inches a year over most of the region
and exceeding 54 inches a year in the extreme
southwest.
Numerous streams, including the Sabine,
Brazos, Red, Neches, Trinity, Colorado, and
Nueces Rivers, drain the region and empty into the
Gulf of Mexico. The combined flow of these rivers
and their tributaries is 61.5 million acre-feet per
year. Stream sediment levels decrease to the
northeast as precipitation and runoff increase.
Total dissolved solids range from 270 to over 1,900
milligrams per liter in streams in the western part,
and from less than 350 to over 1,200 milligrams per
liter in eastern parts of the region. Streams in the
area may carry up to several thousand milligrams
per liter in areas affected by salt seeps and oil-field
activities. Of the total surface water withdrawn,
15.5 million acre-feet are consumptively used each
year, primarily for irrigation and industry.
Groundwater is abundant and of good quality.
Very high yields, over 1,000 gallons per minute,
have been reported from both bedrock and alluvial
aquifers. The water generally contains less than
500 milligrams per liter of total dissolved solids,
but quality deteriorates with increasing depth. In
the southwestern part of the area, some natural
groundwaters contain high levels of trace metals
and fluoride. Additionally, groundwater quality
has been affected in some areas by oil-field
activities. Groundwater use in the region is
approximately 75,000 acre-feet per year, primarily
for public and industrial water supply.
The interplay of these environmental factors
contributes to considerable ecological diversity
within the region. From northeast to southwest
there is a transition in natural vegetation from oak-
hickory-pine forest, to oak-hickory forest, to
mesquite-oak savannah, and lastly to mesquite-
acacia savannah. Of the deciduous forest species,
blackjack oak, post oak, and shagbark hickory
associations are the more prevalent. Much of the
natural vegetation is presently thriving, as approxi-
mately 30 percent of the total region is forested.
The primary tree species in the coniferous
forests are loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and
4-20
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
longleaf pine. The vegetation of the region's flood
plains differs, however. Cypress, sweetbay, mai-
dencane, cattails, pondweeds, alligator weed, and
watermilfoil are dominant plant species in these
locations. Mixed shrubs and grasses are the most
common types of flora in the mesquite savannahs.
In addition to mesquite and acacia, major species
include yucca, juniper, little bluestem, gramma,
wheatgrass, needlegrass, and buffalograss.
The diverse associations of flora serve as
habitats for a variety of wildlife populations. For
example, populations of raccoon, fox squirrel, wild
turkey, and red-eyed vireo thrive in the forests
while populations of bobwhite, ringtail cat, eastern
cottontail, and fulvous harvest mouse thrive in the
savannahs. Species common throughout the region
include armadillo, coyote, peccary, and whitetail
deer. Major fish include catfish, minnows, shiners,
and various gamefish such as black bass, crappie,
spotted bass, and sunfish.
Most of the species that exist in the region have
proven to be somewhat compatible with man.
Some species, however, are more adaptable to
human habitation. They are, therefore, common in
areas that border agricultural, natural resource, or
community developments. Other species are more
sensitive to human activity. Their populations have
diminished to the point where they are rare or in
danger of extinction. Federally listed endangered
species of wildlife include the Houston toad,
Mexican duck, whooping crane, peregrine falcon,
bald eagle, red wolf, American alligator, and
fountain darter. Presently, there is only one species
of plant listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. This is Texas wild rice. Numerous
other plants are under consideration for designa-
tion as endangered. They may eventually be listed
as threatened or endangered.
The ecosystems within the Texas Coal Region
are not particularly fragile. The forests and
savannahs can sustain a degree of disruption and
eventually return to a natural state. This is
presently being demonstrated in areas where there
was earlier widespread clear-cutting of deciduous
and coniferous forests. Within decades these lands
became reforested through natural successions.
Disturbed vegetation may take many years to
mature to an oak-hickory climax forest similar to
original virgin timber. Nevertheless, immature
oak-hickory-pine associations can reoccur natural-
ly within 50 years. Mesquite savannahs can
regenerate even more quickly. Additionally the
gently rolling topography is not overly vulnerable
to erosion, although localized erosion problems
exist, paricularly in the southwestern portion of the
region. In summary, the ecosystem within the
Texas Region could be reclaimed with proper
management, should the surface be disturbed by
coal mining.
4.4.2 The Environment and Man
The natural resources of the Texas Coal
Region have historically attracted man. Prior to
the European colonization of North America, the
region supported Indian populations from the
Caddo, Wichita, Tonkawa, Lipan, and Desert
Tribes. Hunting was the main means of survival.
Bison, deer, and smaller birds, mammals, and
reptiles were primary food sources.
The land was not visited by Europeans until
the sixteenth century. In 1542 a Spaniard named
Mosoco, who had been a member of de Soto's
party, entered the Texas Region from the north-
east, proceeded southwesterly to about the center
of the region, and then returned by the same route.
Mosoco's exploration initiated Spanish coloniza-
tion of the area.
Over the next three centuries Spanish colonists
settled the area and missions and small farms were
established. By the nineteenth century, the produc-
tivity of the land also proved attractive to the
westward expanding states. English speaking peo-
ple began migrating to the area. Conflicts resulted
between the Spaniards from Mexico and the
citizens of the United States. War eventually
resulted with troops lead by Sam Houston and
Santa Anna. The Mexicans were defeated, and the
U.S. obtained possession of the land. After 10
years as an independent republic, Texas joined the
Union in 1845.
By 1850, the northeastern half of the region
had been settled by westward migrating pioneers.
The area's flood plains were settled first because of
their agricultural productivity and proximity to
water. Timber and clay resources were more than
adequate to supply all needs for construction
materials. By 1890 cities and towns were scattered
throughout the region. The region proved especial-
ly attractive to ranchers and farmers. The vast
grasslands of the southwestern portion could
readily support cattle or sheep, and extensive
ranches were developed in this area. In the wooded
4-21
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
territory of the northeast, some of the land was
cleared for pasture or the cultivation of cash crops.
The central ecotone between the grassland and
forestland (mesquite-oak savannah) supported
both farming and ranching. Environmental condi-
tions permitted the widespread cultivation of
cotton in the northeastern central areas. Much of
the land still supports cattle and sheep production
and the cultivation of cotton and other cash crops.
Currently, approximately 70,000 persons, or about
10 percent of the total regional work force are
employed in the agricultural sector.
The vast stands of virgin timber in the
northeast continue to be highly productive. Exten-
sive lumbering operations began about 1880. The
economics of the industry, at that time, required
the harvesting of only large diameter trees. Within
decades, however, construction material and paper
demands grew with the population, and all timber
stands became valuable. By 1930, all virgin timber
stands had been harvested. Presently, timber
demand still is high particularly for pulpwood
production in the northeast; however, primarily
second and some third generation timber is being
harvested.
In addition to timber, numerous other re-
sources were developed for use as twentieth
century construction material. Clay for brick
manufacturing is plentiful in the area. Ample sand
and gravel supplies are available for use as cement
for buildings or concrete for highways. Large
deposits of iron ore are found throughout the
northeastern portion. The ore is a low grade brown
ore, but is being actively mined for use as a
highway construction material.
Perhaps the most attractive natural resources
within the Texas Coal Region are the energy
minerals. In addition to lignite, oil and gas are
abundant. Texas became the leading State in the
country for production of both oil and gas. Much
of these resources are produced within the bound-
aries of the Texas Coal Region. The region is
presently producing more oil and gas than it
consumes, and contributes significantly to the
country's energy demands. The low grade lignite
found within the region has not been economically
competitive with oil and gas. Until recently, the
higher grade bituminous and anthracite coals were
of greater economic value to industry. According-
ly, no major development of the region's lignite
deposits has occurred to date. Scattered localized
development of lignite, however, is occurring for
intraregional industrial use. Industries are, never-
theless, becoming interested in lignite develop-
ment.
The demand for the region's numerous re-
sources also created a demand for a transportation
network with the capacity to accommodate the
movement of bulk commodities, as well as people
and their necessities. The entire region is cris-
scrossed by a diversified network of rail main lines
and branch lines operated by the Missouri Pacific,
Southern Pacific, St. Louis Southwestern, Atchison
Topeka and Santa Fe, Louisana and Arkansas,
Texas and Pacific, and Missouri-Kansas-Texas
railways. The region's highway network is com-
posed of numerous county, State, and Federal
highways, all of which can lead eventually to
access to the major Interstate Highways. The
pipeline system is composed of oil and gas lines.
No coal slurry pipelines are located in the region.
Natural resource development has led to
dramatic socioeconomic changes for the region
during the twentieth century. Table 4-6 presents
pertinent socioeconomic data which provides
information on the relative importance of specific
sectors of the region's economy. In addition to
rural development, community and urban growth
has been inspired by resource-dependent industry.
Industrial growth has been and still is a dynamic
phenomenon in the region. Currently, approxi-
mately 150,000 workers, or about 17 percent of the
total regional labor force, is in the manufacturing
sector. Industrial growth concentrations include
Tyler, Longview, Bryan, and San Antonio, Texas,
and Shreveport, Louisiana. These cities are absorb-
ing growth in a relatively organized manner.
The resource-oriented economic base of the
region has brought prosperity to the Texas Coal
Region. Surplus resources are exported, thereby
resulting in an influx of revenues. Regional capital,
together with an adequate labor pool, has been
capable of supporting industrial development.
They are available for continued resource develop-
ment.
Cultural development within the Texas Coal
Region provides the area with an interesting
history. Indian artifacts can be found throughout
the region. Historical sites from the Alamo to
Lyndon Baines Johnson's boyhood home are
located within its boundaries. Approximately 150
such sites are listed on the National Register of
4-22
TABLE 4-6
POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THE
TEXAS REGION ( a '
1975 Total Population
2,526,616
Total Area (square miles)
45,900
Population per square
mile (1975)
55.1
Per Capita Personal Income (1975)
$4,398
Per Capita Personal Income as a
Percent of National Average (1975)
87
ECONOMIC SECTOR
EMPLOYMENT
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
EARNINGS
(in thousands
of dollars)
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
Livestock
28,613
3
126,314
2
Other Agriculture
52,818
6
167,179
2
Metal Mining
270
0-1
2,623
0-1
Coal Mining
672
0-1
3,149
0-1
Oil and Gas
14,191
2
231,256
3
Other Mining
1,657
0-1
5,099
0-1
Construction
52,274
6
533,911
7
All Manufacturing
149,330
17
1,471,359
18
Transportation,
Communication,
and Public
Utilities
31,239
3
524,726
6
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
182,096
20
1,381,368
17
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
35,398
4
349,263
4
Other Services
113,792
13
1,164,056
14
Federal Govt.
104,125
12
1,275,904
16
State and Local
Govt.
130,791
15
914,083
11
TOTAL
897,266
8,150,290
(a) Demographic information which is based on all counties either totally
or partially within regional boundaries.
4-23
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
Historic Places. The Chisholm and Old Cattle
Trails, currently proposed for the National System
of Trails, are being considered for protection and
preservation.
The region's population growth and settlement
patterns have been such that no surface land
ownership is presently under the Bureau of Land
Management's jurisdiction. The major Federal
lands in the region are Camp Swift and the Sam
Rayburn Reservoir and the Sommerville Reser-
voir, which are under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Department of Defense and portions of the Sabine,
Davy Crockett, Sam Houston, and Angelino
National Forests, which are under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Forest Service.
4.5 POWDER RIVER COAL REGION
The Powder River Coal Region is the south-
west portion of the Northern Great Plains. The
region encompasses about 31,300 square miles in
eight Montana and eight Wyoming counties.
4.5.1 The Environment
The region is on a broad plain bordered by the
Rocky Mountains on the west, the Black Hills
uplift on the east, and the Missouri River on the
north. The area is covered primarily with the thin
stony deposits characteristic of a semi-arid area,
with recent alluvial deposits and terrace gravels in
the floodplains. These alluvial deposits of sand and
silt with lenses of gravel usually occur in thick-
nesses up to 15 feet along the major rivers of the
area and 10 to 15 feet along the tributaries.
Rocks are mostly sedimentary, and rest nearly
horizontal except along the flanks of the Bighorn
Mountains where they turn up sharply. The
sedimentary rocks consist of several thousand feet
of sandstone, shale, limestone, conglomerate, and
beds of sub-bituminous coal. Some of these beds
were deposited on the floors of ancient seas that
extended across the continent; others were depos-
ited in deltas or tidal areas along the margins of the
seas or inland in broad basins. Coal formed in tidal
swamps and marshes along the marine shores, and
also in swamps and lakes on the flood plains of
major drainage systems of inland basins which
developed after the continents were uplifted and
the seas retreated. Coal of commercial interest is
contained in the Tongue River member of the Fort
Union Formation and the overlying Wasatch
Formation.
In general, the coal beds are thickest in the
northern parts of the region and across the gently
dipping northern and eastern sides of the Powder
River basin in Wyoming. A large proportion of
this coal lies in near-surface beds that are readily
available to surface mining. The region contains
approximately 142.5 billion tons of sub-bituminous
coal resources.
The thickness of these beds is unsurpassed
anywhere in the U.S. The Wyodak seam in the
Wyoming portion of the basin is as much as 120
feet thick, and contains 212,400 tons of coal per
acre within a few feet of the surface. In the central
parts of the region, south of the Yellowstone River
in Montana, there are several beds with equally
abundant coal in near-surface seams.
In addition to coal, extensive deposits of oil
and gas are found in the Wyoming portion of the
region and in Montana around the Bull Moun-
tains. Uranium is also found in the Wyoming
portion. Underlying the entire Powder River Coal
Region south of the Yellowstone is the Madison
Group, which is considered the top part of the
major aquifer of the basin. This aquifer dips very
steeply off the flanks of the Bighorn Mountains to
a point about 15,000 feet below the surface. The
Madison Group rises gently from this point toward
the Yellowstone River and the Black Hills where it
outcrops. The Madison Group is about 200 feet
thick near the south end of the basin and gradually
thickens toward the Yellowstone where it is up to
1,400 feet thick.
The regional climate, is continental and semi-
arid. Frontal systems from the Pacific regularly
cross the area, but have dropped most of their
moisture on the western slopes of the Rocky
Mountains. About a dozen times a year, winter
storms from the north swing through the area,
bringing windy and often intensely cold weather
with rarely significant moisture. These cold waves
are often modified by periods of milder weather
created by "chinook" winds. These winds, warm
and dry, frequently reach 25-50 mph and may
persist for several days. Spring and summer bring
some moisture; however, the area is considered
dry.
The average annual temperature varies little
throughout the area, with most points averaging
45 °F. Maximum temperatures occur in July when
100°F temperatures are recorded. The arctic
outbreaks in winter bring extreme cold in January
4-24
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
and February, with record lows in many areas of -
50°F.
Seventy-five percent of the average annual
precipitation of 14 inches falls between April and
September. At least half occurs during late spring
and early summer, at the start of the growing
season. Despite the region's aridity, flooding is
common in the spring when rapid snow melt
produces heavy runoff.
Perhaps the most important climatic feature in
shaping the region is the recurrence of drought
cycles. Though this region is characterized as semi-
arid, it varies from humid in some years to arid in
others and is never predictable.
The region is windy, with average speeds of 12
mph. The prevailing direction is westerly, but
directions near terrain features may vary consider-
ably. Surface-based inversions occur on 75-85
percent of the mornings, summer and winter; and
on winter afternoons, surface based inversions
occur about 35 percent of the time. Stable
conditions are prevalent in spite of generally windy
conditions, and these circumstances contribute to
the high summertime afternoon mixing heights.
Air quality in the region is generally good.
Some variations do exist around populated areas
and even more so in areas where coal surface
mining is presently taking place. In Montana, the
particulate air quality is very good except for the
Colstrip area in Rosebud County and the Billings
area in Yellowstone County. The Colstrip area,
where surface mining and electric generation are
taking place, is not meeting the primary standard
for particulates. The Billings area is not meeting
the secondary standard. Particulate air quality in
the Wyoming counties is better than the national
standards. However, in areas where substantial
coal surface mining is taking place (such as
Campbell and Converse counties in Wyoming), the
air quality in the immediate area of the mine site
may not be as good. Sulfur dioxide air quality is
better than the national standard throughout the
region, with the exception of Billings.
The major streams of the region are the
Yellowstone, Big Horn, Powder, Tongue, Belle
Fourche, and Musselshell Rivers. Surface reser-
voirs for regulation of streamflow have a combined
capacity of about 2.5 million acre-feet. Surface
water runoff is low, about half an inch per year.
Potential evapotranspiration over most of the area
is less than 24 inches a year, but in the Yellowstone
River lowlands it rises to as much as 36 inches.
Surface water quality is variable. The Powder
and Big Horn Rivers commonly carry concentra-
tions of dissolved solids in excess of 1,000 mg/liter.
Streams with heavy sediment load are the Powder
and the Yellowstone, ranging from a low of about
270 mg/liter to a high 1,900 mg/liter. Over the
remainder of the area, the sediment loads are
variable and can exceed 1,900 mg/liter.
The occurrence of groundwater in the region is
far from uniform. In Montana, there are large
areas where shallow wells will yield only 2 to 4
gpm, but wells drilled into the bedrock aquifers,
such as the Hell Creek and Fox Hills Formations
(Cretaceous) or the Fort Union (Paleocene) may
yield more than 50 gpm. Many wells drilled in the
Powder River and Yellowstone River Valleys flow
under artesian pressure, but lowering of artesian
pressures sometimes necessitates pumping. Much
of the southern and southeastern region is under-
lain by several thousand feet of non-productive
shales. Groundwater can be produced at a rate of
up to several hundred gpm from wells in permea-
ble valley fills along major streams. The greatest
development of these alluvial deposits is along the
Yellowstone River and its tributaries.
The Madison Limestone Formation underlies
the region at considerable depths, and is currently
being tested by the U.S. Geological Survey as a
potential source of water supply for the coal
industry. Recent studies indicate that the water is
chemically suitable, but the quantity available for
withdrawal is unknown.
Groundwater quality is variable. Generally, at
depths greater than 500 feet, all groundwater has
more than 1,000 mg/liter of total dissolved solids.
The amount of groundwater withdrawn in 1975 for
consumptive uses was about 124,000 acre-feet, of
which about 34,000 acre-feet was actually con-
sumed. The largest use was for irrigation, and the
second largest use for self-supplied industries.
Groundwater in storage is about 1.4 million
acre-feet in the near-surface alluvial aquifer mate-
rial. Estimated reserves from the deep Madison
limestone, however, are unknown, although esti-
mates range up to over one billion acre-feet.
Topographically, the region can be divided
into three general areas: the Powder River drain-
age in Wyoming, the Tongue River drainage in
Montana, and the area north of the Yellowstone
4-25
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
River. The Wyoming area drained by the Powder
River has gently undulating topography with clay
and loam soils that have a large amount of sodium
in the clays. These soils are dry much of the year
and their relative productivity is poor. Exceptions
are the locally important and more productive soils
associated with flood plains of the Powder River,
Little Powder River, and lesser tributaries. These
flood plains with alluvial soils are often broadly
terraced and have high water tables. Typical flood
plain vegetation includes cottonwood, willow,
green ash, boxelder, chokecherry, greasewood, salt
grass, and western wheatgrass. Wildlife ranging
over many miles of the adjacent plains rely on
these flood plains for critical resource needs.
The remainder of the Wyoming portion of the
region can be generally classed short-grass prairie,
grassland-sagebrush, and sagebrush steppe. These
vegetation types may seem monotonous and
unproductive. They are, however, a complex
assemblage of plants that are well adapted to the
extremes of weather which occur in the area. Lying
dormant during periods of drought, they are
capable of quick response to precipitation, produc-
ing significant quantities of foliage of high nutrient
value. Besides the common grasses and sagebrush,
there is an abundance of forbs that increase the
species diversity and resilience of the vegetative
community, which in turn supports a diverse
assemblage of animals.
North of the Wyoming border in the Tongue
River basin and the lower reaches of the Powder
River there is a change in topography and an
associated change in soils, vegetation, and wildlife.
The dominant soil in the Tongue River basin is
loam with fair to very good productivity. The area
is highly dissected by numerous small drainages
dominated by two major vegetation types, grass-
land-sagebrush and ponderosa pine. The pondero-
sa pine type occurs on uplands, ridges, and north
slopes that have shallow loam soils. Prominent
species of plants are ponderosa pine, snowberry
bluegrasses, fescues, and June grass.
North of the Yellowstone, the Powder River
Coal Region is dominated by soil types not found
south of the river. The undulating to hilly land has
shallow to moderately deep loamy soils that are
nearly always dry and hence have low productivi-
ty. These lands are vegetated by the mid-to-short-
grass prairie type, characterized by such species as
western wheatgrass, needle-and-thread grass, and
blue grama grass. On the northern border of the
region along the Missouri River are the "Breaks",
highly dissected land forms similar to the Badlands
in North and South Dakota.
In general, the region can be considered part of
the short-grass prairie. The high annual turnover of
net primary production in its grasslands and
sagebrush steppe communities provides a food
base for a wide variety of mammals. Grazing
animals, burrowing mammals, and ground-nesting
birds are characteristic of the grasslands. Insect life
is abundant, varied, and heavily utilized as food
for many secondary consumers. Sagebrush is
prominent in the vegetation composition in parts
of the grassland, especially in the southern part of
the region, and is important to pronghorn antelope
and Brewer's sparrows and virtually essential to
sage grouse. Large herbivores such as bison and
antelope were present in great number during
presettlement times. Today, bison have been
replaced as the primary grazing animals by
domestic livestock as horses, cattle, and sheep
often compete with herbivores.
Practices used in livestock production have
sometimes disrupted the grassland ecosystem to
the detriment of various wildlife species. Examples
are predator and rodent control programs and
sagebrush eradication in antelope or sage grouse
wintering areas. Antelope are still numerous in the
grasslands; investigations have shown that they are
highly dependent on the brush and forb compo-
nents of the grassland for survival. Typical smaller
mammals include the masked shrew, white-tailed
jackrabbit (northwest), black-tailed jackrabbit
(southeast), desert cottontail, black-tailed prairie
dog, northern pocket gopher, the plains pocket
gopher (south), coyote, long-tail weasel, badger,
and prairie spotted skunk. Reptiles include the
prairie rattlesnake and eastern short-horned lizard.
Birds include the ferruginous hawk, sharp-tailed
grouse, mountain plover, burrowing owl, horned
lark, western meadowlark, lark bunting, savannah
sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, vesper sparrow,
and McCown's longspur. Drought and severe
winter storms occur periodically, and some animal
populations can fluctuate widely from year to year.
In the ecotone area between the montane
coniferous forest and the grasslands, animal
species characteristic of the coniferous forest and
of the forest edge will often be found. Some of
these animals, such as mule deer and elk, also
4-26
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
occur in extensions or scattered islands of conifer-
ous forest and related subtypes within the grass-
land. Typical mammals of the coniferous forest
and forest edge include the golden-mantled ground
squirrel, least chipmunk, red squirrel, bushy-tailed
wood rat, boreal redback vole, porcupine, mule
deer, elk, and bobcat. Birds include the golden
eagle, Clark's nutcracker, mountain chickadee,
mountain bluebird, and pygmy nuthatch.
The deciduous forest edge extends into the
shortgrass plains along stream drainages. As the
interior of the continent grew arid in prehistoric
times, many species of deciduous trees together
with their associated animals were able to persist
along the stream. These tongues of forest greatly
extend the forest edge, increasing the number of
species that can live in the grasslands. Some
species are common to the deciduous forest edge
over most of its range, and others are found only in
the western portion of this type. Typical mammals
in these areas include the fox squirrel, eastern
cottontail, whitetail deer, red fox, striped skunk,
and raccoon. Reptiles include the blue racer, milk
snake, and red-spotted garter snake. Birds include
the turkey vulture, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's
hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson's hawk, mourn-
ing dove, common nighthawk, red-shafted flicker,
violet-green swallow, common crow, black-billed
magpie, loggerhead shrike, and Brewer's blackbird.
Aquatic wildlife includes a variety of inverte-
brates, fishes, birds, mammals, reptiles, and am-
phibians associated with the stream, lake, and
pond-marsh communities. Typical inhabitants of
stream riffles and sand-bottom pools are caddisfly
larvae, mayfly naiads, stonefly naiads, crayfish,
and snails. Characteristic species include the
longnose dace, flathead chub, goldeye, river
carpsucker, black bullhead, channel catfish, stone-
cat, plains topminnow, plains killfish, and white
sucker. Rainbow and brown trout are found in
suitable larger streams. Other stream-associated
wildlife include the tiger salamander, plains spade-
foot toad, great plains toad, leopard frog, and
snapping turtle. Muskrats use burrows in stream
banks and feed on streamside vegetation. Beaver
feed on the aspen, willow, and cottonwoods along
stream courses and in some localities build dams
creating pools.
Species characteristic of the few lakes in the
region include yellow perch, largemouth bass,
black crappie, and carp. In deeper, cooler lakes
rainbow trout are often planted and maintained by
man. A number of birds commonly inhabit the
lakes and subsist mainly on fish. Common mergan-
sers, California gulls, bald eagles, white pelicans,
and osprey are among them. Swallows consume
great numbers of emerging midges and other
insects.
Wildlife species in this region that are classified
as endangered are the black-footed ferret, whoop-
ing crane, bald eagle, and American peregrine
falcon. Some species, while not endangered
throughout their range, have remnant populations
in danger of being eliminated in local areas. This
has prompted some states to develop "rare and
endangered" species lists. Wyoming's list includes
such species as the shovelnose sturgeon, sturgeon
chub, kit fox, upland plover, and western smooth
green snake, all of which occur within this region.
There are no plant species currently listed as
endangered or threatened; however, some species
found in this region currently are being considered
for inclusion.
4.5.2 The Environment and Man
The earlier dwellers of the plains are believed
to have been the Paleo Indians of the Big-Game
Hunting Tradition.
Although not well documented within this
region, the Paleo-Indian big game hunting tradi-
tion of the pre-8000 B.C. period can be character-
ized by sites such as Brewster and Hell Gap
immediately to the east and southeast of the
region. The Hell Gap site in Niobrara County,
Wyoming, produced evidence of several occupa-
tion levels to approximately 9000 B.C. This region
is in the transition area from the Eastern Archaic
to the western Desert Culture, occupied in the pre-
1000 B.C. period by the Middle Prehistoric cultural
complex. The final cultural development produced
the Plains Bison Hunter complex that was ances-
tral to the tribal groups encountered by early
European explorers. The most common evidence
are the piles of buffalo bones found at the base of
small cliffs. The area is rich in archeological
resources but remains largely uninvestigated with
no major systematic program having been under-
taken. Most identified sites were found by accident
or were attempts to salvage sites being developed
for mining, industrial, or urban uses.
The first non-Indians to enter the region were
seeking beaver. Men like Jim Bridger and Will
4-27
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
Sublette came into the land as explorers and
trappers and became trail blazers who led pioneers
across the great American Desert to the California
gold fields and the lush Willamette Valley in
Oregon Territory. Most of the early pioneers
passed through the region believing that it was
unsuitable for their agrarian culture. Settlers
headed for California and Oregon passed through
during this period. The gold rush to California
started in 1849 and persisted until 1870. The
Montana gold strike was in 1865 and it attracted
more people through the area.
The influence of the non-Indian culture in the
plains grew rapidly. The development of the
telegraph, railroads, cattle drives, and the passage
of the first Homestead Act in 1862 began the
process which eliminated the vast buffalo herds.
Two tribes, the Crow and Northern Cheyenne,
occupied the region beginning in the 17th Century.
Both tribes were a mobile society depending on the
buffalo for a significant part of their consumptive
needs. Both tribes signed the Friendship Treaty of
1825 and the Ft. Laramie Treaty of 1851, both of
which were violated by non-Indians. These viola-
tions led to conflict. The most famous of this
period is the 1876 Battle of the Little Big Horn
where General Custer and his troops were killed.
Many historic remnants of this period have been
preserved. In addition to the Custer Battlefield,
there are many U.S. Army Forts still found in the
area.
The Northern Cheyenne and Crow were
unsuccessful in their attempts to retain the lands
granted to them in the earlier treaties and eventu-
ally agreed to move onto their present reservations.
The Northern Cheyenne Tongue River Reserva-
tion, consisting of 371,200 acres, was established in
1884. The name of this reservation has been
changed to the Northern Cheyenne Indian reserva-
tion and has been expanded by Tribal land
purchases to 444,308 acres.
The treaty of Ft. Laramie granted the Crows a
hunting reservation of 38,883,174 acres in Mon-
tana and Wyoming. In 1868 the Federal Govern-
ment reduced this to 9 million acres which lie
primarily in Big Horn County, Montana. Sales by
the Crows and further reductions by the U.S.
Government reduced the Crow reservation to
1,569,288 acres.
Stock raising in the Powder River Coal Region
became a booming business which grew rapidly
between the civil war and the 1880's. At first it was
based on a free open range with the only constraint
being the number of head a group could put
together and the availability of stock water. The
scarcity of water was immediately evident. Devel-
opment of springs, small retention dams on
intermittent streams, and the windmill are still the
critical links in the chain that makes the region's
grazing lands useful. Conflicts over the use of
western water continue to this day even at the
national level.
In the early days of ranching most cattle were
left on the range year round. Although winter feed
was limited, most cattle survived and reproduced
in sufficient numbers to maintain a viable econo-
my. Records show that the period from the end of
the civil war until the end of the 1880's was a
period of unusually high precipitation. The condi-
tion of the range and the availability of winter
forage were significantly higher than could be
normally expected. However, in the late 1880's,
particularly the winter of 1886-87, the growing
cattle empires suffered devastating losses. Severe
cold and high winds killed hundreds of thousands
of animals.
Cattlemen partially addressed this problem by
insuring a good supply of winter feed. They
accomplished this by converting bottomlands to
irrigated hay meadows, the mainstay of the
industry yet today. Simple one-man stream diver-
sions grew to cooperative efforts between neigh-
bors to large ditch companies that not only built
and maintain diversion and delivery facilities but
also reservoirs to store the spring runoff for use
during the summer and late fall. By the 1890's
irrigation systems could be found in most of the
areas where their development was practical and
economical. The opportunity to develop irrigated
haylands was not as available in the southern part
of the region. Therefore, many ranchers in this
region still depend on the range for winter feed
often supplemented by hay purchased from other
areas.
The cattle industry of today is essentially the
same as it was at the turn of the century. The
ranches as they now exist in the area are large.
Average size for Campbell and Converse Counties,
Wyoming, is over 7,000 acres. Most of these
ranches are self-contained, but some ranchers
move cattle and sheep from their base ranches to
summer ranges on public lands located some
4-28
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
distance away. Most units utilize some state or
Federally owned surface rights. Machinery has
replaced much of the hand labor; smaller outfits
have been absorbed by larger ones; and local
owners have in some instances been bought out by
corporations. For those people on the land their
life is much the same as those of their grandfathers
and grandmothers who settled the land. Hay is
irrigated and cut and stacked in the summer and
fall. Cattle are rounded up in the fall, fed on the
home place over winter, and transferred to the
range for the summer where they feed and grow on
native vegetation.
Many of the settlers who began to enter the
region after the turn of the century came to farm.
As a result, much of the land in the region has been
used to produce dryland crops, particularly wheat.
However, the soils and the rainfall are marginal at
best and, except for those farms that are irrigated,
like those along the Yellowstone River. A cycle of
boom and bust has been the rule. During periods
of drought, wind erosion starts and tons of soil,
developed over thousands of years, are lost in a
matter of days.
The last few decades have shown a variability
in amount of dryland farming, crop yields, and
crop failures. During the 1920's, drought drove
many homesteaders off the land. The Federal
Government, operating under the National Indus-
trial Recovery Act of 1933, Emergency Relief Act
of 1935, and the Bankhead Jones Act of 1937,
reacquired many of these eroded lands and
replanted them with forage plants. Some of these
lands have been included in the Thunder Basin
National Grasslands in the southern part of the
region.
Many of the above described events are being
preserved for posterity's sake by historic designa-
tions. Sheridan and Johnson Counties alone, for
example, contain more than 65 historic sites
eligible for or enrolled in the National Register of
Historic Places.
Although ranching and farming are the life
style, and constitute the economic activity general-
ly associated with the region, the exploitation of
oil, gas, and uranium have made significant
economic contributions, particularly in the Wyom-
ing portion of the region. Table 4-7 presents an
overview of comparative data for the various
sectors of the region's economy.
Oil and/or natural gas have been discovered in
more than 200 fields within the Wyoming portion
of the region, and active exploration continues.
Most of the fields produce from either the Muddy
Sandstone of Cretaceous age or the Minnelusa
Formation of Pennsylvanian age. The Cloverly
Formation of early Cretaceous age is also an
important producing horizon and lesser amounts
of oil and/or natural gas come from Sundance,
Morrison, Mowry, Turner, Niobrara, Shannon,
Sussex, Parkman, Ferguson, and Teapot Sand-
stones.
From the first significant oil discovery at Big
Muddy Field in 1916 until January 1, 1973,
production has been more than 400 million barrels
of oil and about 400 billion cubic feet of gas. The
remaining recoverable reserves in the region are
conservatively estimated at more than 200 million
barrels of oil and more than 500 billion cubic feet
of natural gas.
Of the known fields, 66 are actively producing
and 44 are classified as temporarily nonproductive.
A majority of the nonproductive fields are shut in,
waiting for secondary or tertiary recovery proce-
dures or reactivation to be implemented.
The average area used by oil well facilities
including pumper, separator, ponds, pipelines, and
access roads, does not exceed 15 acres per square
mile. Where several wells share land facilities or
are developed with spacing, the area required is
less than 5 acres per square mile.
Uranium ore occurs in two mining districts in
the Wyoming portion of the region: the Pumpkin
Buttes district in Campbell, Converse, and John-
son Counties, and the Southern Powder River
Basin district in Converse County. Host rocks for
uranium ore in the Pumpkin Buttes district are
sandstones in the Wasatch Formation. In the
Southern Powder River Basin district the ore
occurs in sandstone in the upper part of the Fort
Union Formation and in the sandstones in the
Wasatch Formation.
The uranium industry of Wyoming began m
the Pumpkin Buttes district with the discovery of
ore-grade uranium in 1951, and the first commer-
cial production began in 1953. Early mining was
for high-grade deposits at or near the surface, from
pits generally less than 100 feet deep and less than
5 acres in extent. Between the years 1953 and 1967,
36,737 tons of ore containing 208,143 pounds of
uranium were mined from 55 mines in Campbell
4-29
TABLE 4-7
POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THE
POWDER RIVER REGION ( a )
1975 Total Population 3
Total Area (square miles) 3
Population per square mile (1975)
Per Capita Personal Income (1975)
Per Capita Personal Income as a
Percent of National Average (1975)
228,418
49,424
4.6
$5,648
111
ECONOMIC SECTOR
EMPLOYMENT
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
EARNINGS
tin thousands
of dollars)
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
Livestock
6,175
7
49,958
5
Other Agriculture
2,606
3
36,911
4
Metal Mining
246
0-1
4,081
0-1
Coal Mining
590
1
13,013
1
Oil and Gas
3,385
4
79,644
8
Other Mining
636
1
4,380
0-1
Construction
5,145
6
104,924
10
All Manufacturing
6,379
7
103,766
10
Transportation,
Communication,
and Public
Utilities
4,422
5
117,568
11
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
22,541
26
188,883
18
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
3,058
4
35,714
3
Other Services
13,105
15
143,799
14
Federal Govt.
3,713
4
49,145
5
State and Local
Govt.
14,314
17
106,469
10
TOTAL
86,315
1,038,255
(a) Demographic information which is based on all
or partially within regional boundaries.
counties either totally
4-30
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
County. By the late 1960's accelerated exploratory
activity resulted in discovery of significant ore
bodies in the Southern Powder River Basin
district.
Uranium is not presently being mined in the
Pumpkin Buttes district, but three mines are
producing in the Southern Powder River Basin
district from open pits. One company has begun
development of underground mines.
The Powder River Region is surrounded by
recreational resources of unique national signifi-
cance. The Black Hills, Teton Park, the Bridger
Wilderness, the Dakota Badlands, and Yellow-
stone Park annually attract millions of people.
These tourists frequently travel through the Pow-
der River Coal Region and experience its natural
resources. Its primary attributes are clean air, open
vistas and a kind of solitude not found in many
areas. The region is sparsely populated; population
density is about 5 people per square mile. Many of
these are concentrated in major trade centers like
Billings, Sheridan, Gillette and Casper. The low
population levels enhance the quality of the
recreational activities of camping, fishing, and
hunting. Many farmers and ranchers become
guides and this kind of part-time tourist industry
has had small but important economic benefits to
ranchers. The major economic benefits, however,
accrue to the motel and restaurant operators who
provide services to the tourists as they pass through
the region to the parks and forests on the edges of
region.
The lifestyle of the area is clearly western;
cowboy boots, pick-up trucks, and big hats are the
practical symbols of this lifestyle. As the rest of the
nation is characterized by the mobility of the
people, this area's common attribute is the stability
of large segments of the population. A ranch, drug
store, or farm equipment dealership may have
been operated by the same family for several
generations.
Overall population growth has been very slow
during the last several decades. There have been
local booms in towns like Gillette and Sheridan
and some counties have experienced population
losses, but overall the population can be consid-
ered stable. The influx of oil and gas developers
has disrupted this stability in certain local areas,
such as Gillette in the late 1960's and early 1970's,
but the net regional effect has been relatively
minor.
In recent years, coal and uranium develop-
ments have begun to accelerate. These types of
development activities are much more extensive.
They require more people, more land, and more
water. New mines have opened around Gillette
and increased its population. In addition to coal
mining, coal conversion plants are being built, like
those at Colstrip, Montana. With this kind of
population influx the stability of the old structure
is being radically changed.
Control of the political and economic system is
shifting from the rural citizens to the new urban
population. Many new private and public facilities
are being constructed, increasing the opportunities
and services available, but for the established
residents of the area they are different and they are
controlled by a new establishment. Regional
development has occurred in such a manner that
most of the land is in Federal ownership, with the
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest
Service being the primary administering agencies.
Within Federal land areas, some state and private
lands occur. Of particular interest are the tracts of
alternating private and Federal lands (interspered
with some state-owned sections), which create a
checkerboard pattern of land ownership. These are
scattered in various locations throughout the
region.
4.6 GREEN RIVER - HAMS FORK COAL
REGION
The Green River - Hams Fork Coal Region is
in the Middle Rocky Mountain Province of the
western United States. This region encompasses
approximately 37,500 square miles in five Colora-
do, 12 Wyoming, five Idaho and three Utah
counties.
4.6.1 The Environment
The Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region is
part of the Middle Rocky Mountain province,
characterized by complex mountains with many
inter-mountain basins and plains. The area is a
series of parallel mountain ranges and valleys.
Local relief may be as much as 2,000 feet, but is
more commonly less than 1,000 feet.
The Green River subregion encompasses an
area of about 17,000 square miles in southwestern
Wyoming and northern Colorado, and includes
several separate structural units. The Green River
basin occupies the western section, separated from
4-31
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
the Great Divide basin to the east by the large
Rock Springs anticline. Coal-bearing rocks here
are the Mesaverde group, including the Rock
Springs and the Lance Formations; the Fort
Union Formation; and the Wasatch Formation. In
the Colorado portion of the field, the lies and
Williams Fork Formations contain the Mesaverde
Group coal beds. The coal-bearing section of rocks
is several thousand feet thick and is composed
mainly of sandstone with beds of siltstone, shale,
and coal.
Coal beds range in thickness from a few inches
to 42 feet and rank from sub-bituminous C to high-
volatile bituminous C, with coals of higher rank
occurring locally in areas of igneous intrusives and
intense structural deformation. In past years, the
high quality coals of the Mesaverde Group have
been the most extensively mined and the most
important in the area. Coal beds in most parts of
the region are deeply buried and may never be of
economic potential.
A total of 130 coal beds has been mapped in
the coal-bearing Mesaverde and Medicine Bow
Formations, the Ferris Formation, and the Hanna
Formation. The beds are sub-bituminous C to
high-volatile bituminous C in rank. They range in
thicknesses from 8 feet in discontinuous beds in
the lower formations to 35 feet in the Hanna
Formation. The Hanna Basin area is characterized
by rugged surface features. The Rock Creek coal
field adjoins the Hanna Basin field on the
southeast and contains coal beds ranging in
thicknesses of 9.5 feet in the Hanna Formation and
8 feet in the Mesaverde Formation. Large areas of
the surface are covered with gravel, and the coal-
bearing rocks are difficult to trace.
The Hams-Fork portion of the region is in the
extreme western part of Wyoming and includes
small parts of Utah. The coal-bearing rocks crop
out in long narrow belts extending from the
mountainous region in the north to the less rugged
southern region near the Utah- Wyoming border.
The area lies in the highly complex Wyoming
overthrust belt, an area of current interest for its
high potential for oil and gas development. The
coal-bearing formations exposed in the region are
the Bear River Frontier, Adaville, and the Evan-
ston. The Frontier Formation, the main coal-
bearing unit, forms north-trending outcrop bands
generally less than two miles in length.
The coal beds in the Hams Fork portion range
in rank from high volatile bituminous A in the
Frontier coals to sub-bituminous B in the Adaville
Formation. Thicknesses greater than 100 feet are
reported for coal beds in the Adaville Formation.
The higher quality Frontier coals attain thick-
nesses as great as 20 feet. The steep dips make
mining difficult in most parts of the region. The
total coal reserve base is estimated to be 15.5
billion tons.
Coal is presently produced in several counties
in this region, but is the leading mineral commodi-
ty in only three of these counties. Other important
commodities include oil, gas, phosphate rock,
stone, cement, vanadium, and trona (sodium
carbonate). Sweetwater County, Wyoming, is the
nation's principal source of trona. In addition, the
area is endowed with paleontological and archaeo-
logical remains.
Of major geological interest in the region are
the Como Bluff Fossil Area and the Petrified Fish
Cut, areas of dinosaur and fish fossils, respectively.
The Como Bluff Fossil Area is located in the
northeastern section of the region, on the bound-
ary line between Carbon and Albany Counties,
Wyoming. This designated natural landmark is the
site of the famous "Dinosaur Graveyard", where
paleontological excavations since the 1870's have
uncovered a great number of dinosaurs of various
types. In the Kemmerer area of Lincoln County,
Wyoming, the famous Petrified Fish Cut was
discovered when the Union Pacific Railroad cut
through the shale hills west of Green River in the
late 1860's. Middle Eocene fish fossils from this
area are in museum collections throughout the
world. Principal fossiliferous formations in the
region which contain paleontological resources are
the North Park, Bridges, Green River, Hanna,
Ferris, Fort Chrion, Lance, Lewis, Almond, Rock
Springs, and Morrison.
The region has a primarily continental climate.
Fronts generally originate in the Pacific and
deposit moisture in the mountains as wind currents
pass over increased elevations. Average annual
precipitation is more evenly distributed in the
mountains than in the basin areas. General
flooding potential is low, although flash floods do
result from intense summer thunderstorms. Evapo-
ration potential far exceeds the total precipitation
usually received.
4-32
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
The average annual temperatures range from
37°F to 46°F, with variations due mostly to
differences in elevation and exposure. Growing
seasons range from 28 days at Steamboat Springs,
Colorado, to 130 days at Rawlins, Wyoming.
Prevailing winds for most of the area are
generally out of the southwest. Most of the harsh
winter storms are out of the northwest. The wind
patterns are typically funneled through some of the
mountain passes and canyons. The winter winds
out of the north typically bring cold dry air with
velocities sometimes exceeding 40 mph. Wind
directions change regularly, and tend to be less
persistent in any one direction than in many other
portions of the U.S. The region has surface-based
inversions on 85 percent of the mornings, during
both summer and winter. They tend to be intense,
but not particularly deep.
Overall regional air quality is very good. Areas
not meeting the national standard for particulates
are Craig, Colorado and the trona industrial area
of Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The entire
region is better than the standard for sulfur dioxide
air quality.
Major drainage basins in the region are the
Green and Yampa Rivers. Average annual runoff
varies from less than 1 inch to over 30 inches in
some of the high mountains. Many of the large
streams in the area are perennial, obtaining most
of their runoff from the higher mountainous areas;
however, most of the tributaries originating in the
lower area are intermittent. The region is vulnera-
ble to droughts.
The quality of surface waters in the region
ranges from good in the higher elevations to poor
in the lower elevations. During low-flow periods
many tributary streams have over 1,000 milligrams
per liter of dissolved solids. The suspended-sedi-
ment content of surface waters is generally high,
and during high flows exceeds 30,000 parts per
million in many tributaries.
The average annual stream flow in the Green
River Basin is 5.26 million acre-feet. Fontenelle
and Flaming Gorge reservoirs are the largest in the
region, storing about 4.3 million acre-feet. Such
stored water is used to satisfy current water rights.
About 2.5 million acre-feet of surface water is
withdrawn per year, of which about 1.1 million
acre-feet is consumptively used, primarily for
irrigation.
Groundwater is found in the aquifers of
alluvial deposits and bedrock strata. Alluvial
deposits are good aquifers and are capable of
yielding moderate amounts of groundwater.
Pumping from alluvial aquifers is restricted in
some States because of effects on appropriated
water rights or nearby stream flow. Water in the
alluvium aquifers has generally acceptable quality
for most uses, but in some areas is highly
mineralized.
Yields of most sandstone aquifers are low to
moderate, while the highly variable limestone
aquifers may yield up to 1,000 gallons per minute
in wells. In general, where the aquifers are highly
permeable, good quality water is obtained to
depths of 1,000 feet or more. However, where the
aquifers have low permeability, highly mineralized
water is obtained even at shallow depths. Water
quality throughout the region has not been fully
explored.
The most common soils throughout this region
have a sandy loam, loam, or silty surface and a
calcium carbonate accumulation at depths usually
greater than four feet. Permeability is moderate to
low and, due to climate conditions, these soils
seldom retain moisture for three consecutive
months. Shallow, poorly developed soils consisting
mainly of rock fragments occur along the moun-
tains of the region. Dominant soil limitations of
the region are shallowness, erosion, stoniness, and
salinity.
The Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region is
part of the cold desert biome, and is comprised
primarily of sagebrush or saltbush-greasewood
dominated communities. Other communities of
local importance include mountain shrub, ever-
green, and broadleaf forest, and barren areas.
Approximately 24 percent of the total regional
land area is forest.
The sagebrush community is composed of a
mixture of low-growing shrubs dominated by
sagebrush with a variable understory of perennial
grasses and forbs. Understory vegetation includes
bluebunch wheatgrass, thick wheatgrass, Indian
ricegrass, prairie junegrass, cheatgrass, brome,
lupines, rabbitbrushes, broom snakeweed, and
golden weeds.
Where the salt content of the soil is relatively
high, sagebrush dominated communities are re-
placed by saltbush-greasewood associations. Dom-
inant species are Nuttal saltbush, shadscale salt-
4-33
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
bush, fourwing saltbush, and black greasewood.
Associated understory includes Alkali sacaton,
bottlebrush, squirreltail, and thickspike wheat-
grass, in addition to many of the same understory
species of the sagebrush community.
Shrub communities of the higher elevation are
dominated by serviceberry-snowberry-mahogany
associations with understories that include thick-
spike wheatgrass, prairie junegrass, bluegrasses,
western yarrow, asters, and milkvetch. On well
drained, poorly developed, shallow, gravelly soils,
shrub woodlands, dominated by rocky mountain
and Utah juniper, predominate. Associated species
include big sagebrush, low sagebrush, rabbit-
brushes, mountain mahogany, prickly pear, and a
variety of grasses, phloxes, and goldenweeds.
Depending upon slope, aspect, and elevation,
forested mountain areas may contain associations
of pinyon-juniper, spruce-Douglas fir, ponderosa
pine-lodgepole, or a mixture of evergreen-aspen.
Understory species include snowberries, blueber-
ries, mountain mahogany, pine readgrass, lupines,
mountain brome, and various grasses. Broadleaf
forest, consisting principally of willow and cotton-
wood with grass understories, are limited primarily
to floodplains along perennial streams. Barren
areas associated with rock outcrops have a limited
vegetation cover provided by mountain mahogany,
serviceberry, wild buckwheats, big sagebrush,
saltbushes, and prairie junegrasses
Primary productivity estimates for the major
vegetative communities of the region range from
about 1.8 tons per acre per year for sagebrush to
approximately 5.4 tons per year for forested areas.
The region has 53 species of mammals includ-
ing big game such as elk, mule deer, pronghorn
antelope, moose, and Rocky Mountain bighorn
sheep; and small game and non-game species such
as whitetail jackrabbit, red squirrel, whitetailed
prairie dog, longtail weasel, badger, coyote, and
red fox. Twenty percent of the world's pronghorn
antelope population and a major portion of the
world's sage grouse population may be found
within the sagebrush-grassland areas of this region.
These areas also provide critical winter habitat for
elk and mule deer, particularly in the northern
section of the region. In addition to these mam-
mals, the sagebrush biome is a winter concentra-
tion area for golden and bald eagles.
Species found in the conifer-aspen forest
include the Canada lynx, snowshoe rabbit, red
squirrel, porcupine, and the great horned owl. The
Shiras moose occurs in the conifer-aspen forest
and along the willow-dominated river bottoms.
Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep prefer higher
elevations where the coniferous forests are broken
by alpine openings.
In the woodland-bushland communities, mule
deer, mountain lion, and coyote commonly occur
in the woodlands during the fall, winter, and spring
and range into adjacent habitats during summer.
Rocky hillsides and cliffs within the woodland-
bushland community provide habitat for the
bobcat, rock squirrel, cliff chipmunk, desert and
bushytailed woodrats, and pinyon mouse. Com-
mon birds of the woodland area include pinyon
and scrub jay and bandtailed pigeon. Rattlesnakes,
lizards, and horned toads may invade from
adjacent desert areas, but are not particularly
characteristic of woodland communities.
A number of game and non-game fish species
are typical of the region's waterways. Principal
game fish native to the region include mountain
whitefish and cutthroat trout. Fish introduced into
some lakes of the region include largemouth bass,
smallmouth bass, and crappie. Non-game species
found in the region include speckled dace, moun-
tain sucker, Utah chub, redsided shiner, and
longnose dace. Pond-marsh biotic communities are
limited in extent, but have local significance. The
most widespread type of aquatic or semi-aquatic
situation is provided by beaver ponds which are
numerous on small mountain streams throughout
the region. Also found in the pond marsh commu-
nities are mallards, pintails, teal, Barrow's golden
eye, Great Basin Canada goose, marsh hawk, bald
eagle, and osprey.
In the region one species of fish (the Kendall
Warm Springs dace), three species of birds (the
peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and whooping crane),
and two species of mammals (the black-footed
ferret and Rocky Mountain wolf) are presently
officially listed as endangered species. There are no
endangered plants listed for the region, although
18 species are proposed for such listing.
Wild horses are found in several parts of the
region. Herds of approximately 4,500 are estimated
to exist in Wyoming and in northwestern Colora-
do, and are estimated to increase between 15
percent and 30 percent annually.
The potential for reclamation of disturbed
areas varies considerably within the region. By
4-34
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
using the best available technology for reclama-
tion, many of the limitations of soil and precipita-
tion can probably be overcome. Each specific
location for disturbance will require separate
evaluation.
4.6.2 The Environment and Man
The earliest cultural traditions of this region
were divided between big-game hunting in the
eastern half of the region and gathering and
hunting activities of the desert. During later
periods, the entire region was under the influence
of the Desert Culture, which persisted with little
basic change up to the end of the historic period.
The Desert Culture was predominated by hunter-
gatherers who inhabited caves from about 9,000
B.C. to 4,000 B.C.
Astorians returning to St. Louis passed through
the northern part of this region in 1812, but it was
not until the mid-1820's that this area was
extensively traveled. This was the era of the
American fur traders, the mountain men who
opened up the area of the central Rockies.
Jedediah Smith in 1824 rediscovered the South
Pass through the Rockies which was later used by
thousands of immigrants heading for Oregon and
California. By 1835, the Oregon Trail was well
established and the reconnaissance work of Fre-
mont and other Army explorers helped to map the
land west of South Pass. The Union Pacific
Railroad was built across southern Wyoming in
1868-1869. By 1890, one-fourth of the area was
settled, and the Pony Express, the Overland Stage,
and the railroad had established routes through the
area.
There are approximately 50 listings from this
region in the National Register of Historic Places,
including stage line stations, Army forts, Oregon
Trail sites, and a variety of buildings and historic
districts.
Today, the region is still typically western with
a low population covering vast areas of public
lands and large ranches. The primary source of
employment in the region is wholesale and retail
trade. The construction industry accounts for five
percent of the employment. Agricultural employ-
ment in the region is 10 percent, and mining and
mineral industry in the region is 12 percent of the
employment. The Government employs 23 percent
of the workforce. Table 4-8 shows a breakdown by
each economic sector for employment and earn-
ings.
While agriculture is not large in terms of the
number of people employed or the total income, it
is the most visible activity throughout the region.
The agricultural economy has developed in the
area since the 1800's and continues to play a major
role. To some extent, farming and, to a large
extent, grazing of domestic livestock persist
throughout the region. Farming is limited by
rainfall and temperature. Cattle and sheep ranch-
ing are the leading agricultural activities.
This region has an array of recreational
resources. Parts of Rocky Mountain National
Park, the Mt. Zirkal and Rawah Wilderness areas,
and the Denver and Rio Preservation Areas within
Routt and Roosevelt National Forests, are located
within the region. Five National Wildlife Refuges
(National Elk Refuge, Seedskadee, Pamforth,
Hutton Lake, and Arapahoe) with a combined
area of approximately 37,600 acres, are also
located here. The Fossil Butte National Monu-
ment in Wyoming is in the area. The Mormon,
Oregon, and Continental Divide Trails are under
consideration for the National System of Trails.
Three state recreational areas, three state parks,
and twelve state historical sites are in the region.
These facilities have a total area of over 76,200
acres and have an annual attendance of more than
693,000. Camping, fishing, and hunting are the
most popular recreational activities.
Counties in the region are characterized by
sparse population with densities of about 2.6
persons per square mile. The total population is
approximately 126,900. The decade of the 1960's
recorded high rates of out-migration ranging from
8 to 34 percent. This trend reversed, however,
between 1970 and 1976 when over 33,000 persons
in-migrated. Population and general economic
data are shown on Table 4.8.
Major transportation in the Colorado section
of the region is provided by the east-west Denver
and Rio Grande Western railroad. The southern
Wyoming region is served by Interstate 80 and by
the Union Pacific railroad. There are many other
paved highways and unpaved roads existing
throughout the region which provide access into
the major areas of economic development.
Adequate housing is in short supply, especially
in the larger communities such as Craig, Colorado,
and Rock Springs, Green River, and Rawlins,
4-35
TABLE 4-8
POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THE
GREEN RIVER- HAMS FORK REGION (a)
1975 Total Population
Total Area (square miles) a
Population per square mile (1975)
Per Capita Personal Income (1975)
Per Capita Personal Income as a
Percent of National Average (1975)
126,938
48,764
2.6
$5,475
108
PERCENT
EARNINGS
PERCENT
EMPLOYMENT
OF
(in thousands
OF
ECONOMIC SECTOR
TOTAL
of dollars)
TOTAL
Livestock
3,590
7
26,118
5
Other Agriculture
1,310
3
10,863
2
Metal Mining
566
1
8,279
2
Coal Mining
1,122
2
24,324
5
Oil and Gas
3,911
8
66,201
13
Other Mining
371
1
1,994
0-1
Construction
2,616
5
50,669
10
All Manufacturing
2,001
4
18,972
4
Transportation,
Communication,
and Public
Utilities
2,079
4
45,344
9
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
10,318
21
82,464
16
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
1,737
4
17,179
3
Other Services
7,776
16
74,392
14
Federal Govt.
1,589
3
20,351
4
State and Local
Govt.
9,771
20
69 , 603
13
TOTAL
48,757
516,753
(a) Demographic information which is based on all counties either totally
or partially within regional boundaries.
4-36
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
Wyoming. Many smaller communities within the
region such as Meeker, Colorado, are experiencing
housing problems. The number of mobile homes
and mobile home parks has increased in many
communities. Increased population in many com-
munities has also produced increased school
enrollments, resulting in overcrowded classrooms
in understaffed schools.
Health care facilities are generally adequate for
the region, although some areas are experiencing a
shortage of physicians. Mental health care facili-
ties, where they exist within the region, are
receiving a disproportionate number of cases from
energy related rapid growth. Fire protection
service is generally provided by the volunteer
departments, and only Rawlins, Sinclair, Rock
Springs, Green River, and Evanston, Wyoming,
have fire insurance ratings which are considered
adequate. Expansion of water and sewer systems
are of highest priority for most local officials.
Nearly all water systems are publicly owned.
Telephone, electricity, and natural gas systems are
generally adequate for the region, with some
exceptions where local shortages may occur.
Prior to the current industrial development of
both coal and trona, the region's lifestyle was
primarily ranching with very little industrial
development. In the last six years, rapid develop-
ment of coal and trona, and expanding oil and gas
exploration have brought about higher prices,
more crime, housing shortages, and other boom-
town characteristics which have altered and are
continuing to alter this rural lifestyle.
Most of the land is Federally owned and
administered by the Bureau of Land Management
and the U.S. Forest Service. Within the Federal
land area, some state and private lands occur. Of
significant interest in the southern portion of
Wyoming is the checkerboard pattern of alternat-
ing private and Federal lands interspersed with
some state-owned sections.
4.7 FORT UNION COAL REGION
The Fort Union Coal Region is in the
Northern Great Plains of the western United
States. This region encompasses about 60,214
square miles in 12 Montana, 26 North Dakota, and
seven South Dakota counties.
4.7.1 The Environment
The sedimentary rocks of the Fort Union Coal
Region were deposited in the Williston basin, a
sedimentary and structual depression that lies in
western North Dakota and extends into Canada,
Montana, and South Dakota. The combined
thickness of the sedimentary rocks exceeds 15,000
feet in the deepest part of the basin southeast of
the city of Williston, North Dakota. The surface
formations generally dip toward the basin's center
at rates of 10 to 20 feet per mile, but dips may
decrease to about one degree near large structures,
such as the Nesson anticline. Local departures
from the regional dip, especially in the coal beds,
may be the result of differential compaction of the
underlying sediments rather than a deep-seated
earth movement.
Most of the coal is contained in the Lebo,
Tongue River, and Sentinel Butte (in North
Dakota), members of the Fort Union Formation of
Paleocene age. The coal beds are discontinuous
and vary greatly in thickness. More than a
hundred coal beds have been identified by the
North Dakota State Geological Survey, but in any
one section no more than three beds of commercial
thickness have been found. The Fort Union
Formation ranges from 425 to 775 feet thick m
South Dakota to 1,500 feet thick in Montana and
contains an estimated 440 billion tons of lignite.
The coal throughout most of the Fort Union
region is lignite in rank; however, westward from
the Montana-North Dakota state line, the rank of
the coal increases to subbituminous C near Miles
City, Montana and subbituminous B further to the
west. Estimated subbituminous reserves in the
aforementioned areas total approximately 23
billion tons of surface-mineable coal.
The Fort Union Coal Region is within the
glaciated and the unglaciated Missouri Plateau
sections of the Great Plains Physiographic Prov-
ince, except for a small area at the northeastern
boundary which is part of the Central Lowland
Province. The Missouri Escarpment which is the
eastern boundary of the Great Plains Province is a
northeastward facing escarpment, commonly 200
to 300 feet high. It extends from the northeast
corner of North Dakota diagonally to near the
center of the south boundary and beyond into
South Dakota.
The Drift Prairie section of the Central
Lowland east of the escarpment includes a large
4-37
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
part of eastern North Dakota. Glacial deposits,
such as ground moraine and outwash plains, are
characteristic of the gently undulating land sur-
face. They may be as much as 200 feet thick, but
generally, the relief is 20 feet or less. In the part of
the area north and east of the Missouri River,
channels cut into the glacial drift by meltwater
from the ice are common. They are generally 20 to
50 feet deep, and range in width from 100 feet to as
much as one-half mile. Most are partly filled by
glacial outwash and alluvial material. Some coin-
cide with deep preglacial valleys.
Southwest of the Missouri River, glacial depo-
sits are thin or absent, natural ponds are absent,
and the boundary of the Glaciated Missouri
Plateau is poorly defined. The maximum extent of
glaciers is marked by the locations of glacial
erratics. The major streams and their tributaries
are in preglacial or interglacial valleys. The general
character of the terrain is similar to that of the
unglaciated region to the south.
The unglaciated Missouri Plateau in southwest
North Dakota, northwest South Dakota, and
eastern Montana, is a gently sloping plateau. The
present surface consists of rolling prairie, isolated
buttes and mesas, and badlands. It has been
mostly carved since the ice age by intermittent
erosion of the nearly flat-lying easily-eroded rocks
at the surface.
Clinker, formed when heat from the natural
burning of coal baked the overlying rocks, has
been a factor in the formation and development of
badland topography. The level of the surface
above the burned coal bed is lowered by a number
of feet equal to the thickness of the burned coal
bed. The clinker strongly resists weathering and
erosion, and it forms a cap-rock that adds to the
irregularity and roughness of the land surface.
Badlands are found along the Little Missouri
River, along the lower reaches of the Powder
River, and the area surrounding Fort Peck Reser-
voir on the Missouri River.
The Fort Union Coal Region has a semi-arid
continental climate. Winters are long and cold;
summers are short and warm. Considerable frontal
activity passes through the area, but being distant
from major sources of moisture, precipitation is
not plentiful. A dozen to 15 times a year, arctic air
breaks into the region, causing severe winter cold.
The extreme cold is often moderated in the western
and southern portions of the area by chinook
winds that develop on the eastern slopes of the
Rocky Mountains.
The mean annual temperature varies from
38°F in some locations in the northeast part of the
region to 45 °F in the southeast portion. This area
is subject to the dominant path of arctic generated
storms crossing the Canadian-U.S. border, as well
as the chinook winds that moderate the cold
temperatures in the western portion of the region.
Annual precipitation varies from slightly less
than 12 inches in northeastern Montana to 16
inches in the eastern portion of the region. A few
points near prominent terrain features cause slight
aberrations in the otherwise smooth increase in
average precipitation from west to east. Most
precipitation occurs in the growing season, occur-
ring as showers or thunderstorms. Rainfall, there-
fore, tends to be spotty and local flooding may
occur not far from places that are enduring
drought.
Floods along the main stem of the Missouri
River are generally caused by spring snow-melt
and are aggravated by ice jams. Major rainstorms
sufficient to cause widespread flooding are rare.
Drought effects usually appear in this semi-arid
region soon after the precipitation drops much
below the long-term mean. The windy, sunny
conditions that prevail in the area cause evapora-
tion to exceed normal precipitation by a factor of
two or more.
The region is windy; average speeds for the
year are 10 mph. The prevailing direction is
northwest, but southerly winds are common during
warm months.
Surface-based inversions occur on about 65
percent of winter mornings and 80 percent of
summer mornings. Forty to 50 percent are accom-
panied by winds of 5 mph or more. On summer
afternoons, surface-based inversions are rare; on
winter afternoons, they occur 25-30 percent of the
time. Morning mixing depths tend to be lowest in
summer in the eastern part of the region and in the
winter in the western part.
The Fort Union Coal Region's air quality is
very good for both particulates and sulfur dioxide.
This holds true for all portions of the region.
Surface water resources are very limited in the
Fort Union Coal Region except for those areas
adjacent to the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers.
The Little Missouri River, which runs north
through the middle of the region to the Missouri,
4-38
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
and all of the tributaries to the Missouri down-
stream from that point have highly variable flows.
Surface water runoff is very low (less than one
inch over most of the area) and quality is poor.
Total dissolved solids exceed 350 million parts per
liter nearly everywhere. Hardness levels are mostly
within the 180-240 mg/1 range. These tributaries
generally carry a sediment load in excess of 1,900
mg/1. Sediment loads have been greatly reduced in
the Missouri River since it has been extensively
dammed, with each reservoir acting as a sediment
trap.
Groundwater is available in small to moderate
quantities almost everywhere, but only in large
amounts locally, particularly in the alluvial valley
fills along the perennial streams. The greatest
potential for groundwater development in the
region is from glacial outwash sands and gravels
and valley alluvium, particularly along the Missou-
ri River and, in lesser amounts, along the Yellow-
stone River. Groundwater may also be developed
in dependable supplies from the Fort Union
Formation and the deeper Fox Hills and Hills
Creek Formations. Most of these deeper ground-
waters are moderately mineralized at depths of less
than 500 feet.
Soils in the northeastern half of the region have
been derived from glaciated materials. These soils
are generally loamy soils with good productivity
and stability. The area northeast of the Missouri
escarpment is rolling mid-tall grass prairie charac-
terized by wheat grass, big and little bluestem
grasses, and needle grass. The remainder of the
region is dominated by the mid grass and mid-
short grass prairie type, except for the floodplains
along the major streams and the badlands on the
Little Missouri, Lower Powder, and around Fort
Peck Reservoir.
The mid-grass prairie which covers the mid-
section of the region is characterized by loamy to
clayey loamy soils from east to west. Dominant
plants are needle grass, wheat grass, and blue stem
grasses. No short grasses are dominant. The mid-
short grass type is found in the extreme western
portion of the region north of the Yellowstone
River. These rolling prairies have loam to clay
loam soils and are dominated by western wheat
grass, needle-and-thread grass, and blue grama
grass.
Badlands are characterized by breaks along
rivers and streams with steep south-facing slopes of
exposed shales, sandstones, scoria, and clays. Soils
are dry much of the year. Dominant plant species
are arid-land shrubs and grasses associated locally
with scrubby ponderosa pine forests.
The floodplains have alluvial soils with high
water tables. Vegetation is predominantly hard-
wood trees and shrub species.
With proper soil and vegetative management,
most lands can be reclaimed to a near-original
state following surface mining. It should be noted,
however, that much of the prime farmlands,
alluvial valley floors, and natural areas would
require a high degree of attention during reclama-
tion.
Wildlife occurring in the Fort Union Coal
Region is similar in composition to that of the
Powder River Region. The various habitats sup-
port 87 species of birds, approximately 70 species
of mammals, 200 species of fish, and 20 species of
amphibian and reptiles, as well as numerous
insects and other invertebrates.
Principal big game animals include mule deer,
whitetail deer, and pronghorn antelope. While
ranges may occasionally overlap, each is associ-
ated with a preferred habitat. Primary mule deer
habitat is provided by the rough breaks and
badlands where browse species, such as buck-
brush, skunkbrush, yucca, chokecherry, and mixed
grasses occur. Whitetail deer, while widespread
throughout the region, prefer river bottoms and
other areas where dense vegetation provides
adequate cover. Preferred food items include
buckbrush, chokecherry, rose, cottonwood, willow,
aspen, and green ash. Prime pronghorn antelope
range occurs on the rolling or broken grasslands
interspersed with large sagebrush flats. Where
available, big sagebrush and silver sagebrush
provide critical winter browse.
Principal small game animals within the region
include eastern cottontail, desert cottontail, snow-
shoe hare, gray squirrel, and fox squirrel.
The eastern cottontail is widely dispersed
through the area, while the desert cottontail prefers
shrubland habitat. Snowshoe hare, fox and gray
squirrels are typically associated with woodlands.
Furbearers and other small mammals associ-
ated with this region include typical grassland
species such as Richardson ground squirrel, thir-
teen-lined ground squirrel, blacktailed prairie dog,
western harvest mouse, deer mouse, meadow vole,
prairie vole, and blackfooted ferret; woodlands
4-39
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
and shrubland species, such as gray fox, raccoon,
badger, skunk, bobcat, opossum, least chipmunk^
wood rat, and southern red backed vole; and
wetland and semi-aquatic species, such as beaver,
mink, and muskrat.
Gamebirds of the region include sharp-tailed
grouse, ring-necked pheasant, Hungarian par-
tridge, and wild turkey. Both sharp-tailed grouse
and the introduced pheasant prefer large expanses
of undisturbed native grasslands interspersed with
brush for food, cover, and nesting. The Hungarian
partridge is widely dispersed but prefers areas of
limited agriculture where shelterbelts are available
for cover. Wild turkey are more limited in
distribution and tend to be associated with river
botton woodlands, or around ranches and farms
where they have become accustomed to human
activity.
Wetlands, occurring primarily as scattered
potholes along the Missouri River and other
drainages within the region, are of primary value
as nesting and feeding habitat for waterfowl of the
Central Flyway. Breeding species include mallards,
green-winged and blue-winged teal, pintail, red-
head, canvasback, gadwall, American widgeon,
shoveler, and wood duck. Shorebirds and other
non-game birds associated with these wet areas
include cranes, grebes, sandpipers, terns, and gulls.
The large areas of open terrain found through-
out much of this region provide both seasonal and
year round habitat for a variety of predator birds.
These include golden and bald eagles, osprey,
marsh hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, rough-legged
hawk, Swainson's hawk, Cooper's hawk, red-tailed
hawk, prairie and peregrine falcon, barn owl, long-
eared and short^eared owl, burrowing owl, and
great horned owl.
Open areas, woodlands, and edges are utilized
by a wide variety of song birds, warblers, and
woodpeckers. At least 145 species of non-game
birds occur within the region, including black-
billed cuckoo, belted kingfisher, red-headed and
red-bellied woodpeckers, catbird, robin, eastern
and mountain bluebirds, yellow warbler, tree and
chipping sparrows, cowbird, and cardinal. Princi-
pal species of game fish stocked in reservoirs and
lakes include walleye, Sanger, northern pike, white
bass, yellow perch, largemouth bass, channel
catfish, and black bullheads. Non-game species
common to most streams and rivers include a
variety of minnows, shiners, and suckers.
There are at least seven species of endangered
animals that occur or have been reported in the
region. These include the northern kit fox, pereg-
rine falcon, black-footed ferret, whooping crane,
bald eagle, and Tule white-fronted goose. Presently
there are no endangered or threatened plants in the
region, although a number are proposed for
inclusion in the Federal list. They may eventually
be given protection under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973.
4.7.2 The Environment and Man
The Fort Union Coal Region has experienced
many changes in climate since the Paleo-Indian
crossed a land or ice bridge from Asia to the
Western Hemisphere. There is evidence that the
region has a prehistory much like the Powder
River Coal Region. The distinctive culture of the
Fort Union Coal Region was agriculturally orient-
ed along both sides of the Missouri River in North
Dakota. The region's history is marked with
Indian-settler interactions both peaceful and non-
peaceful. Evidence of these events still remain such
as Fort Union Trading Post and Fort Dilts.
The historical development of the region left
most of the land in Federal ownership, with the
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest
Service being the primary administering agencies.
Within Federal land areas, some state and private
lands occur. Of particular interest are the scattered
tracts of alternating private and Federal lands
(interspered with some state-owned sections),
which create a checkerboard pattern of land
ownership.
Agriculture in this region consists primarily of
spring wheat farming in the northern and eastern
portions, and cattle ranching with some irrigated
crop production in the southern and western
portions. Farms tend to be large, averaging over
1,000 acres in commercial wheat growing areas in
the region.
Cropland constitutes over 75 percent of the
total land area along the northeastern border of
the region decreasing to under 5 percent in the
southern portion (Montana and South Dakota).
Irrigated cropland represents less than 1 percent of
the farmland over most of the region, with some
counties in Montana and North Dakota having
from 1 to 4 percent of cropland irrigated.
Principal agricultural crops grown within the
region include soybean, hay, wheat, oats, barley,
4-40
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
flaxseed, and sugarbeets. Yields per acre for these
crops are 17.3 bushels for soybeans, 1.4 tons for
hay, 24.6 bushels for wheat, 42.1 bushels for oats,
and 19.3 tons for sugarbeets. Cash-grain farms,
along with livestock farms and general farms, are
found in the northern and eastern portions of the
region, while livestock operations predominate in
the other areas of the region.
Table 4-9 shows the employment and earnings
for the Fort Union Coal Region. Federal, state,
and local governments employ 28 percent of the
population. This is significantly higher than the
national average which is 17 percent. Federal
employment is 3 times greater than the national
average. Agricultural employment is the second
strongest sector, employing 25 percent of the
population. This is five times the national average.
This statistic emphasizes the dependence of the
region's people on the biological productivity of
the region.
The region's transportation network is com-
posed primarily of railroads and highways. The
Burlington Northern is the primary rail carrier of
the region, although the Soo Line and Chicago,
Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific also provide a
degree of service. The area's access to the interstate
highway network is provided by 1-94. A variety of
U.S., state, and county roads connect with 1-94.
There are no coal slurry pipelines in this region.
The infrastructure of the region is similar to
most of the rural West. Businesses that supply the
needs of farmers and ranchers are located in trade
centers across the region. These trade centers are
small and, along with the rural population, are
relatively stable. Public services in these towns are
limited and not usually amenable to significant
expansion. Medical facilities are limited and those
in need of special care usually travel to Denver,
Colorado, or Rochester, Minnesota. Bismarck,
North Dakota is the exception to the rule. It is a
growing urban center that is developing many of
the social and cultural services not found in the
smaller towns of the region.
Due to the rural nature of the region most of
the recreation is outdoor oriented. Fishing, hunt-
ing, and site-seeing are common activities. Hunting
also draws people from outside the region.
4.8 SAN JUAN RIVER COAL REGION
The San Juan River Coal Region is in the
Colorado Plateau of the southwestern United
States. The region encompasses approximately
57,000 square miles in one Utah, seven Colorado,
and 1 1 New Mexico counties.
4.8.1 The Environment
This region is part of the Colorado Plateau
physiographic province with high plateaus of
stratified rock cut by deep canyons. Elevations
generally range between 5,000 and 7,500 feet.
Topographically, it is a basin with mesas, rolling
plains, badlands, and canyons that are lower than
the surrounding mountain ranges: the San Juan
Mountains to the north, the San Pedros to the east,
the Zunis to the south, and the San Francisco
Peaks to the west.
The region's variety of landforms has resulted
from its geology and the forces of erosion. Mesas
and ridges are held up by caps of sandstone,
whereas the adjacent lowlands have formed by
erosion of the softer shales. The Menefee Forma-
tion, which is mostly shale, lies beneath relatively
thick sandstone and forms the lowlands and
valleys. Steep-walled canyons form where the
resistant sandstone is thick. Badlands form in thick
shale sequences imbedded with thin lenses of
sandstone. The Fruitland Formation, which is
composed of shale, minor amounts of sandstone,
and some coal, has been carved by water and wind
into distinctive badland shapes.
The San Juan River Coal Region contains
sedimentary rocks ranging in age to 500 million
years. The Paleozoic formations, chiefly marine
limestones, sandstones, and shales, do not crop out
in the region, although they underlie it. In places
along the southern part of the region, this forma-
tion forms an aquifer capable of yielding water for
irrigation, industrial, and municipal use. The
Triassic and Jurassic formations are chiefly non-
marine sandstones, and claystones. The Entrada
Sandstone and the Westwater Canyon Member of
the Morrison Formation form important aquifers
that may be utilized for coal development.
The formations of greatest interest are those of
Upper Cretaceous age. In addition to containing
coal, some form important aquifers, and many
contain important fossil assemblages. When these
formations were deposited, the shoreline of a large
interior sea was moving back and forth in a general
northeast to southwest direction through the
region, so the deposits vary considerably in
thickness and lithology. Most of the coal formed in
4-41
TABLE 4-9
POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THE
FORT UNION REGION ( a )
1975 Total Population 3
324
,399
Total Area (square
miles) a
60
,214
Population per square mile (1975)
5.4
Per Capita Personal
Income (1975)
$5
,083
Per Capita Personal
Income as a
Percent of National Average (1975)
100
ECONOMIC SECTOR
EMPLOYMENT
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
1
EARNINGS
(in thousands
of dollars)
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
Livestock
8,753
7
78,798
6
Other Agriculture
21,833
18
318,424
25
Metal Mining
-
_
Coal Mining
256
0-1
7,019
1
Oil and Gas
1,678
1
22,051
2
Other Mining
437
0-1
1,763
0-1
Construction
3,798
3
85,081
7
All Manufacturing
4,759
4
49,210
4
Transportation,
Communication,
and Public
Utilities
4,098
3
94,538
7
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
23,754
19
212,002
16
Finance, Insurance,
■
and Real Estate
3,651
3
34,074
3
Other Services
15,964
13
147,154
LI
Federal Govt.
11,741
9
129,261
10
State and Local
Govt.
22,912
19
120,228
9
TOTAL
123,634
1,299,603
(a) 'Demographic information which is based on all
or partially within regional boundaries.
counties either totally
4-42
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
backshore swamps along the seacoast. The Crevas-
see Canyon, Menefee, and Fruitland Formations
are the principal coal-bearing units.
Coals within the region rank from high-volatile
A to B bituminous, to discontinuous and dirty
coals that are high-volatile C to B bituminous with
high ash content. Most coals are sub-bituminous.
The region's estimated reserve base is 4.2 billion
tons.
The region lies south of the major storm belt
from the Pacific across the Rockies. The general
climate is semi-arid, with variations resulting from
elevation and topography. The Pacific fronts that
trail across the region deposit most of their
moisture on the mountains to the west. In the
colder season, storms that develop off southern
California move through the region once or twice a
year and produce some precipitation, mostly on
higher terrain as snow. During the summer, widely
scattered showers and thunderstorms occur but
coverage is spotty and erratic, often leading to
drought in many areas of the region.
Annual mean temperatures vary from 48 °F to
52°F. Temperatures exceeding 100°F occur
throughout the region, while subzero temperatures
are uncommon except in the mountains. A
distinctive feature of the climate is the large
variation in the daily high-low temperatures.
Annual precipitation averages less than 10
inches for most of the region, though points in
northern New Mexico and southwestern Colorado
receive 20 inches or more. At lower elevations,
about half the precipitation falls between May and
August. At higher elevations, a greater proportion
is received from winter storms. Summer rainfall is
mostly from intense local thunderstorms that
frequently cause flash floods. Potential evapora-
tion exceeds normal precipitation by a factor of 6
or more.
Wind direction tends to show the effect of local
topography. Generally, winds are westerly during
the day and easterly during the night, but terrain
features complicate the wind field and cause
significant deviations. For example, uneven cool-
ing of the air results in downslope drainage of cold
dense air during calm, clear nights; and the
heating of valley walls and hills causes air to flow
upslope and out of the valleys on calm,fair days.
These terrain-induced circulations are common
with the complex topography in all sections of the
region.
Mixing heights and transport winds in the
region have seasonal and diurnal variation. Gener-
ally, mixing heights are higher in the afternoon
than in the morning. Seasonally, morning mixing
heights are lowest during winter months, due to
radiation inversions and afternoon mixing. Sur-
face-based inversions occur 80-90 percent of the
mornings throughout the year but are uncommon
during afternoons. Stagnations are very prevalent.
Ventilation values are highest in the spring because
of the strong transport winds and lowest during the
winter because of long nights, short days, snow
cover, and persistent high-pressure systems. These
various conditions result in a rather poor potential
for pollution dispersion during certain periods of
the year.
Nevertheless, for the most part, the region's air
quality is considered good and better than the
national standards. High winds can pick up dust
which can cause or result in high particulate
content in local areas for several days at a time.
Areas generally not meeting the standards for
particulate content include the industrial areas
around the Four Corners and San Juan generating
stations in San Juan County, New Mexico. Sulfur
dioxide air quality is generally better than he
national standards except near the generating
stations about 15 miles west of Farmington, New
Mexico. The region is now primarily rural except
for the towns of Gallup and Farmington, New
Mexico and Durango, Colorado. Most industrial,
commercial, and population growth is expected to
be in these urban areas. As this occurs, the air
quality will probably deteriorate.
Major rivers draining the region are the San
Juan, the Colorado, and the Little Colorado. The
region encompasses headwaters of the San Juan,
the only stream that receives flow from outside the
area. Potential evapotranspiration ranges from less
than 24 to about 35 inches per year. Runoff in the
Little Colorado and its numerous dry washes is
almost nil. Average annual stream flow for the
region measured at the confluence of the San Juan
and Colorado Rivers is approximately 2.6 million
acre-feet. Surface reservoirs of the region store 27.1
million acre-feet.
Only in the upper reaches of the higher
tributaries of the San Juan, in Colorado, is the
sediment concentration low or medium. Over most
of the San Juan River Coal Region the sediment
concentration exceeds 1,000 milligrams per liter.
4-43
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
Summer thunderstorms and spring snowmelt often
create floods of damaging proportions that carry
tremendous loads of sediment. During such high-
flow periods, the suspended-sediment content of
the San Juan River and many of its tributaries may
exceed 50,000 parts per million. Hardness of the
surface water throughout most of the region
exceeds 240 mg/liter, and all three major streams
average at least 1,000 mg/liter of total dissolved
solids. Approximately 1 million acre-feet of surface
water is withdrawn each year for consumptive use,
mainly irrigation.
Groundwater in the region is generally good
where it is available. Nearly all sandstone forma-
tions in the region yield water, which is generally
sufficient for livestock and domestic purposes.
Wells developed in riparian deposits or in sand-
stone aquifers deliver 50 to 500 gallons per minute.
Groundwater withdrawals for consumptive use in
the region are approximately 50,000 acre-feet per
year. The heaviest groundwater pumping is in the
Gallup, New Mexico, area, which is part of the
Little Colorado drainage. There pumpage to meet
the demands of industry associated with coal and
uranium is removing more water from the aquifers
than can naturally be replaced.
In general, the San Juan River Coal Region is
characterized by steep slopes covered with only
sparse vegetation and a semi-arid climate with an
extremely variable precipitation. Formation of top
soil is slow because parent materials are predomi-
nately sandstone and shale for all soils in the
region. Permeability is slow to moderate, and the
soils are used primarily for grazing. Rich alluvial
soils occur along the floodplains and alluvial fans,
but these make up only a small percentage of the
region. The major limitations of the region's soils
are shallowness, salinity, and erodability.
The region contains three major vegetative
communities: grassland and grassland-shrub (low-
er altitudes), pinyon-juniper (5,000-7,000 feet), and
montane coniferous forest (above 7,000 feet).
Wildlife within the region includes at least 100
species of mammals, 116 species of birds, and 28
species of amphibians. Several species are unique
to this region.
Many of the grassland-shrub areas in the
region have been severely overgrazed by livestock.
Dominant plant species within this habitat type
include green joint fir at higher elevations and
rubber rabbitbrush, greasewood, and pale wolfber-
ry along the dry washes and arroyos. Fourwing
saltbush and snakeweed may be locally abundant.
Typical grasses include galleta, blue grama, sand
dropseed, and Indian ricegrass. Russian thistle and
cheat grass are common on overgrazed areas.
Much of the region is dominated by big sagebrush.
Common mammals in these areas include prong-
horn antelope, black-tailed jackrabbit, desert
cottontail, sagebrush vole, northern grasshopper
mouse, Ord's and Great Basin kangaroo rats,
prairie dog, badger, coyote, and western spotted
skunk. Common birds include Gambel's quail,
sage grouse, mourning dove, loggerhead shrike,
sage thrasher, sage sparrow, Brewer's sparrow, red-
tailed hawk, ferruginous hawk, and great horned
owl. Reptiles, particularly lizards and snakes, are
well represented. Common species include sage-
brush lizard, leopard lizard, side-blotched lizard,
bullsnake, plateau whiptail, racer, and western
rattlesnake. This habitat is heavily populated by
rodents adapted to dry conditions.
The woodland-bushland community supports
wildlife from grassland and grassland-shrub asso-
ciations plus some additional species. Typical trees
and shrubs include pinyon pine, juniper, big
sagebrush, Utah serviceberry, oak, fourwing salt-
bush, antelope bitterbrush, mountain mahogany,
and cliffrose. Characteristic mammals include
mule deer, rock squirrel, cliff chipmunk, desert
woodrat, pinyon mouse, bushytailed woodrat,
coyote, and bobcat. Birds include the ash-throated
flycatcher, scrub jay, pinyon jay, blue-gray gnat-
catcher, western bluebird, and acorn woodpecker.
Typical species of coniferous forest and forest
edge communities include Douglas-fir, blue
spruce, Englemann spruce, aspen, and oak. Typi-
cal mammals include mule deer, elk, snowshoe
rabbit, red squirrel, golden-mantled ground squir-
rel, deer mouse, porcupine, black bear, marten,
and cougar. Birds include the mountain bluebird,
varied thrush, western tanager, common raven,
gray jay, blue grouse, pygmy owl, flammulated
owl, saw-whet owl, great horned owl, and golden
eagle.
Numerous plant species proposed for endan-
gered or threatened status exist in the San Juan
River Coal Region. Presently, however, no plant
species in the region are classified as endangered.
Endangered fauna includes the whooping crane,
Mexican duck, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, thick-
billed parrot, and gray wolf.
4-44
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
All areas within the region can probably be
reclaimed after disturbance, provided that topsoil
is replaced as a plant medium and adequate
moisture is available for plant germination and
emergence. The fragile nature of the area's soil and
the relatively low precipitation, however, would
require a high degree of attention during reclama-
tion.
4.8.2 The Environment and Man
The San Juan River Coal Region is one of the
most interesting historical and archaeological
regions in North America. The earliest known use
of the region, dating back as far as 10,000 B.C.,
was by mobile hunter-gatherers. This subsistence
pattern continued until about two and three
thousand years ago, when the Anasazi people
began a more settled existence and started raising
domestic plants, such as squash, corn, beans,
amaranth, and chili. Large multi-storied pueblos
developed, reaching a peak of elaboration at about
1,000 to 1,100 A.D. Their locations appear to have
been determined primarily by the availability of
water for floodwater farming and controlled
irrigation. Recent evidence indicates that major
pueblos were linked by a complex road network;
and it is possible that the entire San Juan River
Coal Region was organized into a regionwide
economic and political system. During the 1300's
the area along the San Juan River was abandoned
for unknown reasons.
The earliest Navajo materials are found in the
north-central part of the region, along the Colora-
do-New Mexico border. After acquiring sheep
from the Spanish, the Navajos spread quickly, and
by about 1800, herding and limited agriculture
were dominant economic patterns throughout the
region.
Spanish explorers and missionaries ventured
into the northern Southwest in the 16th, 17th, and
18th Centuries, but it was not until the early 1800's
that non-Indians arrived with any frequency.
Trappers, miners, and traveling merchants began
arriving regularly during the early to mid-1800*s.
During the period between 1850 and 1890, Army
expeditions extensively mapped the region, re-
stricted Indian activities, and established forts;
and traders greatly increased the level of Indian
contact when the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad
crossed the southern portion of the region. By
1890, about one-fourth of the area was settled. At
present, there are approximately 30 listings in the
National Register of Historic Places for this region,
many associated with Indian tribes.
The economic patterns of the region are closely
related to energy development. The three econom-
ic sectors that supply the majority of jobs are
commercial and professional services, wholesale
and retail trade, and mining. These three sectors
accounted for 75 percent of all employed workers
as of 1974. Table 4-10 provides an overview of
pertinent economic and demographic data for the
San Juan River Coal Region. Economic develop-
ment has been relatively orderly, although some
localized problems have resulted.
Commercial and professional services are
largely limited to the population centers. Most
services are related to the oil, gas, and mining
industries. The expansion of urban areas, as
distribution, transportation, and communication
service centers, has been simultaneous with the
growth of light industry. The expansion of govern-
ment services is related to the vast holdings of
Federally controlled lands within the region.
Approximately 42,803 workers, or about 43 per-
cent of the total work force is involved in services.
Mining has been important to all the states in
the region. Much of the growth of the transporta-
tion, communication, and utilities sectors of the
economy has stemmed from mining activity. Coal
has been mined historically in all states of the
region, but only recently have these reserves
received national interest. Oil and gas are pro-
duced in half of the counties and are the leading
commodities in one-quarter of the counties. The
most common mineral produced in the region is
sand and gravel, but a wide variety of metals
(uranium, copper, zinc, lead, vanadium, gold,
silver, and iron) and nonmetallic (crushed stone,
clay, gypsum, lime, potassium salts, and salt) are
also mined.
Historically, agriculture was the principal
employment sector until the early 1950's, when
energy-related development started to increase.
With population increases, urban expansion
moved to the prime agricultural valleys.
Agriculture in this area consists of irrigated
farming along water courses and the grazing of
cattle and sheep. Dryland farming is important
locally, especially in the Colorado portion of the
basin. The value of farm products sold is less than
$1 per acre of land throughout the region; most
4-45
TABLE 4-10
POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THE
SAN JUAN RIVER REGION (a)
1975 Total Population 3
Total Area (square miles) a
Population per square mile (1975)
Per Capita Personal Income (1975)
Per Capita Personal Income as a
Percent of National Average (1975)
351,143
57,047
6.2
3,753
74
PERCENT
EARNINGS
PERCENT
EMPLOYMENT
OF
(in thousands
OF
ECONOMIC SECTOR
TOTAL
of dollars)
TOTAL
Livestock
3,957
4
23,374
3
Other Agriculture
3,805
4
17,707
2
Metal Mining
3,495
4
37,169
5
Coal Mining
283
0-1
7,478
1
Oil and Gas
3,887
4
29,205
4
Other Mining
445
0-1
2,585
0-1
Construction
4,649
5
65,362
8
All Manufacturing
6,331
6
46,679
6
Transportation ,
Communication ,
and Public
Utilities
3,567
4
59,822
7
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
21,551
22
136,141
17
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
3,344
3
28,623
4
Other Services
14,082
14
121,665
15
Federal Govt.
6,991
7
78,495
10
State and Local
Govt.
21,730
22
147,222
18
TOTAL
98,117
801,527
(a) Demographic information which is based on all counties either totally
or partially within regional boundaries.
4-46
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
income is derived from sales of cattle and sheep.
Principal agricultural crops grown within the
region include corn, hay, wheat, cotton, and
sugarbeets.
Relatively low population, remoteness, and
breathtaking scenery combine to make recreation-
al opportunities almost unlimited. Two rivers in
Colorado, the Dolores and Los Pinos, are under
consideration for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic
Rivers System. There are six National Monuments
in the region and twelve state recreational facili-
ties. The most popular recreational activity in this
region is camping, followed by fishing, picnicking,
and hunting. Recreation is showing significant
economic growth in all areas.
Land ownership throughout the region is
primarily Federal. Federal lands are National
Forest and public lands (administered by BLM).
Indian land also is prevalent. Only a small
percentage of the land is private. This has made
urban expansion expensive and difficult.
The region is well supplied with energy by the
Colorado River Storage Project of the Bureau of
Reclamation, by municipal, private, and coopera-
tive power companies, and by natural gas distribu-
tors. Recent growth in demand for electricity has
been rapid. Demand for natural gas has been
increasing at a lesser rate, due to rising prices.
Transportation facilities are best developed in
urban areas. The major transportation network
within the region are highways, but neither
construction nor maintenance has kept up with the
expanded use. Railways are almost non-existent,
although an east-west main-line of the Santa Fe
Railway traverses the region.
Water may be one of the most stringent limits
on future growth. Water supply and wastewater
treatment require advanced technologies in what is
essentially a desert environment. Few rural com-
munities in the region possess the water supply
systems and wastewater treatment facilities that
are features of urban areas. Surface water is
scarce; groundwater often has a large quantity of
minerals and salts and must be processed.
4.9 UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN UTAH
COAL REGION
The Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region, is
in the Colorado Plateau and Uinta Basin of the
southwestern United States. This region encom-
passes about 57,000 square miles in six Colorado
and 14 Utah counties.
4.9.1 The Environment
The general area is characterized by extremes
in both topography and climate. The higher peaks
and plateaus rise above the adjacent lowlands
which, in turn, are from about 3,000 to over 5,000
feet above sea level. Extremely steep slopes and
narrow, vertically walled canyons prevail through-
out much of the region. Many of the coal deposits
are in the flanks of the major peaks and plateaus at
intermediate elevations.
The Uinta portion of this region, the northern
majority of the region in Utah and Colorado which
contains the south slope of the Uinta mountains, is
a structural basin with rocks on the southern flanks
of the basin dipping gently toward the center.
Rocks on the northern and northeastern flanks are
steeply dipping with overturned beds and major
faults. The remaining Southwestern Utah portion
of the region includes a series of plateaus in a
shallow structural basin. Many of those areas are
separated by a series of major faults, including the
Hurricane, Sevier, and Paunsaugunt Faults. A
number of geologically significant areas within this
region have been included in the National Park
System as parts of Zion, Bryce Canyon, and
Capitol Reef National Parks, and Cedar Breaks
National Monument. A number of areas, less
known to the general public but almost equally
spectacular and geologically unique, have been
designated by the Bureau of Land Management as
outstanding natural areas. For examples, the
canyons of the Escalante River and its tributaries
contain numerous natural bridges and arches,
towering rock monoliths, and sheer sandstone
cliffs.
Principal minerals are coal, petroleum, natural
gas, copper, zinc, lead, vanadium, gold, silver, and
iron. Oil shale and tar sands, as well as convention-
al petroleum sources, are extensive.
The geological age of the coal deposits date
back to the Cretaceous and Paleocene ages. Coal
seams are primarily deep deposits of medium to
high volatile A and B bituminous. The region's
coal reserve base is estimated to be approximately
6 billion tons.
Fossils of prehistoric plants and animals are
widespread. One of the nation's major concentra-
tions of dinosaur remains is in the Utah portion of
4-47
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
Dinosaur National Monument. Other deposits
occur throughout the region.
Prevailing southwest winds, that move across
the Colorado and Mohave Deserts, give most of
the region an arid climate with a very high
evapotranspiration rate. However, rugged topogra-
phy and great differences in elevation and orienta-
tion cause great variations in temperature and
moisture within short distances. The result is a
mosaic of microclimates with significant differ-
ences between north and south facing slopes, and
between sheltered canyon bottoms and exposed
ridges. At higher elevations subzero winter temper-
atures are common. Summers are cold and
growing seasons are short. The higher peaks and
mountain ranges are covered with snow, often
several feet deep, several months of the year.
The lower elevations are characterized by hot
summers, with temperatures frequently exceeding
100°F, especially in southern portions of the
region. Even at lower elevations subfreezing
temperatures occur frequently in the winter.
The clear, dry air typical of much of the area is
conducive to rapid temperature changes. It is not
unusual to have temperatures in the eighties at
midday and frost at night within the same 24-hour
period.
In spite of the prevailing general movement of
air from west to east many local wind variations
result from the rugged topography. Warm air rises
from the valley floors and plains during the day
and cold air drains down from the higher eleva-
tions at night. Local wind flows created by these
factors can be quite strong. As a rule, however,
their persistence is not great.
Throughout rural portions of this region, air
quality is generally very good. There are no major
concentrations of particulates, sulfur dioxide, or
nitrogen dioxide. Occasionally, however, air quali-
ty problems occur in the closed valleys where
temperature inversions trap and hold urban and
industrial emissions.
Because of the high evapotranspiration rate
during summer months, winter precipitation is
usually more effective in providing soil moisture
and groundwater recharge.
Water from much of the region drains east and
south into tributaries of the Colorado River.
Principal Colorado tributaries include the Green,
White, Duchesne, Price, Dirty Devil, Escalante,
Paria, and Virgin Rivers. The Yampa River,
though just outside the region, contributes signifi-
cantly to flows of the Green. The remainder of the
region, including the Provo and Sevier Rivers, is in
the Great Basin hydrologic region.
Most precipitation occurs on the high moun-
tains and plateaus. Watersheds at lower elevations
contribute little to base stream flows because of
low precipitation and high evapotranspiration
rates. Therefore, most streams diminish rather than
grow in size after leaving the mountains. This
natural tendency is intensified by extensive diver-
sions and consumptive use of water by man. The
Sevier River is subjected to extremely heavy use
with much of the water rediverted and reused
several times along its course, and is largely
depleted by the time the river reaches Sevier Dry
Lake.
Most streams originate in the high timbered
country of the headwaters. As they descend, they
accumulate sediments and salts from the highly
erosive watersheds at lower elevations. This natu-
ral trend is intensified by diversion of water,
primarily for irrigation. Water returning to the
stream as drainage from irrigated agriculture
carries an increased loading of salts and sediments.
Tributaries originating at lower elevations are
usually intermittent. Stream flows and surface
water use have not been quantified for this region
specifically, and flows are probably less than 6
million acre-feet per year.
Dissolved solids in streams of the region range
from 120 to 350 milligrams per liter in the western
base of the Wasatch Mountains, and tributaries to
the Upper Strawberry, which drain the south face
of the Uinta Mountains. Over the remainder of the
region, total dissolved solids values are greater
than 350 mg/1. In some basins total dissolved
solids exceed 1800 mg/1. Sediment concentrations
are variable, but are greater than 1900 mg/1 in the
larger perennial rivers. Suspended sediment con-
centrations vary extensively throughout the region.
The region is underlain by low permeability
rocks that generally yield less than 50 gallons per
minute to wells. However, in some of the alluvial
valley fills, particularly those containing gravels
and sands, yields of several hundred gallons a
minute can be obtained. The quality of bedrock
water supplies is generally poor.
Over much of the region soils are poorly
developed. The combination of steep slopes and
semi-arid to arid climate, with highly variable
4-48
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
precipation, results in a naturally high rate of
erosion. Wind erosion is significant in southern
portions of the region. Formation of top soil is
quite slow. In the geologic past, much of the region
was covered by a shallow sea which contributed
salts to the land. In much of the region the high
evapotranspiration rate has caused further concen-
tration of salts in many areas. Salts are generally
more concentrated in soils of flat valley floors and
closed basins. The more productive soils frequently
occur on benches, alluvial fans and gentle slopes,
where there is sufficient drainage to minimize the
accumulation of salts.
In addition to soil problems inherent to the
topography, climate, and geological history of the
region, severe range and watershed abuse by the
early settlers caused loss or degradation of much of
the limited and fragile original top soil. Continued
heavy grazing has limited recovery of damaged
areas in many cases.
Soils of the eastern part of the region generally
are sandy loam, loam, or silty loam with a calcium
carbonate accumulation usually occurring at
depths greater than four feet. The soils of the
central portion of the region are generally steep,
shallow, and poorly developed, often with many
rock fragments. In the southern portion of the
region, the soils are a mix of the rocky soils found
in the central part of the region and soils with
sandy loam to silty clay loam texture with a
calcium carbonate zone at one to three feet.
Vegetation is largely a manifestation of climate
and soils. Plantlife within the region forms a
mosaic closely conforming to the pattern of
climates caused by the rugged topography. In this
arid environment, moisture is by far the most vital
factor in determining what vegetation will grow in
a given site. Native flora ranges from cold desert
through pinyon-juniper woodland to montane
coniferous forest often within a few miles. Narrow
belts of streamside vegetation transect all the
major vegetal communities.
Numbers and kinds of wildlife present are, in
turn, determined primarily by the habitat created
by existing vegetation. The great diversity of
vegetation supports a corresponding diversity of
wildlife including approximately 90 different mam-
mals, 270 birds, 26 reptiles, 9 amphibians, and a
great many insects and other invertebrates.
The montane forests of the higher elevations
contain ponderosa and lodgepole pine, Douglas-
fir, and spruce. Aspen is interspersed throughout
much of the conifer forests.
Wildlife representative of the montane conifer-
ous forests include small mammals such as
snowshoe rabbit, red squirrel, flying squirrel, and
porcupine; game species such as elk, black bear,
mule deer; and predators such as bobcat, cougar,
and marten. Moose have recently been trans-
planted into the region. Characteristic birds in-
clude Clark's nutcracker, grayheaded junco,
mountain bluebird, mountain chickadee, hairy
woodpecker, ruffed grouse, blue grouse, goshawk,
great horned owl, pygmy owl, and flamulated owl.
Wild turkey occur in limited areas.
The woodland-brushland, at intermediate ele-
vations consists of juniper, piny on pine, mountain
mahogany, and oakbrush with interspersions of
sagebrush and grasses.
Representative mammals of the pinyon-juniper
woodland-bushland communities include rock
squirrel, cliff chipmunk, desert woodrat, pinyon
mouse, bobcat, bushy-tailed woodrat, mule deer,
and elk. A free-roaming bison herd occurs in this
vegetal type on the Henry Mountains of Utah.
Birds include the ash-throated flycatcher, gray
flycatcher, pinyon jay, plains titmouse, western
bluebird, and the black-throated gray warbler.
Vegetation of the cold desert is dominated by
salt-bush and greasewood, indicating saline soil, in
lower, poorly drained areas. Sagebrush with
associated grasses and forbs predominate on slopes
and benches that are better drained and less saline.
In cold desert communities, typical mammals
are the black-tailed jack rabbit, desert cottontail,
Nuttall's cottontail, desert woodrat, least chip-
munk, Great Basin pocket mouse, Ord's kangaroo
rat, northern grasshopper mouse, pronghorn ante-
lope, coyote, kit fox, skunk, and desert bighorn
sheep. Characteristic reptiles are the leopard lizard,
sagebrush lizard, side-blotched lizard, short-
horned lizard, bullsnake, plateau whiptail racer,
and western rattlesnake. Birds include red-tailed
hawk, Gambel's quail, sage grouse, mourning
dove, great-horned owl, loggerhead shrike, sage
thrasher, sage sparrow, and Brewer's sparrow.
Streamside vegetation consists mainly of Cot-
tonwood, willow, and herbaceous wetland plants.
The narrow belts of riparian woodlands are vital to
many wildlife species and support a greater
diversity of wildlife than any other single habitat
type. This is especially true in lower and more arid
4-49
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
areas where the riparian vegetation is literally an
oasis in the desert. The cottonwoods and other
trees often provide the only nesting and perching
sites in many miles for raptors and other birds.
Throughout the region, much of the vegetal
cover has changed considerably since the coming
of settlers and the grazing of domestic livestock.
Prior to this time, grasslands were more extensive
and sagebrush and pinyon-juniper more limited in
area. Heavy grazing of grasses favored an increase
in shrubs and woodland. This caused an increase
in numbers of deer and a decrease in numbers of
elk, antelope, and desert bighorn.
Reclamation of land, to the point where it
supports the same vegetation and fauna that was
there before disturbance, is a slow process in much
of the region. In the more arid areas, the probabili-
ty of seeding success without irrigation is approxi-
mately one year out of three. In a drought cycle
several years may pass before suitable moisture
conditions occur for reseeding success. Proper soil
management and irrigation practices may, how-
ever, mitigate the adverse reclamation effects of
droughts. Transplanting of seedlings is sometimes
required for some desirable shrub species. Trees
grow slowly, and 100 years or more may be
required to replace a mature stand of timber.
In some cases, predominant existing vegetation
represents a deteriorated watershed condition
resulting from longterm overuse by livestock and
big game animals. Therefore, restoration of the
exact existing vegetation might not always be
desirable.
The numerous habitat areas isolated from one
another by barriers of terrain and climate have
encouraged the evolution of a number of unique
plant species. Eighty-four plants in the region have
been proposed for Federal endangered or threat-
ened status; however, only the Rydberg milk- vetch
has been designated as threatened. None are
Federally considered to be endangered. The
remaining 83 may not eventually receive this
status.
A number of Federally-listed endangered or
threatened animals inhabit the region either year-
round or seasonally. These include the bald eagle,
peregrine falcon, Utah prairie dog, black-footed
ferret, and whooping crane. Endangered and
threatened fish include the endangered Colorado
squawfish, humpback chub, and woundfm. The
Virgin River spinedace and Virgin River roundtail
chub have been recommended for endangered
classification. The razorback sucker is on the
Colorado endangered list. Additionally, Colorado
cites the river otter as endangered and Utah cites
the spotted bat as unique.
4.9.2 The Environment and Man
The prehistory of the region includes several
distinct archeologically defined cultural periods:
the Paleo Indians (big game hunters- 12,000 B.C. to
500 B.C.), Archaic (hunter/gatherers- 12,000 B.C.
to 500 B.C.), Desert Anasazi (sedentary agricultu-
ristic-A.D. 700 to A.D. 1250), and Paiute (hun-
ter/gatherers-A.D. 1250 to the historic period).
Numerous small groups of cliff dwellings and other
archeological sites are scattered throughout ca-
nyons, mainly in southern portions of the region.
Indian artifacts are scattered throughout the
region. Modern Indians still occupy considerable
areas.
The first documented non-Indian passage
through southern Utah and western Colorado was
by the Dominguez-Escalante expedition of 1776-
77. The somewhat later, trade-oriented Spanish
Trail also passes through the region. The region
was visited in the earlier 1 800's by the government
explorer John C. Fremont, the famed trapper
Jedediah Smith, and other trappers, fur traders,
and mountain men.
Very soon after their arrival in the Salt Lake
Valley in 1847, the Mormons initiated exploration
and colonization missions on a substantial scale.
Initial thrusts were along the western base of the
Wasatch Plateau and in the Sevier River Valley
where snow-fed streams from the mountains
provided water for irrigation. The region was
originally settled primarily for agriculture and
stock raising. However, discovery of minerals soon
brought about considerable mining activity in
some areas. The Mormons established settlements
as rapidly as possible in almost every location
which the resources could conceivably support.
The Colorado portion was settled in a more typical
fashion. The White River Basin, somewhat isolated
from the main travel routes through the moun-
tains, was occupied by white settlers later than
much of the region.
Mining of coal began in numerous locations at
an early date. The coal enterprise prospered for
many years supplying primarily the railroads and
local domestic and industrial needs. Replacement
4-50
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
of coal-burning railroad locomotives with diesel-
electric engines and conversion from coal to
natural gas and fuel oil for home heating and
industrial use caused a drastic decline in coal
mining activity. Many mines were inactive until
recently when the construction of several large
coal-fired power plants created a greatly increased
demand.
The uranium boom following World War II
brought thousands of prospectors and miners into
the more rugged and remote areas of southern
Utah and western Colorado. This influx was
temporary and most uranium seekers left after the
market for uranium declined. Roads and jeep trails
established or improved during the uranium boom
have had a lasting impact by increasing accessibili-
ty to many areas.
Uranium mining and processing, which have
been at a low level for a number of years, are
beginning to accelerate in response to the increase
in nuclear power plants.
Coal is produced in almost half the region's
counties and is the leading value mineral in six of
them. Of those counties reporting actual dollar
volume of production, 60 percent had total
production valued at greater than $1 million; and
45 percent had values greater than $10 million.
Petroleum, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
were produced in half of the counties and were the
leading commodities in one-quarter of the coun-
ties, including two counties that had a total
mineral production of $340 million. Although sand
and gravel were the most common minerals in the
region, being produced in 95 percent of the
counties, production value was low, accounting for
only one percent of Utah's total mineral produc-
tion. A wide variety of metallic minerals were
produced in the region, the most common being
uranium. Other metallic minerals included copper,
zinc, lead, vanadium, gold, silver, and iron. In
addition to sand and gravel, the nonmetallic
minerals produced in the region included crushed
stone, clay, gypsum, lime, potassium salts, and salt.
The demand for limestone and lime is increasing
as these materials are used for dust suppression in
coal mines and in wet scrubbers for emission
control at power plants.
Even though much of the region is sparsely
populated and rural in nature, it supports localized
urban centers. Price, Richfield, Vernal, St. George
and Cedar City, Utah, and Grand Junction and
Montrose, Colorado, are some of the principal
trade centers within the region. Page and Fredonia,
Arizona, and Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah, are
within the area of economic influence. Nearly all
communities are dependent on Salt Lake City or
Denver for some goods and services.
Total population for the Uinta-Southwestern
Utah Coal Region was approximately 406,600 in
1975, with a density of approximately seven
persons per square mile. Forty-four thousand
persons migrated into the region between 1970 and
1976. Public school enrollments totaled over
100,000 students in 1975. Table 4-11 provides an
overview of pertinent demographic and socioeco-
nomic information.
Approximately 26,400 workers, or about 19.2
percent of total regional employment, are in the
service sector. Combined with 29,900 workers in
the wholesale and retail trade sector and 16,700
workers in the manufacturing sector, these three
sectors represent over 52 percent of total employ-
ment. Approximately 13,460 persons are employed
in the agricultural sector in the region.
Livestock grazing in some form occurs over
much of the region. The limited area of farm land,
less than 5 percent of the land area, is largely used
for production of hay and feed grains in conjunc-
tion with range livestock operations.
Pastureland represents more than 75 percent of
farmlands. Over 75 percent of harvested cropland
is irrigated. In some counties, as much as 20-29
percent of the total farm land and most of the
irrigated land was used for the production of hay
to support livestock operations.
Cultivated crops produced within the region
include hay, wheat, sugarbeets, and corn. Average
yields per acre for these crops are 2.5 tons for hay,
23.3 bushels for wheat, 18 tons for sugarbeets, and
96 bushels for corn.
Military and other U.S. government installa-
tions and operations in and adjacent to the region
make a significant contribution to the economy. In
recent years the service sector related to tourism
and outdoor recreation has become important.
Hunting, fishing, camping, plus other recreation-
oriented out-of-doors activities are significant
elements of the regional economy. Five national
parks, five national monuments, one national
recreation area, one wilderness area, one national
forest primitive area, several BLM outstanding
natural areas, numerous ski resorts, and river-
4-51
TABLE 4-11
POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THE
UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN UTAH REGION(a)
1975 Total Population 3
Total Area (square miles) a
Population per square mile (1975)
Per Capita Personal Income (1975)
Per Capita Personal Income as a
Percent of National Average (1975)
406,626
56,271
7.2
$3,950
78
ECONOMIC SECTOR
EMPLOYMENT
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
EARNINGS
(in thousands
of dollars)
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
Livestock
6,243
5
31,887
3
Other Agriculture
7,218
5
35,786
3
Metal Mining
1,893
1
13,714
1
Coal Mining
2,167
2
51-, 511
5
Oil and Gas
2,611
2
24,109
2
Other Mining
1,423
1
15,998
1
Construction
6,608
5
106,707
2
All Manufacturing
16,755
12
149,799
13
Transportation,
Communication ,
and Public
Utilities
4,504
3
73,969
7
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
29,898
22
198,023
18
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
4,168
3
36,770
3
Other Services
26,397
19
190,401
17
Federal Govt.
3,559
3
40,077
4
State and Local
Govt.
23,687
17
143,562
13
TOTAL
137,131
1,112,313
(a) Demographic information which is based on all counties either totally
or partially within regional boundaries.
4-52
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
running opportunities on the Colorado River, all
within or immediately adjacent to the region, draw
recreationists from throughout the nation.
A significant characteristic of the region is that
existing population centers are far apart and often
considerable distances from the natural resources
that are being developed. Also, availability of land
suitable for expanded municipal and residential
development is sometimes physically limited by
rugged terrain or inadequate water supply.
School districts range from over 13,000 stu-
dents in 34 schools at Grand Junction, Colorado,
to less than 100 students and one school in some
smaller rural communities.
In many communities little vacant housing is
available to accommodate any substantial popula-
tion increase. In towns currently experiencing
rapid growth there has been a marked increase in
mobile homes.
Most towns have small administrative staffs
which have few resources for planning future
developments. Also, land use control mechanisms
to manage growth are frequently lacking.
Police and fire protection range from full time
professional departments to part time services of
the county sheriffs departments in the smaller
communities.
Except for the few major highways most roads
were designed a number of years ago to handle
relatively light traffic and would require upgrading
to accomodate heavy coal hauling. Some coal
deposits are accessible only by primitive roads and
major road construction would be required if coal
were developed. Only a few active railroads exist in
the region. Interstate Highway 15 skirts the
western edge of the region linking the major trade
centers of Utah with Las Vegas and Los Angeles to
the southwest and with Boise, Portland, and
Seattle in the northwest. Interstate 70 links central
Utah with Grand Junction and Denver on the east.
Interstate 80, just outside the region, links the
Wasatch Front population centers of Utah with
the San Francisco Bay area and industrial centers
of the Great Lakes and northeastern regions.
Major railroads are the Union Pacific and
Denver and Rio Grande Western (D&RGW). The
D&RGW begins at Ogden, Utah, passes through
Salt Lake City and Provo, crosses the Wasatch
Plateau and parallels US 6 to Grand Junction and
Denver, Colorado. A segment of the D&RGW
extends southward through the region to Richfield,
Utah. The Union Pacific links the region to other
population centers of the nation.
A preponderance of the land is in public
ownership. Portions of nine National Forests are
included in the higher, timbered portions of the
region. These are the Wasatch, Uinta, Ashley,
Fishlake, and Dixie National Forests in Utah and
the White River, Routt, Grand Mesa, and Uncom-
pahgre National Forests in Colorado. The Uintah-
Ouray Indian Reservation is located in the Uinta
Basin portion of the region. Lands at lower
elevations are largely public lands administered by
the Bureau of Land Management. Typically,
bottom lands and gentle slopes suitable for
agriculture are privately owned and the more
rugged terrain is in public ownership.
4.10 DENVER - RATON MESA COAL
REGION
The Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Region is in the
Colorado Piedmont and Great Plains of the west
central United States. This region encompasses
approximately 24,000 square miles in 14 Colorado
and one New Mexico counties.
4.10.1 The Environment
The Denver Basin occupies a north-south
trending basin characterized by gently dipping
strata to the east and by steeply dipping upturned
beds along the foothills to the west. Except along
the foothills where crystalline rocks outcrop, the
surface rocks are sedimentary. The Laramie
Formation contains coal beds of sub-bituminous B
and C rank. Although these beds range up to 17
feet thick, most are thinner, lenticular, and discon-
tinuous. A number of small mines have extracted
coal from this formation, particularly in Boulder
and Weld Counties, Colorado, and near Colorado
Springs. In addition, the Denver Formation con-
tains extensive beds of sub-bitumnous coal in an
area about 75 miles long by 25-35 miles wide.
Placer gold was recovered from portions of the
area in the latter part of the nineteenth century,
but gold is not actively mined now. Numerous
producing oil and gas wells are located in the
region. Production is from the Dakota Sandstone
and is spread over a number of small scattered
fields.
The Raton Mesa area of this region occupies a
broad trough that runs north-south from northern
New Mexico into southern Colorado. This basin is
4-53
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
also characterized by gently dipping rocks on the
eastern flank and steeply dipping to overturned
rocks along the flanks of the Sangre De Cristo
Mountains to the west. The area contains many
igneous intrusions that alter the coal beds. Coal
occurs throughout the sandstones and shales of the
Vermejo Formation and the conglomerate, sand-
stone, and shale of the Raton Formations. The
entire region is estimated to contain 3.9 billion tons
of demonstrated coal reserves. The coal is high-
volatile A to B bituminous and of coking quality
throughout most of the region, except in the
Walsenburg Field in the northern part. The
coalbearing rocks are up to 2,400 feet thick and
contain coal beds mostly 2 to 5 feet thick, but
ranging up to 15 feet thick in the New Mexico
section of the region. Much of the coal outcrops at
the surface on hillsides and along hogbacks. Some
surface-mineable coal reserves are reported, but a
number of major coal beds of the Vermejo
Formation are buried by overburden as thick as
1,000 to 3,000 feet. Sand and gravel are extracted
in all counties of the region.
The climate of the Denver-Raton Mesa Coal
Region is highland continental. It is characterized
by low relative humidity, light rainfall, abundant
sunshine, moderate to high wind movement, and a
large daily range in temperature. Precipitation
generally ranges from 13 to 18 inches a year, the
greater amounts falling at the higher elevations.
Precipitation is heaviest in spring and early
summer and lowest in the winter months.
Prevailing storm patterns across the region are
west-to-east. The storms provide little moisture to
the area, however, because they deposit most of it
on the western slopes of the Rockies. Similarly,
storms from the north that bring some of the
coldest weather are rarely accompanied by signifi-
cant precipitation. In spring, when storms tend to
develop in the panhandle of Texas and Oklahoma,
moisture is deposited on the eastern slopes of the
mountains and the area receives the heaviest and
most general rains. These taper off to shower and
thunderstorm activity in the summer period.
The mean annual temperature in the region
ranges between 48° and 52° F. However, daily
temperatures vary by 27°F to 39°F, indicative of
the high, semi-arid nature of the area and climate.
Surface wind speeds average 10 miles per hour.
However, winds through the vertical mixing zone
are less than average for the nation as a whole.
Frequent night-time surface inversions and rela-
tively high afternoon mixing heights are prevalent
features of the region. The terrain and the
considerable daily range in temperature tend to
create local valley-mountain circulations, so that
winds are not very persistent in direction except
when chinooks occur. There is a tendency for
regular reversals of flow, a situation that is not
conducive to dispersing pollutants.
In spite of these factors, overall regional air
quality is quite good. However, in the more heavily
populated areas along the Front Range, and
particularly in the South Platte River Valley, air
quality frequently fails to meet national standards.
The principal cause is automobile emissions
coupled with atmospheric temperature inversions.
These conditions are more frequent in the fall and
early winter though they may occur at any time of
the year.
The region is part of three major drainage
basins: the Upper Missouri, the Upper Arkansas
Red, and the Western Gulf. The major rivers
draining the region include the South Platte and its
tributaries, and tributaries to the Arkansas River.
Headwaters of these streams lie to the west in the
Rocky Mountains where most of the runoff
originates as winter snows. Streams originating
within the region are ephemeral; any runoff in
them is generally from spring and summer thunder
showers. Surface-water flow in the region is about
5.4 million acre-feet per year, of which over 4.5
million acre-feet are consumptively used, primarily
for irrigation and self-supplied industry.
Aquifers are found both in the alluvial deposits
of the Denver and Raton Basins and in the
underlying sandstones. Wells drawing from alluvi-
um in the Denver Basin primarily supply water for
irrigation and yield 400 to 2000 gallons per minute.
The Foxhill Sandstone is the most notable bedrock
aquifer in the Denver Basin; it lies at the base of
the coal zone of the Laramie Formation. Most
wells in the sandstone yield water under artesian
pressure, although heavy pumping has lowered the
artesian head about 600 feet in some areas.
Recharge areas of this aquifer are in the foothills to
the west and the Black Forest area near Colorado
Springs. In the Raton Basin, the Dakota Sandstone
is the principal bedrock aquifer, though water is
recovered from other sandstones also. Wells into
these sandstones generally yield 10 to 100 gpm,
and some yield over 200 gpm.
4-54
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
Water quality in the perennial streams entering
the region is quite good, with total dissolved solids
averaging less than 100 milligrams per liter.
However, ephemeral tributary streams often add
water containing 1800 mg/liter or more. Due to
this and to return flows water quality deteriorates
progressively downstream. For example, the South
Platte contains about 1000 mg/liter of dissolved
solids where it leaves the region. Similarly, the
perennial streams entering the region start with
little sediment, but tributary streams, particularly
during peak flows, contribute very heavy loads,
with the result that, in the eastern part of the
region, sediment loads may exceed 1900 mg/liter.
Groundwater quality in alluvial aquifers also
tends to deteriorate downstream, increasing from
1300 mg/liter of total dissolved solids near Denver
to about 1800 mg/liter near the state line. Quality
of water from the sandstone varies but generally is
lightly mineralized with a high floride concentra-
tion and some is slightly corrosive.
Due to a shortage of available water to meet
municipal, irrigation, and industrial needs of the
region, extensive importation of water from west-
ern Colorado has been undertaken.
Within the Denver section of this region, the
soils generally have an organic-rich surface hori-
zon and are high in bases. These gently sloping
soils usually have a thin clay accumulation in the
subsurface horizon and are intermittenly dry for
long periods during the summer. This portion of
the region is on the western edge of the prairie
biome and the predominant vegetation is buffalo
grass and blue grama. Associated vegetation
includes yucca, western wheatgrass, needlegrass,
fringed sage, and prairie globemallow. Other
plants of local importance include cottonwood,
willows, and fourwing saltbush along drainage
systems; saltgrass on saline or alkaline soils; and
prairie sand reed and plains prickly pear in sandy
areas. Ponderosa pine is found in areas southeast
of Denver generally on northerly and easterly
aspects, in the Black Forest north of Colorado
Springs, and where the grassland grades to a
coniferous forest of ponderosa pine and Douglas
fir along the southwest border of the region.
The predominant soils of the Raton Mesa
section have a grey to brown surface horizon with
a subsurface accumulation of clay, and are
medium to high in bases. These soils are usually
moist but have steep slopes and many areas with
rock outcrops. Soil limitations in this section
include erosion, shallowness, and slope. Vegetation
is primarily montane coniferous forest of pondero-
sa pine, Douglas-fir, and Englemann spruce.
Pinyon-juniper stands grading into short-grass
prairie similar to that in the Denver section are
found in the eastern portions of the Raton section.
A high annual turnover and production in the
grasslands of the Denver section provide a food
base for large variety of animals. Populations of
many wild animals can fluctuate widely because of
periodic droughts and severe winter storms. Ripa-
rian habitats along drainage bottoms extend the
forest edge into the grasslands. This greatly
increases the variety of habitat available for
animals; those requiring heavy cover, shade,
browse, tree nesting, etc., are able to survive within
the grassland.
Except for a few remaining pronghorn ante-
lope, the original grazing animals have been
replaced by domestic livestock. Mule deer are
resident where ponderosa pine is found and in the
fingers of riparian habitat along stream beds.
Whitetail deer are found in the South Platte River
bottoms and the deer population is increasing in
this section.
Animal life of the Raton-Mesa section is
typical of the montane coniferous forest and forest
edge habitats. Typical species include mammalian
yellow-bellied marmot, golden-mantled ground
squirrel, least chipmunk, red squirrel, bushy-tailed
woodrat, boreal redback vole, bobcat, mule deer,
elk, and porcupine. Typical birds include the
western flycatcher, Clark's nutcracker, mountain
chickadee, mountain bluebird, and pygmy nu-
thatch.
There are five animal species in the region
whose populations have diminished to the point
that they are currently on the Federal list of
endangered species: the bald eagle, peregrine
falcon, whooping crane, black-footed ferret, and
greenback cutthroat trout. There are no plant
species presently listed as threatened or endan-
gered, although a number are under consideration.
After disturbance, most areas of the Denver-
Raton Mesa Coal Region could probably be
reclaimed with proper land management. The
principal limiting factor is the uncertainty of
precipitation and, in some areas, erodibility of
soils.
4-55
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
4.10.2 The Environment And Man
Both sections of the Denver-Raton Mesa Coal
Region are associated with important Paleo-Indian
life. East of the Raton Mesa section is the Folsom
site in Colfax County, New Mexico, the first site to
be positively identified as Paleo-Indian. Folsom
points, a particular style of projectile point identi-
fied with this site, were found in direct association
with the remains of an extinct species of bison.
North of Denver is the Lindenmeier site, in
Larimer County, Colorado. Extensive excavations
of this site uncovered over 20,000 artifacts, primar-
ily stone blades and projectile points, and helped
to produce a better understanding of Paleo-Indian
life. Cultural developments following the afore-
mentioned Paleo-Indian period included the San
Jose complex of the Desert Culture in the Raton
Mesa section and a transition phase between the
Archaic and Desert Cultures in the Denver section.
Further developments continued to divide the two
sections between eastern and western cultural
influences. In the period following 500 A.D., the
Denver section was within the cultural sphere of
the Plains Bison Hunters, and the Raton Mesa
section was part of the Anasazi complex of the
southwestern Farmers Tradition. The National
Register of Historic Places provides cultural
protection for many of these and other important
archeological and historical features within the
region. Within historic time, eastern Colorado and
northern New Mexico were the domain of several
successive Indian nations. When the white man
arrived in the Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Region,
the Arapaho and Cheyenne occupied the plains
north of the Arkansas River and the Kiowa and
Comanche occupied the land to the south.
Although Spain was the first European nation
to claim what is now the Denver-Raton Mesa Coal
Region, that nation never established any settle-
ments there. Both soldiers and friars from the
settlements near Santa Fe, New Mexico, visited the
area beginning in the early 1700's. They generally
followed a route over Raton Pass; the same route
followed by present day Interstate 25.
Within three years of the Louisiana Purchase,
General Pike visited the region on his explorations
in 1806. However, it was not until after the
Mexican War and the treaty of 1848 that settle-
ment began in the Raton Mesa section. Settlers
came to this area primarily from New Mexico
beginning in the 1850's and 1860's. By 1850, John
Fremont had passed through the Denver section
on two of his expeditions, and the Santa Fe Trail
had been established through the Raton Mesa
section. The discovery of gold near what is now
Denver in 1858 brought settlement to that area,
primarily from the East. Following the Civil War,
the plains Indians were removed to reservations in
Oklahoma.
Railroads from Cheyenne and Kansas City
both reached Denver in 1870, greatly accelerating
the settlement of that part of the region. Denver is
the largest city in the region. Of the 110 historic
sites within the region that are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, half are
within the City of Denver.
Dominant economic activities in the region
reflect the position of Denver as a financial, trade,
and manufacturing center for the whole Rocky
Mountain area, as well as a western government
center. Federal, state, and local governments
employ 24 percent of the work force. Wholesale
and retail trade (23 percent), services (16 percent),
and manufacturing (14 percent) together employ
53 per cent of the workers. Table 4-12 describes the
major sector socioeconomic characteristcs. Agri-
culture employs about 2 percent and mining less
than 1 percent of the workers. The total labor
force, expressed as a percentage of total popula-
tion, provides an estimate of the labor force
participation rate. The estimated 1975 labor force
participation rate in the Denver-Raton Mesa Coal
Region was 72 percent.
Per capita income for the region in 1975 was
$5,787, some 14 percent above the national
average of $5,077. Income ranged from a low of
$3,228 in Huerfano County, Colorado, to a high of
$6,858 in Denver County.
Beyond the metropolitan areas, the principal
industry is agriculture. In rural counties, as high as
55 percent of the workers are employed in
agriculture. Regional agricultural sales were $908
million in 1975 with over 68 percent of that being
livestock, mostly beef cattle. Agriculture of the
region can be divided into three separate catego-
ries. In northern Colorado, particularly along the
South Platte River, there is substantial irrigation
and beef production. Principal crops include
sugarbeets and grains. In this area, farm products
valued at $50-$ 150 per acre are produced. South of
this area there is a shortage of irrigation water, and
agriculture is about equally divided between
4-56
TABLE 4-12
POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THE
DENVER-RATON MESA REGION^
1975 Total Population 3
1,
854
,205
Total Area (square miles)
23
,937
Population per square
mile (1975)
77.5
Per Capita Personal Income (1975)
$5
,787
Per Capita Personal Income as a
Percent of National Average (1975)
114
ECONOMIC SECTOR
EMPLOYMENT
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
EARNINGS
(in thousands
of dollars)
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
Livestock
9,632
1
126,143
1
Other Agriculture
8,944
1
109,989
1
Metal Mining
513
0-1
6,781
0-1
Coal Mining
1,177
0-1
13,373
0-1
Oil and Gas
3,498
0-1
110,420
1
Other Mining
2,722
0-1
9,179
0-1
Construction
57,000
7
770,943
8
All Manufacturing
112,279
14
1,515,820
17
Transportation,
Communication,
and Public
Utilities
50,325
6
775,049
9
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
182,872
23
1,664,036
18
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
44,898
6
565,795
6
Other Services
130,073
16
1,440,159
16
Federal Govt.
87,956
11
1,095,350
12
State and Local
Govt.
105,194
13
876,913
10
TOTAL
797,083
9,080,220
(a) Demographic information which is based on all counties either totally
or partially within regional boundaries.
4-57
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
dryland wheat and livestock ranching. In this area,
the value of farm products sold per acre of farm
land is between $10 and $30. In the Raton Mesa
section, cattle and sheep ranching predominate
and there are few cultivated crops. The average
value of farm products here is less than $10 per
acre of agricultural land.
Principal crops grown within the region in-
clude wheat, hay. corn, sugarbeets, and cotton.
Yields per acre for these crops are approximately
23 bushels of wheat, 3 tons of hay, 101 bushels of
corn, 19 tons of sugarbeets, and 380 pounds of
cotton. Agriculture employs about 18,576 persons
in the region, about half of these being in the
livestock industry.
Mining is a relatively minor part of the local
industry, with coal mining employing less than one
percent of the work force. Historically there have
been a number of smaller coal mines both in
Boulder and Weld County, Colorado, and in the
Raton Basin. Oil and gas production has been the
source of greatest extracted wealth with numerous
small fields throughout the area. Production of
sand and gravel is the most universal of the
mineral industries with activity found in every
county of the region. Sand and gravel are used
almost exclusively for local roads and building
construction.
The Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Region is not an
area of outstanding outdoor recreation opportuni-
ties. It contains no national parks, wild and scenic
rivers, or wilderness areas. The region does include
eight state recreation facilities and one state park,
all in Colorado. These nine areas comprise some
22,000 acres and receive about 2.7 million visits
annually.
Upland bird and waterfowl hunting are impor-
tant fall activities, particularly in the irrigated
agricultural lands north of Denver. Similarly, deer
are hunted in the forested areas of the Raton
Basin. Both sections of the region are on access
routes to the Rocky Mountains to the west where
many people, both resident and non-resident,
travel for recreational activities (hunting, fishing,
skiing, hiking, jeeping, mountain climbing, etc.).
The most popular recreational activities within the
region are camping, fishing, and picnicking.
Because of Denver's historical role as an
industrial and trade center and the nearby cities of
Colorado Springs and Fort Collins, facilities in the
Denver section of the region are well developed.
This section is served by good highway and rail
systems and a major regional airport.
The area has been one of rapid growth for the
past 15 years. Net immigration to the region
between 1970 and 1976 was 162,000 persons.
Despite this growth, the capacity of most commu-
nity facilities has kept pace and public services are
generally adequate. Some shortages of classrooms
are noted in rapid growth portions of the metropol-
itan areas, but older sections of these same areas
are experiencing declining public school enroll-
ments and are facing the prospect of closing
schools.
Domestic water supplies are a critical factor in
the metropolitan areas. All are dependent to one
degree or another on water imported from the
western slope of the Rocky Mountains.
To a large extent, the size and nature of
community facilities are a function of population
density. This is reflected in the contrast between
the metropolitan areas of the region and the more
rural areas. In the Raton Mesa section of the
region, the smaller communities have limited
capacity to deal with a population explosion.
Life styles of the Denver-Raton Mesa Coal
Region can be logically divided into three main
types. First is the metropolitan life style of the
Denver metropolitan area which is not unlike other
large cities. Many people live in the suburbs and
commute to regularly scheduled jobs in the city.
The city also offers a full range of cultural
activities, from museums to plays and symphony
concerts to professional sports events. Because of
the relative proximity of the mountains, many
metropolitan residents maintain an active interest
and participation in outdoor recreational pursuits.
Each weekend the highways to the mountains are
congested with residents traveling to favorite
hiking, camping, skiing, or fishing areas.
Small towns are relatively stable communities
where ranchers and merchants know their neigh-
bors. Many cultural activities and spectator-type
entertainments are lacking in these areas. Resi-
dents are generally quite independent and proud of
their chosen way of life.
Between these types of life styles are the small
cities such as Colorado Springs and Fort Collins.
These communities are large enough to support a
reasonable level of cultural and educational ser-
vices, yet retain much of the small town atmo-
4-58
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
sphere and attitudes, particularly among the long-
time residents.
Federal land surface ownership in the region is
minimal and widely scattered, amounting to only
about 97,000 acres. Over half of this is in Huefano
County, Colorado.
4.11 REFERENCES
1. Rand McNally, 1973. Handy Railroad Atlas
of the United States.
2. Rand McNally, 1978. Road Atlas.
3. Peterson, R. T., 1947. A Field Guide to the
Birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
4. Burt, W. H. and R. P. Grossenheider, 1964. A
Field Guide to the Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston.
5. Leet, L. D. and S. Judson, 1965. Physical
Geology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.
6. Interstate Commerce Commission, 1978.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Docket
No. AB12 (Sub-No. 53), Southern Pacific Trans-
portation Company Abandonment Between Boni-
ta Junction and Seagoville in Nacogdoches, Rusk,
Cherokee, Anderson, Henderson, Kaufman and
Dallas Counties, Texas.
7. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1975. Coal
Fields of the United States, Sheet 1. Geological
Survey, Washington, D.C.
8. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1970. The
National Atlas of the United States of America,
Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
9. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979. List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
10. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1975. Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Fed-
eral Coal Leasing Program, Bureau of Land
Management, Washington, D.C.
11. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Southwestern
Wyoming Coal, Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, D.C.
12. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Draft
Environmental Statement, Southern Utah Coal,
Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.
13. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Draft
Environmental Statement, West Central Colorado
Coal, Bureau of Land Management, Washington,
D.C.
14. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Draft
Environmental Statement, Star Lake-Bisti Coal,
Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.
15. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Draft
Environmental Statement, South Central Wyom-
ing Coal, Bureau of Land Management, Washing-
ton, D.C.
16. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Draft
Environmental Statement, Central Utah Coal,
Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.
17. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Draft
Environmental Statement Supplement, Eastern
Powder River, Wyoming Coal, Bureau of Land
Management, Washington, D.C.
18. Bailey, R., 1976. Ecoregions of the United
States. U.S' Government Printing Office, Washing-
ton, D.C.
19. Bailey, R. & Cushwa, C, 1977. Preliminary
Map of Ecoregions: Appalachian Region. Geologi-
cal Survey, Reston, Va.
20. Eyre, S., 1968. Vegetation and Soils. Aldine
Publishing Company, Ohio.
21. Frentz, H. and Lynott, W., 1978. Baseline
Study of the Climate and Air Quality of Fayette,
Walker, Jefferson and Tuscaloosa Counties, Ala-
bama. Science Applications, Inc., Lajolla, Califor-
nia.
22. Lyle, E, 1976. Grass, Legume and Tree
Establishment on Alabama Coal Surface Mines.
Proceedings of the Conference on Forestation of
Disturbed Surface Areas, Birmingham, Alabama.
23. Moorehead, C, Coblentz, B. and Gillespie,
H., 1978. Cultural Resource Survey of Federal
Mineral Lands in North Central Alabama, Tusca-
loosa, Alabama.
24. Murray, Francis, 1978. Where We Agree:
Report of the National Coal Policy Project.
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
4-59
DESCRIPTION OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
25. Natelson Co., Inc., 1978. Socioeconomic
Study and Analysis of a Four County Area in
North Central Alabama. Los Angeles, California.
26. U.S. Department of Interior, 1975. Final
Environmental Statement: Proposed Federal Coal
Leasing Program. Bureau of Land Management.
Washington, DC.
27. U.S. Department of Interior, 1978. Land Use
Study for North Central Alabama. Bureau of Land
Management, Eastern States Office.
28. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979-1981
Coal Package. Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States Office.
29. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1974-1975
data. Socioeconomic Data System, Denver Service
Center, Bureau of Land Managgement.
4-60
CHAPTER 5
REGIONAL IMPACTS OF FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 5 - REGIONAL IMPACTS OF FEDERAL COAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ALTERNATIVES 5 -l
5.1 IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES 5-1
5.1.1 Coal Development Cycle Activities 5-1
5.1.2 Assumptions and Analysis Guidelines 5-4
5.1.3 Impact Estimation ""
5.1.4 Other Impacts 5 "'
5.2 REGIONAL IMPACTS SUMMARIES 5-11
5.2.1 The Appalachian Coal Region 5-12
5.2.2 The Eastern Interior Coal Region 5-16
5.2.3 Western Interior Coal Region 5-16
5.2.4 The Texas Coal Region 5-18
5.2.5 The Powder River Coal Region 5-18
5.2.6 The Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region 5-21
5.2.7 The Fort Union Coal Region 5-24
5.2.8 The San Juan River Coal Region 5-26
5.2.9 The Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region 5-28
5.2.10 The Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Region 5-28
5.3 PROGRAM IMPACTS 5 " 30
5.3.1 Coal Production and Consumption 5-36
5.3.2 Physical Impacts 5-4
5.3.3 Ecological Impacts 5-10
5.3.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 5-123
5.3.5 Transportation System Impacts 5-156
5.3.6 Operating Energy 5-171
5 4 IMPACTS RESULTING FROM SUBALTERNATIVES
AMONG OTHER POLICY ISSUES 5-175
5.4.1 Introduction
5.4.2 Require Underground Mining 5-175
5.4.3 End Use Considerations 5-180
5.4.4 Concentration of Federal Leases 5-184
5.4.5 Due Diligence
5.4.6 Land Ownership Patterns 5-187
5.4.7 Maximum Economic Recovery 5-192
5.4.8 Unsuitability Criteria 5-194
5.4.9 Role of Industry Nominations 5-204
5.4.10 Land Use Planning Alternatives 5-206
5-210
5.5 REFERENCES
CHAPTER 5
REGIONAL IMPACTS OF FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ALTERNA-
TIVES
The environmental impacts of the preferred
Federal coal management program and six major
alternatives as described in Chapter 3 are present-
ed in this chapter. The impacts are evaluated
across the major activities related to the entire coal
development cycle: coal extraction; beneficiation;
transportation; conversion and utilization; and
transmission, distribution, and delivery. Impact
levels vary by alternative according to changes in
regional coal production and consumption levels.
The first section of this chapter (5.1) presents a
general discussion of the methodologies used for
the determination and analysis of impacts. The
second section (5.2) gives a summary comparison
of the regional impacts of the alternatives. Detailed
data used to quantify the various impacts are
provided in a series of appendices at the end of this
statement. Section 5.3 describes the impacts by
resource category that could occur under each of
the alternatives. Finally, Section 5.4 discusses the
impacts of several issue subalternatives which
could affect the structure of any Federal coal
management program. These subalternatives are
based on the issues summarized in Table 3-1.
5.1 IMPACT ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGIES
Chapter 3 of this programmatic environmental
impact statement identifies seven Federal coal
management program alternatives. The factors
which most influence the varying levels of impact
of the coal management program alternatives are
the changes in regional coal production and
consumption levels. These levels are used to
estimate corresponding distributions of coal
throughout the various activities related to coal
development. For each activity, quantitative esti-
mates for various environmental, social, and
economic factors are then derived by region.
Analysis of the impacts is done by assessing the
influence of these factors on selected features of
the environment. Where quantification of an
environmental, social, or economic factor is not
feasible, a qualitative discussion is presented.
It should be emphasized that the programmatic
nature of this impact statement precludes site-
specific analyses. Such analyses will be developed
in subsequent regional environmental studies. The
focus of this statement, therefore, is on the national
and interregional impacts of the coal management
program alternatives.
The coal development activities which form the
basis of the quantification of the environmental,
social, and economic factors are described in
Section 5.1.1. General methodological assumptions
and guidelines for analysis of impacts are found in
Section 5.1.2. Specific assumptions are stated with
each impact discussion to ensure appropriate
textual interpretation. In Section 5.1.3, a summary
of the methodology used to calculate the environ-
mental, economic, and social factors is given. The
methodology is described in full detail in Appen-
dix H. In this statement the term "environmental
impact" is used interchangeably with "environ-
mental effect." When reference is made to a
quantifiable change in some individual feature of
the environment, the term "impact factor" is used.
When such a change is expressed in terms of a
quantified amount (or normalized in the mathe-
matical sense), the term "environmental loading
factor" or "impact multiplier" is applied (e.g.,
pounds of solid waste produced per 100,000 tons of
coal mined, or fatalities resulting per billion ton-
miles of coal transported). Using the environmen-
tal loading factor as a multiplier (i.e., multiplying it
by the number of appropriate units involved, such
as 100,000 tons of coal mined or billion gross ton-
miles of movement) results in a quantitative
estimate of the impact.
5.1.1 Coal Development Cycle Activities
The activities that form the basis for analysis of
impacts are those which occur from the time the
coal resource is identified until the energy in the
5-1
REGIONAL IMPACTS
coal is used by the consumption sector. As shown
in Figure 5-1, the coal development cycle or
sequence of coal development activities consists of
six major activity areas. The figure also indicates
which activities were analyzed with the aid of a
computer program developed expressly for this
purpose and those analyzed apart from the
computer program. Associated with the major
activities are a number of subactivities or phases in
the coal development cycle. The major subactivity
areas and phases are described briefly below. A
more detailed discussion is contained in Appendix
C, which also includes other information about
coal such as how it was formed, its characteristics,
and how it is used to meet energy demands. Figure
5-1
5.1.1.1 Coal Extraction. There are two major
methods of extracting coal - - underground mining
and surface mining. Until about 1950, most
underground mining was done by the conventional
room and pillar technique. This entails mining coal
in a series of rooms with the room separations
serving as pillars to support the strata above. After
a block, panel, or section has been mined, part of
the coal in the pillars can be recovered as a retreat
is made toward a main entry to the mine. Since
1950, continuous mining has become widely used.
By this technique, an electric-powered machine
rips the coal from the entire length of the working
face while permitting the excavated sections to
collapse behind it. This technique avoids the need
to provide separate entries to undercut, drill, place
explosives, blast, load, and roof bolt required by
the conventional underground method.
Where coalbeds are relatively flat and near the
surface as in much of the West, the surface mining
method is employed. Here, overlying material is
removed in long narrow cuts and the topsoil is
segregated by distinct layers termed "horizons."
The overburden material is placed into- parallel
cuts from which the coal has been removed and
the topsoil is placed on top. In the East, where the
terrain is steep, surface mining is generally accom-
plished by contour stripping. The overlying materi-
als are removed by proceeding around the hillside,
with the overburden cast down the hill. The
exposed coal is then removed. This process
continues until the overlying material becomes too
thick to economically remove.
5.1.1.2 Coal Beneficiation. Two processing options
were examined in this activity area of the coal
development cycle: (1) crushing and screening and
(2) mechanical cleaning. In the context of this
analysis, crushing and screening refers to the
removal of impurities such as clay, rock, shale, and
pyrite. Mechanical cleaning includes operations
beyond crushing and screening such as cleaning by
pulsating air or by water to separate the coal and
impurities [1]. Sometimes only crushing and
screening is performed; sometimes both techniques
are employed in tandem. Some coal is supplied to
consuming areas without being processed, for
example to plants which have their own cleaning
facilities or which accept run-of-mine coal. Factors
used to estimate impacts from crushing and
screening and mechanical cleaning, and the
amounts of coal to be processed by the two
techniques, are discussed in Appendix H.
5.1.1.3 Coal Transportation. This activity area of
the coal development cycle addresses conveying
coal from the mine to conversion or utilization
facilities (e.g., fossil fuel power plants or synthetic
fuel plants). The four transport modes considered
in the analysis are slurry pipeline, truck, railroad,
and barge. In certain instances several transport
modes are used for a given coal movement. For
example, coal may be hauled from the mine area
by off-road vehicles to a unit train and then to a
barge loading point. As shown in Appendix H,
loading factors to determine environmental im-
pacts are developed for each type of transport.
5.1.1.4 Coal Conversion and Utilization. This part of
the coal development cycle includes the conversion
of coal for consumptive use. In order to expand the
future use of coal, it is anticipated that certain
existing gas and oil consuming facilities must
convert to coal, and certain new facilities would be
built to convert coal into substitutes for oil and
gas. The subactivity options considered are use of
coal as feedstock for electric power and industrial
plants (steam electric option), conversion to
substitute natural gas or oil (synthetic gas or
synthetic liquid option), and production of coke
for industrial processes (coke option). The ratio-
nale for allocating consumption to each of these
options and the development of the loading factors
used to estimate environmental impacts associated
with the use of coal in each option are presented in
Appendix H. Appendix C contains a more detailed
5-2
OTHER
STUDIES
COMPUTER
ANALYSIS
1 . UNDERGROUND
2. SURFACE
1. CRUSHING AND SCREENING
2. MECHANICAL CLEANING
I
EXPLORATION
AND PLANT
DEVELOPMENT
TRANSMISSION
AND DISTRI-
BUTION AND
DELIVERY
1. FUEL PIPELINES
2. ELECTRIC WIRES
I
i
EXTRACTION
CONVERSION
AND
UTILIZATION
1. STEAM ELECTRIC
2. GAS
3. LIQUID
4. COKE
EENEFICIATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
TRANSPORT
U
SLURRY PIPELINE
TRUCK
RAIL
BARGE
FIGURE 5-1
THE COAL DEVELOPMENT CYCLE
discussion of the processes involved in converting
coal to satisfy these options.
5.1.1.5 Transmission, Distribution, and Delivery.
This is the final major activity area in the coal
development cycle. It involves the delivery of the
electric power and substitute natural gas and oil to
distribution centers. The two phases considered are
the use of electric power lines and fuel pipelines.
Factors were used to estimate the environmental
impacts associated with constructing additional
power lines to tie into an existing grid system and
constructing additional pipelines to connect to
existing interstate and intrastate pipelines. Appen-
dix H provides the rationale for the loading factors
used in this analysis.
5.1.2 Assumptions and Analysis Guidelines
Assumptions used to establish the limits and
guidelines for analysis of programmatic impacts
are presented in this section. The assumptions are
set forth to aid in interpreting the magnitudes of
the impacts that are forecasted. They also provide
a base for future regional impact analysis forecasts.
5.1.2.1 Assumptions. The assumptions used in this
analysis are as follows:
• Coal demand will encourage additional
development of coal reserves.
• Coal energy requirements, on a Btu basis by
coal consuming states in 1985 and 1990, are
based on the Department of Energy's
National Coal Model (NCM) demand
assumptions (see section 5.1.3 and Appen-
dix H).
• Coal mining and preparation technologies
will not change significantly by 1990.
• Conversion of coal to synthetic gas and oil
will be a commercial reality by 1985, but on
a limited scale. Conversion on a large scale
basis is not expected until after the year
2000.
• Labor, equipment, and capital shortages
will not significantly distort the projected
levels or timing of the Federal coal manage-
ment program.
• No extensive delays will be encountered in
obtaining required Federal, state, and local
clearances for the Federal coal manage-
ment program.
• Reclamation technology will not change
significantly by 1990 and the major thrust
REGIONAL IMPACTS
of reclamation would be to return disturbed
land to the contour and use specified in the
approved reclamation plan.
• Current best practicable pollution control
technology will be used to minimize the
emission of air pollutants by 1985.
• Current best available control technology
will be used to minimize the release of water
pollutants by 1985.
• Development of other resources in the
Federal coal regions will not significantly
interfere with coal resource development
under the Federal coal management pro-
gram.
• Coal energy demands projected by the
Department of Energy for 1985 and 1990
for the high, medium, and low production
levels will be met for all Federal coal
management program alternatives. If, un-
der a given strategy, production decreases
in one or more regions, it would be
compensated by increases in other regions.
5.1.2.2 Analysis Guidelines. The following guide-
lines were used in the analysis of impacts:
• There are twelve basic coal supply regions.
For analysis purposes, the Appalachian
Coal Region has been divided into three
regions-Northern, Central, and Southern.
• Programmatic impacts for these twelve
regions are analyzed for two points in time
1985 and 1990.
• The impacts associated with the no new
leasing program alternative closely approxi-
mate those of a no-action program alterna-
tive.
• The high and low coal production estimates
associated with the preferred and no new
leasing coal management program alterna-
tives adequately include the possible ranges
in coal production levels to be achieved in
the 1985 and 1990 time periods.
5.1.3 Impact Estimation
The impact estimation performed in this
programmatic statement for the several Federal
coal management program alternatives is based to
the maximum extent possible on quantification of
environmental changes which would result from
the operation of the various activities of the coal
development cycle.
5-4
REGIONAL IMPACTS
By necessity, some impacts can only be stated
in general terms because of: (1) the absence of
knowledge of the exact locations where coal
mining and other activities would occur; (2) the
lack of adequate methods to perform quantifica-
tion; or (3) the absence of consistent regional base
case information which can be applied uniformly
among the twelve coal regions analyzed. A detailed
accounting of pollutant- related impacts on specif-
ic air sheds or water bodies falls within the first
class. Quantification of aesthetic impacts or
changes in ecological community composition and
diversity are examples of the second class of
impacts which may be projected only in a general
way.
In order to provide information on the antici-
pated impacts of a Federal coal management
program, several analytical tools have been em-
ployed. Output from the Department of Energy's
National Coal Model (NCM) has been used as the
departure point for determining the quantities of
the coal involved in the various activities of the
coal development cycle [2]. This model is described
in Appendix H.
An allocation methodology (i.e., algorithm) has
been employed to adjust the NCM output for use
in the present analysis. This algorithm (1) trans-
lates the 30 NCM coal production areas and 35
consumption areas to the 41 production areas and
53 consumption areas used in this environmental
impact statement; and (2) estimates interregional
flows from the 41 production areas to the 53
consumption areas.
The third analytical tool employed in the
impact analysis is a computerized program devel-
oped for this statement, the Coal Impact Estima-
tion Program (CIEP). This program is summarized
below and a detailed description of the procedures
employed is presented in Appendix H together
with the program's basic inputs (coal production
levels, coal transportation flows, coal consumption
points and quantities, and environmental loading
factors).
5. 1.3. J Derivation of Coal Production and Consump-
tion Levels and Coal Flows. In June 1978, the
Department of Energy (DOE) provided the De-
partment of the Interior with the results from the
NCM for low, medium, and high levels of coal
production in 1985 and in 1990. These computer
runs are starting points for the analysis of the
seven Federal coal management program alterna-
tives.
The NCM uses a least economic cost method-
ology to estimate the level of coal production by
surface and underground methods within 30
geographic areas. It further allocates this produc-
tion by type of end use using the most economic
transport routes to 35 geographic consuming areas.
The primary model outputs are the production and
consumption levels in each region and a 30 by 35
origin/destination coal flow matrix (i.e, a table in
which the 30 coal producing areas from which the
coal originates appear as rows, and the 35
consuming areas to which it is destined appear as
columns; the number in each row-column intersec-
tion denotes the amount of coal produced in
region A that is consumed in region B).
Since the NCM runs address different geo-
graphic coal production and consumption areas
than used in this statement, it was necessary to
translate the NCM outputs into this statement's 41
production areas and 53 consuming areas. In
performing this redistribution, it was assumed that
neither the proportionality of surface and under-
ground mining nor the split between crushing and
screening and mechanical beneficiation would
vary from those in the NCM model and that the
distribution among end uses of the coal would be a
function of the coal energy demand assumptions
included in the NCM. The translation and redistri-
bution was manually and judgmentally performed
for each of the six DOE projections (low, medium,
and high for 1985 and 1990). The results of this
effort are six separate 41 by 53 origin/destination
coal flow matrices. The row totals of these matrices
indicate regional production levels while the
column totals represent regional consumption
levels.
Given the supply, demand, and coal flow data
on a 41 by 53 matrix basis, it was necessary to
determine what differences would exist for each of
the Federal coal mangement program alternatives:
no new Federal leasing, the preferred program,
processing of PRLAs only, emergency leasing,
lease to meet DOE production goals, lease to
satisfy industry indications of need, and state
determination of leasing levels.
The low, medium, and high western regional
coal production levels for each alternative manage-
ment program for 1985 and 1990 were derived
from the low, medium, and high 1985 and 1990
5-5
REGIONAL IMPACTS
DOE production projections and a number of
other sources of information. In the absence of an
established procedure for estimating these regional
production levels, decisions have been made based
on the information available, including:
• DOE projections.
• Department of the Interior regional envi-
ronmental impact statements on expansion
of existing coal mines and development of
proposed new coal mines.
• Coal industry and government forecasts.
• Expected production from approved and
pending mine plans.
• Likely production from Federal leases
without mine plans.
• Current coal production levels.
• Contractually obligated coal production.
• Coal lands ownership patterns.
• Indian coal ownership.
• Non-Federal coal ownership.
As an example of the judgmental consider-
ations included in this adjustment process, project-
ed production under the no new Federal leasing
alternative took into account the amount of coal
already available in existing Federal leases and the
production potential of these leases. Many existing
Federal leases are not expected to be in production
by 1985 because of small size, environmental
problems, high mining costs, poor quality coal,
poor location, or other factors. If any of those
leases would not be producing by 1986, it was
assumed that they would be cancelled for failure to
be diligently developed.
Another important consideration used in esti-
mating the impact of a no new Federal leasing
policy is the availability and production potential
of non-Federal reserves in a given region. In many
instances, non-Federal reserves would not be
developed if complementary Federal reserves are
not available. Significant portions of the reserves
in the western coal regions are contained in
checkerboard lands or in scattered blocks where
the non-Federal coal holdings are often too small
to form mines of economically efficient size
without including adjacent Federal coal.
Special computer runs which used the DOE's
NCM were made for the no new or restricted
leasing alternatives. These runs were made by
modifying the supply curves used in the NCM to
correspond to the estimated reduced regional coal
supplies that would be available under these
alternatives. Federal coal not in existing leases and
non-Federal coal which requires new leasing of
complementary Federal coal to be developed were
eliminated from the supply considered available
for regional coal development. The NCM was then
rerun with this restricted coal supply in order to
estimate the impacts on coal production by coal
region.
One result obtained from the computer runs is
that a number of western coal regions would show
increases in coal production as a result of a no new
Federal coal leasing policy. These regions already
have major supplies of non-Federal coal or coal in
existing Federal leases. Hence, when coal produc-
tion is reduced in other western regions that are
more dependent on new Federal leasing to sustain
or increase production, some of the loss is
displaced to western regions less dependent on new
Federal leasing. In particular, the region in which
achieving projected production levels is most
dependent on new Federal leasing is the Powder
River Coal Region in Wyoming and Montana.
This region tends to lose production relative to
projected levels while other western regions tend to
gain production when Federal coal availability is
tightly restricted. Production under a no new
leasing policy also tends to be displaced to
midwestern and eastern regions that have little
Federal coal.
There are large reserves of Indian coal in the
West. These reserves appear large enough that,
were they to be rapidly developed, they could
make up for virtually all production deficiencies
caused by a no new leasing policy. However, there
are many uncertainties relating to development of
tribal coal reserves. For example, in Montana, the
Cheyenne Indian Tribe has resisted expanded coal
development and the Crow Indian Tribe recently
cancelled existing coal leases in part on the basis of
inadequate royalties. In estimating regional coal
production levels for this environmental impact
statement, it is assumed that there would not be a
large expansion of Indian coal production to make
up for production declines caused by a Federal
decision not to lease additional Federal coal until
at least 1985. However, already planned produc-
tion from mines on Indian lands is considered part
of the available coal supply under a no new leasing
policy.
An additional factor complicating projections
for the no new leasing and other Federal coal
5-6
REGIONAL IMPACTS
management program alternatives is the extent to
which existing operations could or would expand
capacity in response to unsatisfied demands. While
it is assumed that this would happen to some
extent, the resulting additional production is not
specifically quantified.
The distribution of western coal production
under each program alternative was determined by
the above process. An origin/destination matrix
for each alternative was developed. The coal
demand in each consuming region was specified by
DOE for its runs on a Btu basis for the low,
medium, and high DOE production projections for
1985 and 1990. The DOE production projections
in each western region are similarly analyzed on a
Btu basis, which then allows calculation of the
flows in the origin/destination matrix.
Next, for each Federal coal management
program alternative, a comparison was made
between the Btus of energy produced in each
region and that required to meet the DOE
established consumption projection for each con-
suming region. Where differences existed, coal
flows in terms of Btus of energy delivered were
modified such that the net flow of coal-derived
energy into each consumption region was held
constant. After a supply-demand Btu equilibrium
was again attained, the Btu production and
consumption levels and Btu flows were converted
back to coal tonnages. The result of this procedure
was the generation of new coal flow ori-
gin/destination matrices for each alternative.
The last remaining task prior to the calculation
of environmental impact factors for each alterna-
tive was a split of coal flows by transport mode
from each origin (production area) through inter-
mediate transshipment or transfer points to each
destination (consumption area). Assumptions were
made that the majority of coal movements between
states would be by rail, a smaller volume of
intrastate shipments within a state would be
transported by rail, and the remainder by barge,
highway, or slurry pipeline depending on existing
and projected transportation facilities of these
types.
In contrast to the other activities in the coal
cycle (i.e., production and consumption), the
characterization of coal flows in terms of tonnage
does not result in a clear presentation of environ-
mental impact factors. The measure chosen to
determine transportation environmental impact
factors was gross ton-miles generated as a result of
transporting coal. In this context, gross ton-miles is
obtained by summing the following components:
• Net ton-miles - weight of coal times
distance moved.
• Tare ton-miles - weight of transportation
equipment utilized times round trip dis-
tance from mine to destination and return.
The inclusion of tare weight gives recognition to
the fact that trains, trucks, and barges which haul
coal also generate environmental impacts during
the return trip to the coal mine or loading facility.
For each Federal coal management program
alternative and production level, the methodology
developed to estimate the level of gross ton-miles
generated consisted of:
• Development of the origin/destination ma-
trices for the gross tonnages of coal flows
from producing regions to consuming re-
gions.
• Identification of probable routes and length
of route within each state between origin
and destination.
• Calculation of the number of trips and coal
tonnage flows within each state.
• Combination of volume of coal flow,
distance, and transport mode to estimate
gross ton-mileage generated per state and
per region.
All of the above information formed the basis
for estimation of environmental impact factors
generated by the several Federal coal management
program alternatives. The factors were enumerated
through the use of another computerized proce-
dure developed specially for this programmatic
environmental impact statement. The outputs of
this program, the Coal Impact Estimation Program
(CIEP), were employed to determine the potential
environmental impacts described later in this
chapter.
5.1.3.2 Overview of the Coal Impact Estimation
Program. The CIEP is designed to be highly
flexible and reactive to the Federal coal manage-
ment program alternatives for which impact
estimates are required. As presently contemplated,
it could be a major component of the Federal coal
management program, and would employ specific
levels of coal production and consumption in
separate geographic areas. These levels are com-
bined with the distributions of coal flowing into
5-7
REGIONAL IMPACTS
each major activity in the coal development cycle
and the results are multiplied by impact multipliers
which correspond to environmental impact factors
per 100,000 tons of coal or billion gross ton-miles.
The impact factors treated in the CIEP are
presented in Table 5- 1 .
An overview of the major modules within the
CIEP is presented in the following sections. A
more detailed description of the CIEP assumptions
and structure is presented in Appendix H. The
CIEP consists of the three major modules de-
scribed below.
Main Impact Estimation Module. The Main
Impact Estimation Module uses coal production
and consumption estimates for each region of the
country to produce numerical estimates of the
resulting major environmental impacts. This is
done by expressing coal production and consump-
tion levels as flows through the coal development
cycle. Once quantities of coal flowing into each
activity in the coal cycle are determined for each
geographic area, the environmental impact multi-
pliers are applied to produce the following esti-
mates:
• Air pollution - total suspended particulates
(TSP), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monox-
ide (CO), sulfur oxides (S0 2 ), nitrogen
oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2).
• Water use - makeup (effluent and evapora-
tive loss).
• Disturbed acreage.
• Operational and construction employment.
• Solid wastes - active and inert.
® Accidents/Fatalities.
• Operating energy.
Estimates of the level of change of environ-
mental impacts in each category for each geo-
graphic area and activity in the coal development
cycle are produced by this module. These estimates
are then used as input into either the socioeconom-
ic or the ecological impact estimation modules of
the CIEP.
Socioeconomic and Ecologic Impact Estimation
Module. There are two major modules in the CIEP.
The first makes use of estimates of the require-
ments for construction and operational workers at
each activity of the coal development cycle to
produce estimates of total population, infrastruc-
ture demands, and fiscal requirements on a
regional basis. The second uses the acreage
disturbed throughout the coal development cycle,
on both a long and short term basis, to produce
estimates of agricultural productivity losses and
decreases in wildlife habitat and total carrying
capacity. Both modules produce impact estimates
on an activity-by-activity basis for the production,
transportation, and consumption elements of the
coal development cycle. This feature identifies the
estimated impact effects of mining and beneficia-
tion, of transportation, and of consumption of coal
by geographic area.
5.1.3.3 Coal Impact Estimation Program Inputs. The
five major classes of coal-related information
required to operate the CIEP are:
• Production levels.
• Transportation levels.
• Consumption levels.
• Coal development cycle flow distribution.
• Environmental impact multipliers.
The first four classes of information have been
described in the foregoing sections. They are
discussed in greater detail in Appendix H. The
remaining input is presented below.
Environmental Impact Multipliers. Environmen-
tal impact multipliers are used to identify and
quantify the social, economic, and environmental
factors related to coal extraction, beneficiation,
transportation, conversion, and utilization. These
impact multipliers relate specific impacts to a
100,000 ton unit of coal. This approach is used in
all activities in the coal development cycle with the
exception of transportation. In the transportation
area, estimates are made per billion gross ton-
miles. By generally expressing all impacts in terms
of tons of coal, impact estimates are made once
coal production and consumption levels are deter-
mined. Even though some states would have no
coal production, they could have transportation,
conversion, and utilization flows resulting in
environmental, social and economic impacts.
Impact multipliers used as input to the main
portion of the Coal Impact Estimation Program
are defined for the major categories shown in
Table 5-1. These multipliers vary for the 41
producing regions, overlain with 53 consuming
regions. Additional multipliers are used for a
broad range of social, economic, and environmen-
tal parameters incorporated into the subroutines of
the CIEP.
TABLE 5-1
COAL IMPACT ESTIMATION PROGRAM
PROGRAM MODULE
Main Impact Estimation
Module
Socioeconomic Impact
Estimation Module
Ecological Impact
Estimation Module
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT FACTOR
Air Emissions:
Water Use:
Total suspended particulates
Hydrocarbons
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon dioxide
Makeup (effluent and
evaporative loss)
Land Disturbed: Short term
Long term
Solid Wastes: Active (scrubber waste,
treatment residuals, etc)
Inert (ash, slag, rock,
etc.)
Accidents
Fatalities
Operating Energy
Direct Construction Employment
Direct Operational Employment
Indirect Construction Employment
Indirect Operational Employment
Dependents
Total Population
School Age Children
Teachers
Classrooms
Physicians
Hospital Beds
Housing Units
Water Treatment
Sewage Treatment
Solid Wastes
Policemen
Firemen
Land Disturbed:
Cropland
Pasture
Range
Forest
Wetlands
5-9
TABLE 5-1
(Concluded)
COAL IMPACT ESTIMATION PROGRAM
PROGRAM MODULE
Ecological Impact
Estimation Module
(Continued)
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT FACTOR
Productivity Lost:
Biota Disturbed:
Corn
Soybeans
Cotton
Wheat
Sugar beets
Oats
Hay
Grass
Timber
Marshland
Animal units
Mule deer
Antelope
Moose
Elk
Deer
Small mammals
Song birds
Game birds
Predators
Reptiles
5-10
REGIONAL IMPACTS
5.1.3.4 Program Output. The CIEP produces
estimates of impacts that can be reported accord-
ing to analytical needs. The output reports can be
presented geographically, by category, or by
activity in the coal development cycle.
The program has the capability of subtotalling
impact estimates for several distinct geographic
areas, and aggregating and displaying the results
on a regional basis. Examples of this capability
include the aggregation of the separate portions of
Colorado in the Green River-Hams Fork, Denver-
Raton Mesa, San Juan River and Uinta-South-
western Utah Coal Regions into estimates for the
State of Colorado. The program also produces
aggregate estimates for a total coal region (e.g., the
Powder River Coal Region made up of the Powder
River, Montana, and Powder River, Wyoming
geographic areas). An additional optional report
generated by the CIEP presents the level of coal
flows into each activity in the coal development
cycle.
The flexibility of the CIEP is demonstrated
further by the ability to incorporate additional
options in the output reports. The first feature
allows estimates of impact levels accompanying
various Federal coal management program alter-
natives to be compared to one another at a given
point in time. The program output, when this
feature is selected, represents the difference be-
tween the impact levels generated by the two
alternatives. Program reports based on this output
can be used for a rapid comparison of the broad
effects of the alternatives in question. The second
feature of the program is that it produces estimates
of the change in environmental impacts for a
specific program alternative between two points in
time. The output feature of the CIEP is currently
structured to produce impact estimates for the
periods 1976 to 1985 and 1985 to 1990.
5.1.4 Other Impacts
The variability of potential impacts associated
with certain resource categories precludes analysis
in these areas on a quantitative basis. Because
elements that influence the degree of impacts on
these resources vary at individual locations, im-
pacts at the programmatic level can only be
described in general for each of the various
activities of the coal development cycle. The
resource categories in this case include topogra-
phy, geology, minerals, soils, archaeological and
historical resources, and recreation. In addition,
several resource impact categories can only be
described generically.
5.2 REGIONAL IMPACTS SUMMARIES
This section contains summaries of the envi-
ronmental, social, and economic impacts associ-
ated with the various Federal coal management
programs. Section 5.3 contains a more detailed
analysis of program effects, organized by impact
area. This section presents a comparison of the
effects of 10 representative impact areas for each
of the 12 Federal coal regions. The 10 impact areas
selected are as follows:
© Coal Production.
• Coal Consumption.
• Land Committed (independent of reclama-
tion).
• Agriculture (value of crops lost).
• Population (coal-related only).
• Disabling Accidents (those resulting in
man-days lost).
• Water (required to support the Federal coal
management program).
• Game Animal Losses.
• Particulate Emissions (total suspended par-
ticulates).
• Sulfur Oxide Emissions.
Each of the above impact areas is examined on an
annual basis for 1985 and 1990. For purposes of
summarizing, each impact is presented as the
percent change between the no new leasing (base
case) alternative and the other six Federal coal
management program alternatives.
A positive percent change ( + ) means that the
impacts forecast for a Federal coal management
program alternative exceed those forecast for the
no new leasing base case. A negative percent
change (-) means that the impacts forecast for a
Federal coal management program alternative are
less than those forecast for the base case. The
percent changes thus signify the extent to which
developments under a Federal coal management
program alternative relate to those developments,
under the no new leasing base case, from ongoing
or prospective coal mining on private and public
land already leased for, or otherwise committed to,
coal mining. Whereas Section 5.3 (below) ad-
dresses impacts as a function of three coal
production levels (low, medium, and high), only
impacts associated with the medium coal produc-
5-11
REGIONAL IMPACTS
tion level are addressed in this summary section.
The medium level impact projections for the 10
impact areas are presented in a single table for
each of the 12 coal regions. Percent changes in the
ranges 10 to 19, 20 to 29, and greater than 30
percent between the no new leasing baseline and
the six program alternatives are highlighted in
these tables. As in Section 5.3 that follows, the
differences between program alternatives are
based on regional coal production and consump-
tion projections derived from the NCM and on
quantified estimates of environmental, social, and
economic impact factors provided for each region
by the Department of the Interior's Coal Impact
Estimation Program (CIEP). The environmental
impacts of each alternative in each region will be a
function of the combination of effects attributable
to the production, transportation and use of coal
and site-specific factors in each region. According-
ly, the reader of this summary section should refer
to Section 5.3 (and related appendices) for details
about the impact assessment process.
The material contained in the 12 regional
summary tables has been aggregated to permit the
reader to observe how differences for the 10 impact
areas vary across the coal regions. Tables 5-14 to 5-
17 (following Section 5.2.10). display these differ-
ences.
5.2.1 The Appalachian Coal Region
As discussed in Chapter 4, Description of
Regional Environments, the Appalachian Coal
Region extends over nine eastern states and
contains an estimated 103 billion tons of coal
reserves. For purposes of the presentation in this
environmental impact statement, the region has
been divided into three regions which are referred
to as the Northern, Central, and Southern Appala-
chian Coal Regions.
Tables 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 provide estimates of
the ten impact areas selected for discussion in this
summary section. As shown in these tables,
impacts projected for 1985 will generally decrease
under the six Federal coal management program
alternatives as compared with the no new leasing
base case. In 1990, the trend is reversed and the
impacts tend to increase. For the preferred
alternative, coal production and consumption in
1985 and 1990 does not vary from the baseline case
in the Northern Appalachian Coal Region and
varies only slightly in the Central and Southern
Appalachian Coal Regions.
The socioeconomic characteristics of the three
regions differ widely. The Northern and Southern
Appalachian Coal Regions currently employ a
very small portion of their total labor forces in
coal-related industries (about six percent). Thus,
more significant impacts in terms of numbers of
persons involved would be anticipated in the
Central Appalachian Coal Region as coal produc-
tion and/or consumption caused coal-related
populations to change.
No significant impacts are projected for the
Northern Appalachian Coal Region in 1985 for
any of the program alternatives considered. In
1990, for all alternatives considered, with the
exception of the preferred program and the lease to
meet DOE goals alternatives, related population
levels are projected to increase by more than 1 1
percent (+11.3 to +23.3 percent). These popula-
tion increases are anticipated primarily as a result
of shifts from surface mining to more labor-
intensive underground mining techniques.
Significant changes in population are projected
in the Central Appalachian Coal Region in 1985
under the lease to meet industry needs alternative,
the lease to meet DOE goals alternative and the
state determination of leasing levels alternative (-
59.3, -10.2 and +24.9 percent, respectively). These
population changes are projected to occur as a
result of anticipated production changes (increased
production for the meet industry needs and meet
DOE goals alternatives, decreased production for
state determination alternatives). In 1990, only the
lease to meet industry needs and lease to meet
DOE goals alternatives are projected to result in
significant impacts in the Central Appalachian
Coal Region. Population changes under these
alternatives are projected to vary by + 1 1.2 percent
and -13.7 percent, respectively, from 1990 base
case conditions. These changes are anticipated as a
result of projected production changes for the two
program alternatives identified.
The increase in coal-related population in 1990
under the preferred alternative for the Southern
Appalachian Coal Region primarily results from a
shift from surface mining to underground mining,
the latter being more labor-intensive.
For the lease to meet industry needs alterna-
tive, significant increases in coal production are
estimated for the Southern Appalachian Coal
. :
i%
fits
• ■
.
5-12
**mm
TABLE 5-2
REGIONAL IMPACT SUMMARY
NORTHERN APPALACHIAN COAL REGION
i- 1
KEY IMPACT AREAS
ALTERNATIVES
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA ' s
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
1985
(a)
Base Case
PERCENT CHANCE FROM NO NE
SJ LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
211.7
+ 0.6
+ 0.2
Coal Consumption (million tons)
182.9
- 4.9
- 4.9
- 4.9
- 4.9
Land Committed (acres)
25,870
- 2.8
- 2.8
- 3.0
- 2.9
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
5,073
- 2.8
- 2.8
- 3.0
- 2.9
Population (thousands)
137.6
- 0.1
7.3
- 7.3
- 7.7
- 0.1
+ 7.8
Disabling Accidents
6,978
+ 0.2
+ 0.4
+ 0.4
+ 0.9
+ 0.3
+ 0.5
Water (thousand acre-feet)
563.8
- 4.4
- 4.4
- 4.4
- 4.4
Game Animal Losses
18,110
- 2.8
- 2.8
- 2.8
- 2.9
Particulate Emissions (tons)
131,713
- 2.9
- 2.9
- 3.0
- 3.0
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
213,649
- 3.8
- 3.8
- 3.6
- 3.7
1990
|
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
219.4
+ 0.3
- 0.7
+ 1.3
+ 2.6
Coal Consumption (million tons)
210.1
- 4.9
- 4.9
- 4.9
Land Committed (acres)
28,125
+ 0.1
- 0.2
+ 0.4
+ 0.6
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
2,758
+ 0.1
- 0.2
+ 0.4
+ 0.6
Population (thousands)
108.4
+ 1.8
+12.0
+12.4
+11.3
+ 6.2
WMM'M
Disabling Accidents
882.1
+ 0.7
+ 0.2
+ 0.2
+ 0.9
+ 1.3
+ 1.5
Water (thousand acre-feet)
651
Game Animal Losses
9,845
+ 0.1
- 0.2
+ 0.4
+ 0.6
Particulate Emissions (tons)
153,266
+ 0.1
- 0.1
+ 0.3
+ 0.5
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
255,337
+ 0.1
+ 0.1
+ 0.1
- 0.1
(a) Represents absolute values at medium level production.
|| 20 to 29%; 30% and greater
TABLE 5-3
REGIONAL IMPACT SUMMARY
CENTRAL APPALACHIAN COAL REGION
I
H
4>
KEY IMPACT AREAS
ALTERNATIVES
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
1985
Base Case^
PERCENT CHANGE FROM MO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
205.5
+ 0.5
+ 0.3
- 6.3
- 1.0
+ 2.6
Coal Consumption (million tons)
56.4
Land Committed (acres)
15,796
- 0.7
- 0.2
- 0.5
- 4.0
- 0.8
- 1.2
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
1,086
- 0.6
- 0.3
- 0.5
- 4.0
- 0.8
- 1.2
Population (thousands)
30.5
- 6.6
- 1.0
- 4.3
;:;:*:;:*v;*:~:< : :# : ::: : : : : ; : : : : : :
S : 3iffi;€S'>
"^"^IV.B.':.
Disabling Accidents
6,160
+ 0.4
+ 0.1
- 3.3
Water (thousand acre-feet)
212.1
- 0.7
- 0.5
- 0.5
- 1.1
- 0.4
- 0.4
Game Animal Losses
11,060
- 0.7
- 0.3
- 0.5
- 4.0
- 0.8
+ 1.2
Particulate Emissions (tons)
66,282
- 0.6
- 0.3
- 0.4
- 2.6
- 0.5
- 0.7
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
124,106
- 0.7
- 0.5
- 0.6
- 0.4
- 0.3
- 0.6
1990
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
211.2
- 2.3
- 0.3
- 0.5
- 3.8
- 2.6
+ 6.7
Coal Consumption (million tons)
84.7
+ 1.8
- 2.7
Land Committed (acres)
18,662
- 1.0
+ 1.0
- 0.2
- 0.4
- 1.2
+ 1.1
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
642
- 0.9
+ 1.1
- 0.2
- 0.5
- 1.2
+ 1.1
Population (thousands)
76.9
- 7.0
+ 2.9
- 0.4
+11.2
- 6.5
: -13,7
Disabling Accidents
6,714
- 1.0
- 2.0
- 0.8
+ 4.1
Water (thousand acre-feet)
309.8
- 0.1
+ 1.7
+ 0.6
- 0.2
- 2.1
Game Animal Losses
6,530
- 1.0
+ 1.1
+ 0.2
- 0.4
- 1.2
+ 1.5
Particulate Emissions (tons)
85,967
- 0.6
+ 1.1
- 0.2
- 0.6
- 0.7
- 0.3
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
185,674
+ 1.8
- 0.9
- 2.6
(a) Represents absolute values at medium level production
Shading Key: 10 to 19%; | §20 to 29%;
II
30% and greater
■pw
TABLE 5-4
REGIONAL IMPACT SUMMARY
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN COAL REGION
I
KEY IMPACT AREAS
ALTERNATIVES
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA ' s
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
1985
(a)
Base Case
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
27.5
- 3.2
- 3.6
-
+ 14.9
-• 19.6
- 16.3
Coal Consumption (million tons)
106.0
- 2.0
- 1.6
- 1.6
- 1.8
- 3.2
- 1.7
Land Committed (acres)
15,301
- 2.0
- 1.5
- 1.4
- 5.2
- 3.2
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
1.712
- 2.0
- 1.6
- 1.4
+ 2.8
- 5.3
- 3.2
Population (thousands)
88
- 4.8
- 4.1
- 2.3
+ 6.5
- 11.9
Disabling Accidents
939
+ 2.1
- 1.4
+ 0.5
t 11-3
- 16.7 ":
- 10. 1
Water (thousand acro-feet)
355.1
- 1.9
- 1.3
- 1.6
- 1.7
- 3.4
- 1.7
Game Animal Losses
10,710
- 2.5
- 1.6
- 1.4
- 4.7
- 3.2
Particulate Emissions (tons)
77.501
- 1.9
- 1.4
- 1.4
- 0.8
- 4.0
- 2.2
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
110,509
- 1.8
- 1.2
- 1.5
- 1.5
- 3.1
- 1.5
1990
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
26.4
- 3.7
- 0.3
+ 0.5
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Coal Consumption (million tons)
118.0
+ 1.2
- 1.4
Land Committed (acres)
16,311
- 0.3
+ 0.9
+ 0.1
+ 1.6
- 3.4
- 4.7
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
913
- 0.3
+ 0.9
+ 0.1
+ 1.6
1 ■ ■:*:-:-:■
- 3.4
- 4.7
Population (thousands)
26.7
+13.9
HUM *"**
|§||i||:t;|:|;
||HI|I
Disabling Accidents
1,097
- 0.5
+ 0.2
+ 0.2
[■;'• : +.3-J-;
hi^'^SM
Water (thousand acre-feet)
392.6
0.9
0.6
- 0.3
- 1.6
Game Animal Losses
5,710
- 0.4
+ 0.9
+ 1.6
- 3.4
- 4.7
Particulate Emissions (tons)
85,373
- 0.1
+ 0.1
+ 1.2
- 1.8
- 3.2
SulEur Oxide Emissions (tons)
122,861
+ 0.9
+ 0.6
+ 0.2
- 1.3
(a) Represents absolute values at medium level production
o .19/',; ! 1 20 to 29%
Shading Key:
D iotol9Ii
30% and greater
REGIONAL IMPACTS
Region (+ 14.9 percent in 1985 and + 15.1 percent
in 1990). This is attributed to an industry prefer-
ence for expanding production for both under-
ground and surface mining in this region. For the
lease to meet DOE production goals and state
determination of leasing levels alternatives, signifi-
cant decreases in production are estimated in both
1985 and 1990 for the Southern Appalachian Coal
Region; associated directly with the production
decreases are the forecasted population decreases.
As addressed in Section 4.1.1 above, the
frequency and persistence of atmospheric inver-
sions in the Appalachian Coal Regions tends to
aggravate air quality problems. National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for sulfur dioxide and
suspended particulate matter are being currently
exceeded in the heavily industrialized and mined
areas in the regions. As shown in the tables, air
emissions associated with the six Federal coal
management program alternatives for 1985 and
1990 should have a negligible impact on ambient
air quality in the regions as compared with the
impacts associated with the base case for the
same years.
Since the three coal regions have an abundant
supply of surface water, and groundwater does not
play as significant a role in the survival of man,
plants, and animals as in the West, water use under
the Federal coal management program is not an
important consideration. Natural primary produc-
tivity (what the land produces without human
intervention) is moderate to high in the three coal
regions (8.9 tons per acre per year in forests to 17.8
tons per acre per year in flood-plain areas); .this
productivity rate in combination with excellent
climatic conditions results in a high potential for
reclamation of coal-disturbed land within the
regions.
5.2.2 The Eastern Interior Coal Region
This coal region is primarily located in Illinois
with smaller portions in Indiana, Kentucky, and
Iowa. The Eastern Interior Coal Region contains
an estimated 88.9 billion tons of coal reserves
which are predominately low-volatility bituminous
in rank. As shown in Table 5-5, percent changes in
impacts associated with the Federal coal manage-
ment program alternatives over the no new leasing
(base case) alternative are slight. All of the
program alternatives except for the lease to meet
industry needs and the state determination of
leasing levels alternatives show little or no real
change.
With its favorable precipitation patterns and
two major waterways (Mississippi and Ohio
Rivers), the coal region generally has plentiful
supplies of water. Although some communities
have had difficulty obtaining wells yielding quality
water supplies at reasonable costs, fresh ground-
water in at least small to medium quantities is not
generally difficult to develop. Additional water
required to support implementation of any of the
Federal coal management program alternatives is
not considered a significant problem.
The region has supported extensive agricultur-
al development in the past. Much of the natural
vegetation has been removed and only about 15
percent of the region is forested. Accordingly, most
wildlife in the region is compatible with man's
activities. Little impact on land use, agriculture,
and wildlife is thus forecast as a result of any of the
Federal coal management program alternatives.
Furthermore, the ecosystems within the region
should adequately recover from program impacts.
With proper soil conditions, natural succession is
expected to return grasslands to a near original
state within a decade.
A minor increase in production is forecast for
the preferred program in 1985 (1.7 percent increase
over the no new leasing basecase). This is paral-
leled by a minor increase in the coal-related
population (two percent increase). These impacts
should not cause major problems for the region's
existing economy and social structure since coal
production has traditionally played an important
role in the region's industrial development. In
point of fact, these trends are shown to reverse in
1990, indicating that coal-related activities in the
Eastern Interior Coal Region are not dependent
upon the Federal coal management program; the
extent of these activities is dependent upon what
has been forecast for the no new leasing base case.
5.2.3 Western Interior Coal Region
Major portions of this coal region are located
in Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Oklahoma; minor
portions are located in southeast Nebraska and
northwest Arkansas. The Western Interior Coal
Region has an estimated coal reserve base of
approximately 15.6 billion tons. This reserve base
is mostly high-volatility bituminous coal. There is
5-16
mm
TABLE 5-5
REGIONAL IMPACT SUMMARY
EASTERN INTERIOR COAL REGION
I
ALTERNATIVES
KEY IMPACT AREAS
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
1985
Base Case
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
206.1
+ 1.7
+ 0.4
- 4.8
- 1.3
- 3.1
Coal Consumption (million tons)
154.4
- 0.2
- 0.3
- 0.3
+ 0.3
- 2.5
- 0.6
Land Committed (acres)
26,295
+ 0.5
- 0.2
- 0.8
- 2.4
+ 0.4
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
20,997
+ 0.5
- 0.2
- 0.8
- 2.4
+ 0.4
Population (thousands)
185
+ 2.0
- 0.4
+ 0.4
- 6.5
- 4.3
+ 4.1
Disabling Accidents
3,976
+ 2.0
0.1
+ 1.2
- 2.0
- 0.2
+ 2.8
Water (thousand acre-feet)
516.6
- 0.1
- 0.3
+ 0.2
0.1
- 2.6
- 0.5
Game Animal Losses
15 . 780
+ 0.5
- 0.2
- 0.8
- 2.5
+ 0.4
Particulate Emissions (tons)
150,165
+ 0.2
- 0.2
- 0.1
- 0.7
- 2.6
+ 0.1
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
357,462
- 0.2
-0.3
- 0.3
+ 0.5
- 3.0
- 0.7
1990
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
331.5
- 3.5
- 5.1
- 1.0
-14.1
- 5.7
-1**9
Coal Consumption (million tons)
173.3
+ 0.6
+ 0.8
+ 0.2
+ 0.8
+ 1.0
- 0.5
Land Committed (acres)
28,393
- 1.2
- 1.0
- 0.8
- 4.4
- 3.0
- 3.9
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
11,336
- 1.2
- 1.0
- 0.7
- 1.3
- 3.0
- 3.9
Population (thousands)
236.6
- g.4
-10.3
- 2.9
■■-'■■ ^»^^^^^^^^^J
+12.*
Disabling Accidents
6,804
- 2.0
- 3.5
- 0.3
-10.3
- 3.4
Water (thousand acre-feet)
578.6
- 0.2
- 0.2
- 0.6
- 0.7
- 0.2
Game Animal Losses
8,529
- 1.3
- 1.1
- 0.8
- 4.5
- 3.0
+ 3.9
Particulate Emissions (tons)
180,039
- 0.9
- 1.4
- 0.6
- 3.6
- 0.8
- 3.2
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
391,309
t 0.2
- 0.5
+ 0.3
+ 0.4
- 1.1
(a) Represents absolute values at medium level production.
10 to 197.; ( H 20 to 29%; 111! 30% and greater
Shading Key:
20 to 29"; gill
REGIONAL IMPACTS
some coking coal located in Arkansas and Oklaho-
ma.
Following general trends exhibited in the other
eastern coal regions, impacts associated with the
Federal coal management program alternatives are
shown, with one exception, to be less than those
associated with the no new leasing (base case)
alternative. As shown in Table 5-6, impacts
associated with the state determination of leasing
levels alternative are projected to exceed the base
case significantly. This is a reflection of the
increased coal production in 1985 (+ 11.2 percent)
and in 1990 ( + 37.3 percent).
The region has traditionally supported agricul-
ture as the dominant land use. However, although
coal is plentiful in the region, production is
principally in eastern Oklahoma where the region's
less productive agricultural areas are currently
located.
Due to the nation's energy problems of recent
years, coal production which had been steadily
declining has revived and is now near the maxi-
mum annual production rate reached in 1920. Both
water and land based transportation systems used
by coal mining activities are adequate to support
increased demands in this regard. Thus, the region
has already initiated many of the changes (i.e.,
labor force, social structure, transportation sys-
tems) needed to accommodate increasing depen-
dence on coal as an economic base. Environmental
impacts associated with the implementation of the
preferred Federal coal management program
would thus be minor. Since the region has an
adequate water supply and the climate is generally
favorable, ecosystems native to the region are able
to regenerate well. This is a desirable feature of this
coal region; it implies that land that has been
disturbed due to coal-related activities will rapidly
regain natural primary productivity.
5.2.4 The Texas Coal Region
This region consists mostly of a portion of east
Texas and a small portion of northwest Louisiana.
Currently, the region's lignite reserves are estimat-
ed to be 3.3 billion tons. Other significant mineral
resources such as petroleum and natural gas are
also present.
As indicated in Table 5-7, all key impact areas
for the preferred program alternative and most
impact areas for the state determination of leasing
levels alternative are shown to increase in 1985; in
1990, all six program alternatives show a decrease
in impact areas as compared with the no new
leasing base case.
With respect to 1985, impacts for the preferred
program due to increased production may be
significant. Although the region receives about 48
inches of precipitation per year in the northeast,
only 16 inches are received in the southwest. As a
result, the southwest is relatively arid and periodic
droughts are experienced. Generally, groundwater
is abundant and of good quality; very high yields
(over 1,000 gallons per minute) have been obtained
from both bedrock and alluvial aquifers. The
ecosystems within the region are not particularly
fragile so that a fair degree of disruption can be
tolerated with an eventual return to a natural state.
Finally, the region has a gently rolling topography
which is not especially vulnerable to erosion. For
these reasons, the land disturbed as a result of a
Federal coal management program can be ade-
quately reclaimed.
No major development of the region's lignite
deposits has occurred to date. Thus, forecasts of
production increases in the region in 1985 under
the preferred program will require changes in the
region's industrial development pattern. The re-
gion currently exports more oil and gas than it
consumes, and this export demand has stimulated
development of a transportation network accom-
modating the transport of bulk commodities, as
well as people and the necessities of life. Industrial
growth has been termed phenomenal and an
adequate labor pool is considered to be available
to support the demands of a Federal coal manage-
ment program.
5.2.5 The Powder River Coal Region
This coal region includes portions of Montana
and Wyoming. The region contains about 142.5
billion tons of sub-bituminous coal. The beds are
thickest in the northern parts of the region
(Montana). Most of this coal lies in near-surface
beds that are readily amenable to surface mining.
As shown in Table 5-8, significant impacts are
forecast for the region in 1990, with one exception,
for all Federal coal management program alterna-
tives. Except for the state determination of leasing
levels alternative, where a decrease in production is
projected, percent changes in production range
from +3.6 percent (emergency leasing only) to
+47.5 percent (lease to meet industry needs).
5-11
TABLE 5-6
wmmm
REGIONAL IMPACT SUMMARY
WESTERN INTERIOR COAL REGION
I
KEY -IMPACT AREAS
ALTERNATIVES
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA ' s
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
1985
Rase Case
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
14.2
- 4.2
-3.5
islliilli
H:0\MM
+11.2
Coal Consumption (million tons)
106.9
- 4.0
- 5.4
- 5.0
- 1.5
+ 3.1 |
- 5.3
Land Committed (acres)
16 , 386
- 4.1
- 5.3
- 4.7
- 6.0
+14.7
Agriculture (thousands 1974 S)
6,648
- 4.1
- 5.3
- 4.6
- 6.0
+14.7
Population (thousands)
99.8
- 5.9
- 7.6
- 6.5
- 6.5
+ 0.7
Disabling Accidents
808
- 1.1
- 1.1
- 0.8
- 7.5
- 5.9
+ 3.7
Water (thousand acre-feet)
367.4
- 4.0
- 5.5
- 5.0
- 1.6
+ 2.9
- 5.3
Game Animal Losses
4,920
- 4.3
- 5.3
- 4.7
- 6.1
+14.6
Particulate Emissions (tons)
121,554
- 3.8
- 5.0
- 4.6
- 1.6
+ 2.5
- 4.7
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
466,072
- 3.9
- 5.2 j - 4.8
- 1.2
+ 2.9
- 5.1
1990
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
25.5
WmBtti^M^Wi
- 5.1
IMMMMMM:M^M&MMM
Coal Consumption (million tons)
170.2
+ 2.9
+ 0.5
+ 0.5
■+ 5.9 + 5.2
- 2.9
Land Committed (acres)
25,876
- 2.6
- 3.8
- 2.4
- 1.7
- 2.8
- 3.1
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
5,249
- 2.6
- 3.8
- 2.4
+ 1.7
- 2.8
- 3.0
Population (thousands)
150.4
- 0.3
- 1.9
+ 0.7
- 1.1
- 7.6
- 0.1
Disabling Accidents
1,366
-12.4 :
- 9.4
- 2.1
'Sgilsji^':-.
Water (thousand acre-feet)
580.2
- 0.1
- 2.4
- 2.4
+ 2.8
2.1
- 5.7
Game Animal Losses
3,080
- 3.2
- 4.7
- 0.5
- 2.1
- 3.4
- 4.0
-
Particulate Emissions (tons)
194,025
- 0.4
- 2.4
- 2.2
+ 2.0
+ 1.4
- 4.9
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
714,331
- 2.2
- 2.2
+ 2.9
+ 2.3
- 5.5
(a) Represents absolute values at medium level production.
Shading Key: 10 to 1'
20 to 24 , 30% and greater
TABLE 5-7
REGIONAL IMPACT SUMMARY
TEXAS COAL REGION
KEY IMPACT AREAS
ALTERNATIVES
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
DRLA ' s
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
-
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
1985
Base Case^
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
64
+ 3.5
+ 0.4
+ 0.9
[Pff^W
- 9.8
Coal Consumption (million tons)
137.7
+ 0.4
- 0.8
- 0.4
- 1.3
- 0.4
2.2
Land Commit: ted (acres)
23,707
+ 1.1
- 0.7
- 0.2
- 5.7
- 2.4
+ 6.5
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
2,289
+ 1.1
- 0.7
- 0.1
- 5.7
- 2.4
+ 6.6
Population (thousands)
182.3
+ 1.1
- 0.8
- 0.2
- 5.0
- 2.2
6.5
Disabling Accidents
997
- 0.3
- 0.1
+ 2.5
- 0.5
+ 2.4
Water (thousand acre-feet)
471
+ 0.4
- 0.8
- 0.4
- 1.5
- 0.5
+ 2.2
Game Animal Losses
14,270
+ 1.1
- 0.7
- 0.1
- 5.6
- 2.4
+ 6.5
Particulate Emissions (tons)
107,280
+ 0.6
- 0.8
- 0.3
- 2.7
- 1.1
- 3.6
1
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
108,499
+ 0.4
- 0.8
- 0.8
- 1.4
+ 0.2
- 1.3
ho
o
1990
~
'"
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
119.4
- 2.5
- 3.0
IliSilli
iiiliiil
- 7.0
Coal Consumption (million tons)
247.3
+ 1.6
+ 0.2
+ 0.2
+ i.i
+ 0.3
Land Committed (acres)
43,684
- 6.0
- 1.8
- 1.7 -12.1
- 7.6
- 2.6
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
2,109
- 6.0
- 1.8
+ 0.4
-12.1
- 7.6
- 2.6
Population (thousands)
259.4
-10.2
- 2.9
- 3.2
-14.3
- 9.6
p-UuViV;-
Disabling Accidents
1,408
- 1.3
- 8.4
- 0.6
- 1.4
- 0.3
- 1.3
Water (thousand acre-feet)
850.7
- 0.2
- 1.7
- 1.4
- 1.9
- 0.8
- 1.4
Game Animal Lossps
13,105
- 6.0
- 1.8
- 1.7
-12.1
- 7.6
- 2.5
Particulate Emissions (tons)
196,903
- 2.1
- 1.7
- 1.5
- 5.0
- 2.9
- 1.8
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
197,164
- 1.6
- 1.3
- 1.3
- 0.4
- 1.3
(a) Represents
absolute values at me
dium level p
rodu
rtion.
Shading Key:
10 tol97„ ; | |
20 to 29%;
0iSi;
30% and greater
mm&
TABLE 5-8
REGIONAL IMPACT SUMMARY
POWDER RIVER COAL REGION
L/i
i
KEY IMPACT AREAS
ALTERNATIVES
NO NEW
LEAS ING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
1983
(a)
Base Case
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
204.8
+ 9.8
+10.3
Coal Consumption (million tons)
16.6
+ 2.4
- 1.8
- 1.8
Land Committed (acres)
8.426
+ 0.2
+ 0.1
+ 8.1
- 0.4
- 7.8
Agriculture (thousands 1974 S)
23
+ 8.7
- 8.7
Population (thousands)
112.3
+ 0.5
+ 0.1
+ 0.3
+11.7
+ 0.1
w.mt
Disabling Accidents
619
- 5.0
+ 0.2
- 1.3
+ 1.9
- 5.0
-12.1
Water (thousand acre-feet)
71.6
+ 4.2
- 1.-4
- 3.5
Came Animal Losses
3,410
+ 7.9
- 0.3
- 7.9
Particulate Emissions (tons)
38,171
+ 0.6
+ 0.1
+ 0.2
+ 7.8
- 0.1
- 6.4
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
13,337
- 0.1
- 0.1
+ 3.4
- 1.0
- 1.3
1990
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO N
EW LEASING
j 4*7,
+ 4.1
l ,^«..n......lllllll n
Coal Production (million tons)
305.0
IIORIf ■
+16.3
+ 3.6
; -" : ■: : !||
i;i^|i;#i||:
Coal Consumption (million tons)
26.9
+ 2.6
+ 1.1
+ 2.6
L — .
- i.i
Land Committed (acres)
12,535
"' • ■:.■ ■■
+11 .6
+ 2.1
1 - 9.3
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
18
.:...!":;■ „
::.:::: :
Illlllllll
|; : : *:;|feipii : i
+ 4.3
Lfe
Population (thousands)
91.1
i* 78 -'
-H-S.I
+ 7.6
Illillllli -12.5 - ■ :j
Disabling Accidents
886
¥ 8.9
+12.9
+ 1.2
+ 9.0
■15.7
Water (thousand acre-feet)
90.1
+ 7.6
+ 3.4
- 0.6
+ 7.3
- 5.5
Game Animal Losses
2,530
;'■;':-.;■.-■■ '
+11 .8
+ 2.8
\"t^l:\VS>:
| + 9.1
Particulate Emissions (tons)
48,963
!ll2<V,i'- : j +11.8
+ 2.5
WMWM^:
| - 8.5
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
16,161
+ 2.1
+ 0.4
- 1.1
+ 4.3
+ 2.7
- 3.2
(a) Represents absolute values at medium level production
■
Shading Key:
10 to 19%;
20 to- 29%;
30% and great£
REGIONAL IMPACTS
Impacts associated with the preferred program are
especially significant (31.1 percent production
increase and 78.3 percent population increase, for
example).
Several features of the region magnify the
severity of the impacts shown in the table for 1990.
Seventy-five percent of the region's average annual
precipitation of 14 inches falls between April and
September; flooding is common in the spring when
rapid snow melt produces heavy run-off. Though
the region is classified as semi-arid, it varies from
humid in some years to arid in others and is never
predictable. Thus the climate of the coal region
militates against attempts to minimize the conse-
quences of disturbing the land and to maximize its
subsequent reclamation.
Air quality in the region is generally good.
However, the changes in 1990 in particulate
emissions projected for the preferred program
( + 24.1 percent), lease to meet industry needs
alternative ( + 36.7 percent), and lease to meet
DOE production goals alternative ( + 23.3 percent)
indicate that air quality in this coal region may be
severely degraded should any of these alternatives
be implemented.
Surface water and groundwater quality are
both variable. Although such water may be
chemically suitable to support Federal coal man-
agement program activities, the quantity of water
available for such activities may be limited.
Ranching and farming are the predominant
lifestyles in the region; however, exploitation of oil,
gas, and uranium resources has spurred mining
developments in recent years. Although population
growth has been generally slow in recent years,
stability has been disrupted on a local basis by the
boom town phenomenon, with Gillette and Sheri-
dan, Wyoming, being notable examples. As a
result of increased demands for water, labor, and
land associated with developments under the
Federal coal management program, the stability of
existing lifestyles and socioeconomic structure in
the coal region is threatened.
5.2.6 The Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region
This coal region is composed of two contigu-
ous coal regions (Green River and Hams Fork) in
extreme western Wyoming, northwestern Colora-
do, and small portions of Utah and Idaho. Total
reserves are estimated to be 15.6 billion tons in the
Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region. The coal
beds in southwestern Wyoming and northern
Colorado range in thickness from a few inches to
about 40 feet. Most of this coal is deeply buried
and it is not considered economical to extract it
using current mining technologies. The coal beds
in the rest of the region (western Wyoming, Utah,
and Idaho) range up to 100 feet thick with some
high quality coals up to 20 feet thick. Steep dips,
however, make mining of these beds difficult.
As indicated in Table 5-9, coal production in
1990 in this region due to implementation of the
preferred program is forecast to increase substan-
tially ( + 21.5 percent) over the no new leasing
(base case) alternative. Correspondingly significant
increases in population ( + 51.3 percent), land
committed (+ 16.7 percent), and particulate emis-
sions (+12.9 percent) are also indicated for 1990.
The impacts associated with the preferred program
in 1985 are not as large as those in 1990 ( + 5.2
percent for production, + 7.3 percent for popula-
tion, for example), but they still pose a threat.
There is wide variation in the magnitudes of
impacts forecast for the region in both years
among the Federal coal management program
alternatives. Under the state determination of
leasing levels alternative, coal production in the
region would be severely constrained. For the lease
to meet industry needs and lease to meet DOE
production goals alternatives, the reverse is true;
production would be greatly emphasized and all
impacts would be correspondingly magnified. In
terms of coal production and impacts, the pre-
ferred program strikes a balance between the
extremes associated with these three alternatives.
Although overall regional air quality is very
good, there are localities like Craig, Colorado;
Sweetwater County, Wyoming; and Soda Springs,
Idaho, where particulates concentrations exceed
national standards. It is difficult to relate the
particulate emission increases forecast for 1985
and 1990 to particulate concentrations without
being site-specific and performing detailed air
quality studies. However, it can be stated that the
increases in particulate emissions shown for the
preferred program will degrade air quality; air
quality in localities that are near to or exceed
national standards for particulates may be further
degraded.
A serious problem is expected in supplying the
water needed to support preferred program activi-
ties. Though many of the large streams in the
5-22
mn^m^^^^
TABLE 5-9
REGIONAL IMPACT SUMMARY
GREEN RIVER - HAMS FORK COAL REGION
i
to
(a) Represents absolute values at medium level production.
Shading Key: 10 to 19%;
20 to 29Z; 307, and greater
REGIONAL IMPACTS
region are perennial (like the Green and Yampa
Rivers), most of the tributaries are intermittent.
The region is thus subject to droughts. Ground-
water found in alluvial deposits is of good quality
and moderate yields can be obtained. However,
pumping from these aquifers is restricted by the
states because of appropriated water rights or
interference with nearby stream flows. Yields from
sandstone aquifers and limestone aquifers are
highly variable depending upon permeability. In
general, water quality throughout the region has
not been fully explored. Not only is the water
impact forecast a very real concern because of the
water availability and water quality issues, but also
because of the constraints it may impose on other
non-coal related development activities in the
region.
The region contains vast public lands and large
ranches, and a low population density (2.6 persons
per square mile (1975 data)). Construction of
additional housing has not kept pace with demand
and there is currently a housing shortage in many
of the region's communities. The large increase in
coal-related population for 1990 ( + 51.3 percent
over the no new leasing base case) will aggravate
this situation unless appropriate measures are
taken.
The agricultural sector currently accounts for
10 percent of the region's work force. The value of
agricultural crops lost due to mining is forecast to
be significant in 1990 (+ 17.1 percent increase over
the base case). Serious changes in the lifestyles of
residents in the region have occurred in some
areas. These changes will continue whether or not
local workers leave agricultural employment for
employment in activities related to a Federal coal
management program.
There have been recent increases in the levels
of development of natural resources in the region,
particularly coal, trona, oil, and gas, which have
influenced the creation of new communities. The
lifestyles of the new residents and their reliance on
industry for employment opportunities have com-
bined to alter the typically western character of the
region. Since forecasts associated with implemen-
tation of the preferred program show increases in
coal production, population, water demands, and
land committed over the no new leasing base case,
it is expected that the character of the region will
be altered even more.
Considerable land area is projected to be
disturbed for roads, utility corridors, and coal
facilities. Since the region consists of a series of
parallel mountain ranges and valleys, reclamation
of coal-disturbed lands is highly site-specific.
Because of the varying topography, soil types, and
precipitation rates in the region, the reclamation
process is further complicated.
5.2.7 The Fort Union Coal Region
The largest coal region in the Northern Great
Plains Province, the Fort Union Coal Region,
includes portions of eastern Montana, northwest-
ern South Dakota, and western North Dakota.
Significant amounts of coal are located in this
region. Reserves of 440 billion tons of lignite,
ranging to 1500 feet thick, are estimated in the
South Dakota and Montana portions of the region.
About 23.1 billion tons of subbituminous reserves
are estimated to be surface-mineable from North
Dakota westward into Montana.
Table 5-10 indicates the extent of the impacts
projected for the Federal coal management pro-
gram alternatives. The table shows that, in 1985,
coal production under the preferred program
would not change from the level of the no new
leasing base case. The other impact areas (except
for disabling accidents) are shown to increase in
1985, some significantly. The explanation for these
seeming inconsistencies is that although coal
production remains constant under the preferred
program, coal consumption in the coal region
increases significantly (+11.6 percent); the in-
creases in population, water, air emissions, and
other impacts are associated with the projected
operation of a modest-sized synthetic fuels high-
Btu coal gasification plant within the region. By
1990, coal production in the region under the
preferred program is forecast to be much less (-17.8
percent) than that associated with the no new
leasing base case, while coal consumption remains
the same as the base case. As a result, in 1990 the
impacts in other key areas are much less than the
base case. These may or may not be desirable
impacts, however, depending upon the economic
stimulation generated and the stresses that the
local social and economic structures would have to
endure.
Under the state determination of leasing levels
alternative, production is slated to be greater in
1985 over the preferred program (+ 17.2 percent).
5-24
TABLE 5-10
REGIONAL IMPACT SUMMARY
FORT UNION COAL REGION
i
KEY IMPACT AREAS
ALTERNATIVES
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
1985
Base Case
> PERCENT CHANCE FROM NO
NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
31.9
+15.6
lllilllil +17.2
Coal Consumption (million tons)
19.8
+11.6
+11.6
+11.6
+17,7
+2.5
Land Committed (acres)
4,190
+ 7.5
+ 7.5
+ 7.5
+17.9
+18.8
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
265.0
+ 7.5
+ 7.5
+ 7.5
+17.7
.-11.3 ...
+18.9
Population (thousands)
22.4
+12,1
+12.5
+12.5
mmmM'M
WS# :
•;;ili!!f
Disabling Accidents
378
+6.1
-6.9
-16.9 ■
Water (thousand acre-feet)
55.5
+14.2
+14.2
+14.2
■ 22,3
1.8
Game Animal Losses
1,780
+ 6.7
+ 6.7
+ 6.7
+16.8 -11.8
__________
Particulate Emissions (tons)
12,017
+10.7
+10.7
+10.7
+17 9
-5.5
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
12,110
+ 7.1 "1
+ 7.1
+ 7.2
+1.4
1990
; PERCENT CHANGE FROM SO
NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
51.0
-17.8
- 7.0
[-0.7
+1.7
> -5^8
+6.6
CoaJ Consumption (million tons)
44.8
- 1.8
1 - 0.4
+0.2
+ 4.7
— * — >*.
i + 0.9
Land Committed (acres)
8,517
- 5.8
- 1.3
+ 1.3
+5.1
+4.3
Agriculture (thousands 197 A $)
269
- 5.9
- 1.1
+ 1.1
+5.2
+4.1
Population (thousands)
60.2
-15.9
- 8.8
- 4.7
-6.3
illlllll
-9.5
Disabling Accidents
538
- 2.6
- 1.3
- 0.3
+2.4
-8.4
-0.2
Water (thousand acre-feet)
141.7
- 0.5
+ 1.5
+ 2.5
6.7
^Mfyj^M
3.6
Game Animal Losses
1,805
+ 5.8
- 1.4
+ 1.1
+4.7
n^'M^Xl^i
+3.9
Particulate Emissions (tons)
27,832
- 3.0
+ 0.4
+ 2.2
+6.0
J^muf^.
+4.2
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
23,435
- 0.3
+ 1.0
+ 1.5
+5.3
-6.8
+1.8
(a) Represents absolute values at medium level production
Shading Key: ■ : J
10 to 19%;
20 to 292
30Z and greater
REGIONAL IMPACTS
This is due to the preference of North Dakota to
intensify development of its coal resources. Rela-
tive increases in population under the program
alternatives reflect a move towards greater overall
industrialization in the region. For the lease to
meet industry needs alternative, the same general
comments apply. The situation reverses itself for
the lease to meet DOE production goals alternative
where coal production is forecast to be reduced
significantly as compared to both the no new
leasing base case and the preferred program. As
regards these three alternatives (lease to meet
industry needs, lease to meet DOE production
goals, and state determination of leasing levels),
the preferred program strikes a balance between
the impact extremes.
Air quality in the region is well within National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, especially for
particulates and sulfur dioxide. Increased air
emissions in 1985 resulting from greater coal
consumption under the preferred program will
degrade this air quality. However, since these
impacts cannot be quantified until specific sites
have been studied, it cannot be said that air quality
in the region will reach or exceed National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Groundwater is available throughout the re-
gion but only in small to moderate amounts.
Surface water is limited throughout the region,
except for those areas adjacent to the Missouri and
Yellowstone Rivers. Water availability could cause
severe problems depending upon where the coal-
related activities are sited. The greatest potential
for groundwater development is along the Missouri
and Yellowstone Rivers and from the deep coal
bearing formations themselves.
The infrastructure of the region is typically
rural western. Increases in social demands associ-
ated with the preferred program due to the
population influx projected for 1985 will strain
limited service facilities. Agriculture, presently a
dominant pursuit in the region, may have to give
way to coal-related industrial developments. The
lifestyles of the older residents may be adversely
affected by coal resource developments and new
residents.
5.2.8 The San Juan River Coal Region
This region covers the Four Corners area of the
southwest including portions of New Mexico,
Colorado, and Utah. The total estimated reserve
base in the San Juan River Coal Region is 4.2
billion tons. Coals within the region rank from
high-volatile A to B bituminous, to discontinous
and dirty coals that are high-volatile C to B
bituminous with high ash content.
As presented in Table 5-11, percent changes in
key impact areas for the preferred program as
compared with the no new leasing base case are
essentially negligible in 1985 and significantly
lower in 1990. This indicates that the major coal-
related impacts to be felt in the region in these
years would result from mining on existing Federal
leases and from mines not dependent on Federal
coal. There is some variation in projected impacts
among several of the other Federal coal manage-
ment program alternatives. Under both the lease to
meet industry needs and the state determination of
leasing levels alternatives, significant production
increases from additional mining are indicated for
1985 ( + 20.9 percent and +29.0 percent, respec-
tively, over the base case). As expected, production
increases result in additional land disturbed, an
influx of people for the region, and more particu-
late emissions due to fugitive dust from the surface
mining activities. To the opposite extreme, the
lease to meet DOE production goals alternative
would result in a large decrease (-10.8 percent) in
coal production. Other key impact areas for this
alternative decrease accordingly.
The quantity and quality of water required to
support any additional developments in the region,
let alone the demands projected under the no new
leasing base case, are a crucial issue. The region is
essentially a desert environment. The quality of
groundwater, where it can be found, is only fair.
Currently, pumping to support coal and uranium
mining in the Gallup, New Mexico area exceeds
aquifer replacement capabilities. Annual precipita-
tion is generally less than 10 inches for most of the
region. An aggravating factor is that potential
evaporation exceeds normal precipitation many
times over. Only the San Juan River receives flow
from outside the region. Surface reservoirs have
been constructed to store the region's water and to
control the floods created by summer thunder-
storms and spring snowmelt. From a water
consumption viewpoint, the preferred program
requires less water in 1990 than the no new leasing
base case.
Impacts of the preferred program on the
region's air quality and its lifestyles are forecast to
5-26
TABLE 5-11
REGIONAL IMPACT SUMMARY
SAN JUAN RIVER COAL REGION
I
KEY IMPACT AREAS
ALTERNATIVES
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
COALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
1935
Base Case
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
24.8
+0.8
-1.1
-10,8 J
■!-?.<b0:- >V
: : :
Coal Consumption (million tons)
8.9
-13. $ :
-1.1
Land Committed (acres)
3,100
+0.3
-0.2
-0.2
+13,2 -11.4
— __ -4- ■ -■■■■ ■■■■■■-■■-■■4
+18.6
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
2
Population (thousands)
12.8
+1.6
-0.8
-0.8
Disabling Accidents
186
+1.1
+0.5
+1.1
-5.4
+12,4
Water (thousand acre-feet)
32.6
-0.5
-0.5
0.8
: . : >-l3.37 : '
1.3
Game Animal Losses
50
™
Particulate Emissions (tons)
9,891
+0.3
-0.4
-0.4
+6.6
-12.3
+9.2
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
7,327
-0.5
-0.5
-0.1
is +12.5
-0.2
1990
PERCENT CHANCE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
59.4
-15.8
-7.5
-1.6
+1.0
-2.8
+6.0
Coa] Consumption (million tons)
13.4
+ 1.5
+ 1.5
+ 0.7
+ 1.5
- 1.5
Land Committed (acres)
6,430
-11. 2
-5.2
-1.4
+1.0
-3.9
+4.2
Agriculture (thousands 1974 S)
2
Population (thousands)
44.3
-15.8
-6.1
-1.6
-6.3
-11.5
-5.4
Disabling Accidents
337
-7.1
-3.3
-0.3
+2.1
+3.3
Water (thousand acre-feet)
41.6
-0.9
-0.6
-1.0
0.4
-0.7
-1.2
Game Animal Losses
50
-10
- +10
Particulate Emissions (tons)
16,264
-5.9
-2.2
-0.9
+2.0
-14.4
+5.3
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
8,127
+0.7
-1.1 +0.3
-1.1
-2.2
(a) Represents absolute values at medium level production.
Shading Key: [ lj 30% and greater
REGIONAL IMPACTS
be negligible. Any undesirable impacts associated
with the preferred program in these impact areas
or any of the others will be relatively equivalent to
those projected for the no new leasing base case.
5.2.9 The Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region
Included within this region are portions of
Colorado and Utah. The region is characterized by
extremely steep slopes and narrow vertically-
walled canyons. At least 7.2 billion tons of coal
reserves are estimated to be in the region, with
most deposits in the flanks of major peaks and
plateaus. Coal mining, which until recently had
declined because of competition from natural gas
and fuel oil, has become active again after being
spurred by energy shortages. Several large coal-
fired power plants have been constructed in the
region.
Table 5-12 presents comparative data on key
impact areas for the Federal coal management
program alternatives and the no new leasing base
case. Production projected for the preferred pro-
gram is shown to be slightly greater (+1.3 percent)
than the base case in 1985. This greater production
is accompanied by increases in other impact areas.
In 1990, the impacts associated with the preferred
program are much less than those for the base case
because of the lower coal production (-15.8
precent).
Several of the program alternatives show wide
swings in impacts as compared to the preferred
and no new leasing alternatives. For the lease to
meet industry needs alternative, an increase in
production of five million tons in 1985 (+18.2
percent change over the base case) is forecast to be
accompanied by large impacts in land disturbance,
population growth, and air quality. Conversely, the
lower production (-10.8 percent) associated with
the lease to meet DOE production goals alternative
is accompanied by much less severe impacts in
these other areas.
Air quality is currently well within National
Ambient Air Quality Standards in rural areas of
the region. Problems do exist, however, in closed
valleys where industrial and urban emissions
become trapped. Although the emissions impacts
for the preferred program are forecast to be slight
in 1985 ( + 2.3 percent change over the base case
for particulates and +2.6 percent for sulfur
oxides), there will be some degradation of air
quality. The other Federal coal management
alternatives are also forecast to adversely affect
regional air quality. Since coal operations will take
place where adverse temperature inversions are
expected to occur, localized problems are likely to
be experienced in 1985. In 1990, air quality
impacts associated with the six Federal coal
management program alternatives are forecast to
be negligible.
As regards water impacts, most streams in the
region diminish in size as they flow from the
mountains. This seeming contradiction is due to a
combination of low precipitation coupled with
high evaporation, and diversions for irrigation.
Tributaries originating at lower elevations are
intermittent. As compared with the no new leasing
base case, the six Federal coal management
program alternatives are forecast not only to draw
down more of the existing short supplies in the
region in 1985 but, also to further degrade water
quality by subjecting more land to erosion. Similar
impacts on water quality and quantity in 1990 are
estimated to be negligible as compared with the
base case.
The region experienced a uranium boom
following World War II. When the demand eased,
the uranium-induced population left the area. The
increase in coal-related population under the
preferred program is nominal ( + 2.4 percent
change over the base case), but in a region so
sparsely populated and rural in nature the impact
could be significant. Housing stocks used by the
uranium boom-induced population have deterio-
rated such that existing, habitable stocks of vacant
housing are inadequate to meet the needs of
projected coal-induced population increases. Exist-
ing population centers are far apart and distant
from the coal deposits. Many communities have
housing shortages and social services are limited.
The availability of facilities to transport coal to
markets is limited in the region. Highway and rail
systems must undergo extensive development by
1985 to support increased coal-related develop-
ment activities associated with a Federal coal
management program.
5.2.10 The Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Region
This coal region consists of portions of Colora-
do and New Mexico. The Denver Basin part of the
region contains coal beds up to 17 feet thick in the
Laramie Formation; extensive coal beds also exist
in the Denver Formation in an area about 75 miles
5-28
TABLE 5-12
REGIONAL IMPACT SUMMARY
UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN UTAH COAL REGION
I
(a) Represents a
Shading Key:
bsolute values at medium level produ ction.
10 to 197.; J 20 to 29%: Hi 307. and
REGIONAL IMPACTS
long by 30 miles wide. In the other part of the
region, Raton Mesa, coal beds are mostly two to
five feet thick, ranging to 15 feet. Much of this coal
outcrops but surface-mineable reserves are low. A
number of the beds are under overburden 1,000 to
3,000 feet thick. The region is estimated to contain
about 3.9 billion tons of demonstrated reserves.
In 1976, the region's consumption of coal far
surpassed its production (5.2 million tons con-
sumed, 1 .9 million tons produced). As presented in
Table 5-13, this trend is forecast to continue in
1985 and 1990 under the preferred program but at
much higher absolute levels. In 1985, 20 million
tons are estimated to be consumed and five million
tons produced. In 1990, 30.3 million tons would be
consumed and 10 million tons produced. Whereas
the same tonnage would be produced in 1985 as
the no new leasing base case, positive impacts
greater than the base case are shown because of
the increase in consumption. These impacts are
considerably less than those associated with three
of the other Federal coal management program
alternatives (lease to meet industry needs, lease to
meet DOE production goals, and state determina-
tion of leasing levels). The impacts may be
significant depending upon where site-specific
activities take place. The increases in air emissions
and land committed for the preferred program are
attributable to greater coal consumption within the
region than are associated with the base case. In
other words, the preferred program forecasts
greater industrial development that depends upon
coal as an energy source.
Overall regional air quality is quite good;
however, there are areas where it fails to meet
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This
degradation is primarily due to automotive emis-
sions coupled with temperature inversions. Under
the preferred program, air quality would be
degraded in the region. Without knowing the
location of the pollutant sources it cannot be said
that resulting air quality on a regional basis would
be bad.
Water is in short supply in the region. Water is
imported from western Colorado to meet regional
municipal, irrigational, and industrial needs. The
demands for water to support a Federal coal
management program in 1985 would aggravate the
situation.
The region has seen rapid population growth
during the last 15 years (about a 35 percent
increase). Public and service facilities in the
Denver portion of the region are well-developed
and probably can be expanded to meet coal
development requirements. However, this is not
the case in the Raton Mesa section of the region
where communities are small and less able to
handle rapid growth.
5.3 PROGRAM IMPACTS
This section discusses in greater detail than the
summaries in Section 5.2 the impacts that could
result from implementing the various alternatives
for a Federal coal management program. To
provide a proper perspective, the analysis first
examines how much coal will be produced and
consumed in each region under each of the
program alternatives. This introductory material is
then followed by detailed analyses of impacts in
the following categories: physical, ecological,
socioeconomic (urban effects), transportation sys-
tem, and operating energy requirements. Each
subsection discusses a particular category of
impact for the various regions and a particular
category of impact under the different program
alternatives. Although impacts are discussed indi-
vidually, they are interrelated. For example, land
disturbance results in habitat loss, productivity
loss, and other physical impacts. Likewise, popula-
tion changes frequently lead to impacts on employ-
ment, health and safety, recreation, and income
accruing to local governments through taxation.
Impacts are analyzed for two program time
frames, 1985 and 1990, and are related to a base
year, typically 1976. For each Federal coal man-
agement program alternative, the effects of a
medium-level projection of coal production are
examined; for two alternatives, the no new leasing
and the preferred alternatives, the impacts result-
ing from the high and low coal production
projections are also considered. The no new
leasing alternative represents the "no-action"
alternative and the other six program alternatives
are compared to it. In this regard, it must be
emphasized that the impacts attributable to the
Federal coal management program would be only
a small fraction of those resulting from meeting
national coal requirements. Finally, except in the
discussion of water impacts, impacts attributable
to normal economic growth projections are not
addressed. Growth which would normally occur in
the 12 Federal regions and be considered due to
5-30
TABLE 5-13
REGIONAL IMPACT SUMMARY
DENVER-RATON MESA COAL REGION
I
KEY IMPACT AREAS
ALTERNATIVES
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY 1
LEASING j
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
1985
Base Case
PERCENT CHAJ
GE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
5.0
0.0
0.0
t
' , : :
Coal Consumption (million tons)
20.0
+5.5
+5.5
+5.0
'mm(:Mi
-0.5
Land Committed (acres)
2,921
+4.3
+4.1
+4.1
■ ■':■:■ ■ ■. ■.■..■
■■.!.■■■■■■.:■,
+6.3
Agriculture, (thousands 1974 S)
228
+4.4
+3.5
+3.9
:::--kKSKS;kh:K:':v::«
+6.4
Population (thousands)
25.6
+4.7
+4.3
+4.3
: ' : +iXw ■
;;:;HKii9;r|f;;|;: : : : ;i
+8.2
Disabling Accidents
391
-0.2
+0.2
+2.8
+1.0
+5.1
Water (thousand acre-feet)
67.1
4.9
4.7
4.7
9.8
. • : :
-0.6
Game Animal Losses
460
+4.3
+4.3
+4.3
■^i : 7";*-:f::.i'|;:
0WMM
+4.3
Particulate Emissions (tons)
12,674
+3.4
+3.2
+3.4
+8.8
^f0:its : m
+1.7
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
12,520
+2
+1.9
+2
+6.3
+8.7
+0.1
1990
PERCENT CHANCE FROM NO NEK LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
10.7
-6.5
-1.8
-0.9
-6.5
w-Mm
-3.7
Coal Consumption (million tons)
29.6
+ 2.4
i + 0.3
'+5.1
! +5.7
<- 5.1
Land Committed (acres)
4,523
+2
-1.8
-1.5
+6.2
+0.5
-5.5
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
177
-1.7
-1.7
+6.2
+0.6
-5.6
Population (thousands)
38.7
-5.7
-6.5
-7
-15.5
Ililill;
-2.6
Disabling Accidents
346
-1.7
-0.9
-0.9
-1.4
-7.5
Water (thousand acre-feet)
99.2
-2.4
-1.9
2.7
2.8
-7.3
Game Animal Losses
360
+2.8
-2.8
+5.6
-5.6
Particulate Emissions (tons)
20,683
+0.9
-0.6
-1.0
+1.3
-7.0
-4.3
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
17,985
+0.6
-1.2
-1.1
+2.6
+3.1
-4.1
(a) Represents absolute values at medium level production.
Shading Key:
10 to 19%;
20 to 29%;
30% and greater
TABLE 5-14
SUMMARY OF PERCENT OF CHANGE BY ALTERNATIVE FROM NO NEW LEASING
MEDIUM PRODUCTION PROJECTION
EASTERN COAL REGIONS
1985
COAL REGION
COAL
PRODUCTION
COAL
CONSUMPTION
LAND
DISTURBANCE
AGRICULTURE
POPULATION
DISABLING
ACCIDENTS
WATER
GAME ANIMAL
LOSSES
PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS
SULFUR OXIDE
EMISSIONS
NORTHERN APPALACHIAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
+0.6
0.0
+0.2
0.0
-4.9
-4.9
-4.9
0.0
-4.9
0.0
-2.8
-2.8
-3.0
0.0
-2.9
0.0
-2.8
-2.8
-3.0
0.0
-2.9
-0.1
-7.3
-7.3
-7.7
-0.1
-7.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.6
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-4.4
-4.4
-4.4
0.0
-4.4
0.0
-2.8
-2.8
-2.8
0.0
-2.9
0.0
-2.9
-2.9
-3.0
0.0
-3.0
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
0.0
-3.8
-3.8
-3.6
0.0
-3.7
CENTRAL APPALACHIAN
+0.5
0.0
+0.3
-6.3
-1.0
+2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.7
-0.2
-0.5
-4.0
-0.8
-1.2
-0.6
-0.3
-0.5
-4.0
-0.8
-1.2
-6.6
-1.0
-4.3
-59.3
-10.2
+24.9
-0.2
0.0
-0.2
-4.4
-0.3
+2.0
-0.7
-0.5
-0.5
-1.1
-0.4
-0.4
-0.7
-0.3
-0.5
-4.0
-0.8
+1.2
-0.6
-0.3
-0.4
-2.6
-0.5
-0.7
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
-0.7
-0.5
-0.6
-0.4
-0.3
-0.6
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
-3.2
-3.6
0.0
+14 . 9
-19.6
+16.3
-2.0
-1.6
-1.6
-1.8
-3.2
-1.7
-2.0
-1.5
-1.4
0.0
-5.2
-3.2
-2.0
-1.6
-1.4
+2.8
-5.3
-3.2
-4.8
-4.1.
-2.3
+6.5
-15.8
-11.9
-3.6
-3.7
0.0
+15.0
-19.0
-17.1
-1.9
-1.3
-1.6
-1.7
-3.4
-1.7
-2.5
-1.6
-1.4
0.0
-4.7
-3.2
-1.9
-1.4
-1.4
-0.8
-4.0
-2.2
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
-1.8
-1.2
-1.5
-1.5
. -3.1
-1.5
EASTERN INTERIOR
+1.7
0.0
+0.4
-4.8
-1.3
+3.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
+0.3
-2.5
-0.6
+0.5
-0.2
0.0
-0.8
-2.4
+0.4
+0.5
-0.2
0.0
-0.8
-2.4
+0.4
+2.0
-0.4
+0.4
-6.5
-4.3
+4.1
+1.8
0.0
+0.5
+4.8
-1.3
+3.2
-0.1
-0.3
-0.2
+0.1
-2.6
-0.5
+0.5
-0.2
0.0
-0.8
-2.5
40.4
+0.2
-0.2
-0.1
-0.7
-2.6
+0.1
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
+0.5
-3.0
-0.7
WESTERN INTERIOR
-4.2
-3.5
0.0
-42.2
-23.9
+11.2
-4.0
-5.4
-5.0
-1.5
+3.1
-5.3
-4.1.
-5.3
-4.7
-6.0
0.0
+14.7
-4.1
-5.3
-4.6
-6.0
0.0
+14.7
-5.9
-7.6
-6.5
-6.5
+0.7
+21.4
-4.6
-4.1
-0.5
-41.7
-24.3
+10.6
-4.0
-5.5
-5.0
-1.6
+2.9
-5.3
-4.3
-5.3
-4.7
-6.1
0.0
+14.6
-3.8
-5.0
-4.6
-1.6
+2.5
-4.7
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
-3.9
-5.2
-4.8
-1.2
+2.9
-5.1
TEXAS
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
+3.5
+0.4
+0.9
-21.5
-9.8
+22.8
+0.4
-0.8
-0.4
-1.3
-0.4
+2.2
+1.1
-0.7
-0.2
-5.7
-2.4
+6.5
+1.1
-0.7
-0.1
-5.7
-2.4
+6.6
+1.1
-0.8
-0.2
-5.0
-2.2
+6.5
+3.4
-1.7
0.0
-22.0
-10.2
+22.0
+0.4
-0.8
-0.4
-1.5
-0.5
+2.2
+1.1
-0.7
+0.1
-5.6
-2.4
+6.5
+0.6
-0.8
-0.3
-2.7
-1.1
-3.6
+0.4
-0.8
-0.8
-1.4
+0.2
-1.3
5-32
TABLE 5-15
SUMMARY OF PERCENT OF CHANGE BY ALTERNATIVE FROM NO NEW LEASING
MEDIUM PRODUCTION PROJECTION
WESTERN COAL REGIONS
1985
GAME ANIMAL
PARTICULATE
SULFUR OXIDE
COAL REGION
COAL
'RODUCTION
COAL
CONSUMPTION
DISTURBANCE
AGRICULTURE
POPULATION
ACCIDENTS
WATER
LOSSES
EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS
SAN JUAN RIVER
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
+0.8
0.0
0.0
+20.9
-10.8
+29.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.1
-13.5
-1.1
+0.3
-0.2
-0.2
+13.2
-11.4
+18.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+1.6
-0.8
-0.8
+26.6
-27.3
+35.2
+2.1
0.0
0.0
+16.7
-13.5
+21.9
0.0
-0.5
-0.5
0.8
-13.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
+20.0
+20.0
■■20.0
+0.3
-0.4
-0.4
+6.6
-12.3
+9.2
0.0
-0.5
-0.'5
-0.1
+12.5
-0.2
UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN UTA1
1
+1.3
+1.3
+0.3
+18.2
-10.8
+2.8
+0.6
+1.1
+3.9
+2.8
+2.8
+0.7
+1.1
+6.6
+0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+2.4
+1.2
+0.9
+19.2
-9.0
+0.7
+0.7
+0.2
+17.6
-11.3
2.7
0.3
1.1
4.4
2.2
+3.8
+3.8
+3.8
+7.1
+3.8
+2.3
+0.6
+0.9
+7.9
-1.1
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
+2.6
+0.3
+0.1
+3.9
+2.7
State Determination
-0.6
+2.8
+2.1
0.0
+0.9
-0.3
2.7
+3.8
+1.8
GREEN RIVER-HAMS FORK
+5.2
+2.7
+4.4
+5.2
+7.3
+6.2
2.9
+4.8
+3.8
+2.1
PRLAs Only
+2.5
-1.1
+1.3
+1.7
+2.9
+4.0
-0.6
+2.4
+1.0
+0.2
+6.1
+4.1
Emergency
Industry Needs
+1.3
+47.3
0.0
+6.1
+1.0
+36.1
+1.7
+36.2
+1.5
+49.1
+1.3
+38.1
0.3
9.0
+7.9
+37.0
+26.2
DOE Goals
+47.3
+4.4
+35.6
+36.2
+48.0
+38.1
7.6
+36.4
State Determination
-24.3
+1.1
-17.7
-17.2
-21.6
-16.4
-0.8
-16.4
-11.4
+0.5
POWDER RIVER
Preferred
0.0
0.0
+0.2
0.0
+0.5
-8.4
0.0
0.0
+0.6
-0.1
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
0.0
0.0
+9.8
0.0
0.0
+2.4
0.0
+0.1
-8.1
0.0
0.0
+8.7
+0.1
+0.3
+11.7
+0.3
-2.7
+0.5
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.0
0.0
+7.9
+0.0
+0.2
+7.8
0.0
+3.4
-1.0
DOE Goals
0.0
-1.8
-0.4
0.0
+0.1
-8.6
-1.4
-0.3-
State Determination
+10.3
-1.8
-7.8
-8.7
-10.4
-21.4
-3.5
-7.9
-6.4
DENVER-RATON MESA
0.0
+5.5
+4.3
+4.4
+4.7
0.0
4.9
+4.3
+3.4
+2.0
PRLAs Only
0.0
+5.5
+4.1
+3.5
+4.3
0.0
4.7
+4.3
+3.2
+1.9
Emergency
Industry Needs
0.0
+20.0
+5.0
+10.5
+4.1
+15.3
+3.9
+15.4
+4.3
+11.7
0.0
+7.1
4.7
9.8
+4.3
+17.4
+3.4
+8.8
+6.3
DOE Goals
+20.0
+20.0
+24.1
+24.1
+19.5
+7.1
19.6
+26.1
+15.1
State Determination
+40.0
-0.5
+6.3
+6.4
+8.2
+33.3
-0.6
+4.3
+1.7
+0.1
FORT UNION
0.0
+11.6
+7.5
+7.5
+1,2.1
0.0
14.2
+6.7
+10.7
+7.1
PRLAs Only
0.0
+11.6
+7.5
+7.5
+12.5
+50.0
14.2
+6.7
+10.7
Emergency
Industry Needs
0.0
+15.6
+11.6
+17.7
+7.5
+17.9
+7.5
+17.7
+12.5
+31.3
+50.0
+66.7
14.2
22.3
+6.7
+16.8
+10.7
+21.0
+12.9
DOE Goals
-31.3
+2.5
-11.3
-11.3
-18.3
+16.7
1.8
-11.8
-5.5
State Determination
+17.2
+18.2
+18.8
+18.9
-31.3
+68.3
22.7
+18.5
+21.1
+11.6
5-33
SUMMARY OF PERCENT OF CHANGE BY ALTERNATIVE FROM NO NEW LEASING
MEDIUM PRODUCTION PROJECTION
EASTERN COAL REGIONS
1990
COAL REGION
COAL
PRODUCTION
COAL
CONSUMPTION
LAND
DISTURBANCE
AGRICULTURE
POPULATION
DISABLING
ACCIDENTS
WATER
GAME ANIMAL
PARTICULATE
SULFUR OXIDE
LOSSES
EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS
NORTHERN APPALACHIAN
+0.3
0.0
0.0
-0.7
+1.3
+2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.2
+0.4
+0.6
+0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.2
+0.4
+0.6
+1.8
+12.0
+12.4
+11.3
+6.2
+23.3
+0.2
-0.1
0.0
-0.7
+0.3
+2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.2
+0.4
+0.6
+0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
+0.3
+0.5
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
+0.1
0.0
0.0
+0.1
+0.1
-0.1
CENTRAL APPALACHIAN
-2.3
-0.3
-0.5
-3.8
-2.6
+6.7
0.0
+1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
-2.7
-1.0
+1.0
-0.2
-0.4
-1.2
+1.1
-0.9
+1.1
-0.2
-0.5
-1.2
+1.1
-7.0
+2.9
-0.4
+11.2
-6.5
-13.7
-1.6
-0.2
-0.4
-3.0
-1.6
+4.5
-0.1
+1.7
0.0
+0.6
-0.2
-2.1
-1.0
+1.1
+0.2
-0.4
-1.2
+1.5
-0.6 ,
+1.1
-0.2
-0.6
-0.7
-0.3
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
0.0
+1.8
0.0
+0.9
0.0
-2.6
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
-3.7
-0.3
0.0
+15.1
-45.0
-46.2
0.0
+1.2
0.0
+0.5
0.0
-1.4
-0.3
+0.9
+0.1
+1.6
-3.4
-4.7
-0.3
+0.9
+0.1
+1.6
-3.4
-4.7
+13.9
+25.1
+11.6
+18.4
-32.6
-65.2
-3.7
-0.2
0.0
+15.2
-45.7
-46.4
0.0
+0.9
0.0
+0.6
-0.3
-1.6
-0.4
+0.9
0.0
+1.6
-3.4
-4.7
-0.1
+0.1
0.0
+1.2
-1.8
-3.2
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
0.0
+0.9
0.0
+0.6
+0.2
-1.3
EASTERN INTERIOR
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
-5.1
-1.0
-14.1
-5.7
-14.9
HO. 6
+0.8
+0.2
+0.8
+1.0
-0.5
-1.0
-0.8
-4.4
-3.0
+3.9
-1.2
-1.0
-0.7
-1.3
-3.0
+3.9
-8.4
-10.3
-2.9
-21.9
-4.2
+25.2
-3.4
-4.9
-1.0
-14.0
-5.5
+14.8
-0.2
-0.2
-0.6
-0.7
0.0
-0.2
-1.3
-1.1
-0.8
-4.5
-3.0
+3.9
-0.9
-1.4
-0.6
-3.6
-0.8
+3.2
0.0
+0.2
-0.5
+0.3
+0.4
-1.1
WESTERN INTERIOR
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
-32.9
-24.3
-5.0
-60.0
-60.3
+37.3
+2.9
+0.5
+0.5
+5.9
+5.2
-2.9
-2.6
-3.8
-2.4
-1.7
-2.8
-3.1
-2.6
-3.8
-2.4
-1.7
-2.8
-3.0
-0.3
-1.9
+0.7
+1.1
-7.6
-0.1
-33.3
-24.5
-5.3
-62.0
-60.3
+41.0
-0.1
-2.4
-2.4
+ 2.8
+ 2.1
-5.7
-3.2
-4.7
-0.5
-2.1
-3.4
-4.0
-0.4
-2.4
-2.2
+2.0
+1.4
-4.9
0.0
-2.2
-2.2
+2.9
+2.3
-5.5
TEXAS
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
-2.5
-3.0
-50.6
-33.3
-7.0
+1.6
0.0
+0.2
+0.2
+1.1
+0.3
-1.8
-1.7
-12.1
-7.6
-2.6
-6.0
-1.8
+0.4
-12.1
-7.6
-2.6
-10.2
'-2.9
-3.2
-14.3
-9.6
-11.1
-27.5
-2.8
-3.7
-50.5
-33.0
-7.3
-0.2
-1.7
-1.4
-1.9
-0.8
-1.4
-6.0
-1.8
-1.7
-12.1
-7.6
-2.5
-2.1
-1.7
-1.5
-5.0
-2.9
-1.8
0.0
-1.6
-1.3
-1.3
-0.4
-1.3
5-34
TABLE 5-17
SUMMARY 07 PERCENT OF CHANGE BY ALTERNATIVE FROM NO NEW LEASING
MEDIUM PRODUCTION PROJECTION
WESTERN COAL REGIONS
1990
—
GAME ANIMAL
PARTICULATE
SULFUR OXIDE
COAL
COAL REGION PRODUCTION
COAL
CONSUMPTION
DISTURBANCE
AGRICULTURE
POPULATION
ACCIDENTS
WATER
LOSSES
EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS
SAN JUA11 RIVER
-15.8
-11.2
0.0
0.0
-15.8
-6.1
-13.6
-6.8
-0.9
-0.6
-10.0
0.0
-5.9
-2.2
Preferred
+0.7
0.0
PRLAs Only
-1.6
+1.0
-2.8
+1.3
-1.4
0.0
-1.6
-1.4
-1.0
0.0
-0.9
-1.1
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
0.0
HI. 7
-1.5
+1.1
-3.9
0.0
0.0
-6.3
-11.5
+0.9
-5.4
+ 0.4
-0.7
0.0
0.0
+2.0
-14.4
+0.3
-1.1
-2.2
State Determination
+6.0
-1.5
+4.2
0.0
-5.4
+5.4
-1.2
no.o
UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN UTAH
-1.5
-24.3
-13.1
0.0
-2.8
2.9
+0.5
-5.3
-5.1
-4.5
PRLAs Only
-6.6
-0.4
+11.1
-37.1
-0.5
-5.3
-3.7
0.0
0.0
-21.3
-7.0
-9.4
-0.8
-5.8
-4.8
-68.6
-5.7
-2.9
Emergency
Industry Needs
+4.3
+5.3
+3.2
-9.1
0.0
0.0
-6.5
-72.0
+8.5
-38.7
+ 1.9
-1.8
0.0
+2.8
+3.0
+17.1
+1.6
+0.6
-3.6
State Determination
-18.2
+1.5
-28.6
0.0
-35.6
-17.6
-4.5
-5.7
GREEN RIVER-HAMS FORK
+21.5
+2.3
+5.5
+51.9
+51.4
+11.0
+16.7
-0.8
+1.9
+17.1
0.0
+2.9
+51.3
-6.7
+1.2
+17.5
+4.6
+4.6
+2.9
-7.7
-8.2
+17.3
-1.0
-2.1
+12.9
-0.9
+0.5
Preferred
PRLAs Only
1.2
-5.1
-5.8
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
-L4.4
+11.0
+41.6
+40.4
+40.0
+40.0
+44.6
+41.7
+38.7
+38.0
+ 9.0
+ 6.2
+42.9
+42.4
+31.3
+30.3
-23.5
+4.1
+2.4
-6.8
State Determination
-36.3
+ 0.5
-3.2
-2.9
-65.0
-22.1
-12.6
-33.0
POWDER RIVER
+31.1
+2.6
+23.1
+22.2
+78.3
+13.9
+ 7.6
+23.3
+24.1
+2.1
+0.4
-1.1
PRLAs Only
+16.3
+3.6
+47.5
+29.8
-1.1
+11.6
+2.1
+11.1
0.0
+39.1
+7.6
+21.2
+1.9
+ 3.4
-0.6
+11.8
+2.8
+11.8
+2.5
Emergency
Industry Needs
+<■.!
+2.6
+35.6
+22.2
+33.3
+22.2
+102.4
+76.3
+28.2
-12.8
+ 12.7
+ 7.3
+4.3
+22.5
+36.7
+23.3
+4.3
+2.7
-3.1
State Determination
-11.7
-1.1
-9.3
-11.1
-12.5
-25.6
-5.5
+9.1
DENVER-RATON MESA
-6.5
-1.8
-0.9
-6.5
0.0
+0.3
+5.1
+0.2
-1.8
-1.5
+6.2
0.0
-1.7
-1.7
+6.2
-5.7
-6.5
-7.0
-15.5
-6.6
-1.9
-0.9
-12.2
0.0
-2.4
-1.9
+ 2.7
0.0
+2.8
-2.8
+5.6
+0.9
-0.6
-1.0
+1.3
-7.0
-4.3
Preferred
PRLAs Only
Emergency
Industry Needs
+0.6
-1.2
-1.1
+2.6
+3.1
-4.1
DOE Goals
-29.9
^5.7
+0.5
+0.6
-47.5
-36.8
+ 2.8
0.0
State Determination
-3.7
-5.1
-5.5
-5.6
-17.3
-4.7
-7.3
-5.6
FORT UNION
Preferred
PRLAs Only
-17.8
-7.0
-0.7
+1.7
-55.8
+6.6
-i.e
-0.1
+3.2
-5.8
-1.3
+1.3
-5.9
-1.1
+1.1
-15.9
-8.8
-4.7
-17.5
-7.2
0.0
-0.5
+ 1.5
+ 2.5
+5.8
-1.4
+1.1
-3.0
+0.4
+2.2
+0.3
+1.0
+1.5
Emergency
Industry Needs
DOE Goals
State Determination
-4.7
-12.1
+0.9
+5.1
-25.6
+4.3
+5.2
-25.7
+4.1
-6.3
-33.6
-9.5
+2.1
-57.7
+7.2
+ 6.7
-12.6
+ 3.6
+4.7
-25.8
+3.9
+6.0
-18.6
+4.2
+5.3
-6.8
+1.8
5-35
REGIONAL IMPACTS
non coal-related developments has not been
considered in this impact statement.
5.3.1 Coal Production and Consumption
This section presents an overview of the broad
interregional shifts in coal production and con-
sumption associated with the Federal coal man-
agement program alternatives. Much of the discus-
sion is based on the analysis of the role and need
for Federal and western coal presented in Chapter
2 and the description of the impact methodology in
Section 5.1.3 of this chapter. This section con-
cludes with a discussion of the implications of the
methodological approach employed for this pro-
grammatic environmental impact statement.
5.3.1.1 Regional Coal Considerations. The amount
of coal produced and consumed in each region is
summarized in Tables 5-18 and 5-19, respectively.
For comparative purpos 
TVNews
OpenLibrary